Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Colleges and the government aren't the bad guys. I'm a state employee. Columbia was planned as the state capital. Duh. Its very design befits a capital city. That doesn't make it a bad or weak city, and no one should view it as a city that is propped up by taxpayers. Anarchy won't do. The capitol, where the goons from all over the state meet, takes up only four blocks. The rest of us associated with the government are hard-working public servants. We are also employees, just like BMW workers, and Columbia isn't the only place in the state that state employees live and work by far. In fact, if the state were to centralize more operations in Columbia, a lot of cities and towns across the state would take a big hit economically due to lost jobs. Except for the 50 state capitals and DC, there are a lot of successful cities that aren't capitals. So, what?
This is not my fight, although I've enjoyed reading you guys going back and forth with each other. I must say though, that some cities don't need a large college presence or government to be successful. I think Greenville and the upstate have proven that.
Despite the inaccuracy of the statement (the Upstate has a large college presence in Clemson) and the fact that many of the most progressive and prosperous metros in the nation have one or the other or both, what exactly does that have to do with a discussion about Columbia and Greensboro? Do you have to turn everything into a discussion about Greenville when it's not even close to being the subject of discussion?
Greenville was already in the discussion. Look back before I posted. I'm just making a point. You don't have to get upset about everything, just because you don't like what someone says. It's just a message board. Calm down! I remember someone saying Clemson is too far away to make an impact on Greenville. It doesn't really matter when you have progressive leadership.
This is not my fight, although I've enjoyed reading you guys going back and forth with each other. I must say though, that some cities don't need a large college presence or government to be successful. I think Greenville and the upstate have proven that.
Having a large college presence adds so much to a city and certainly makes for a much more educated population.
Having lived in both, columbia is much hotter in the summer. Greensboro has a prettier landscape. Columbia has more entertainment and is closer to the beach. Greensboro is in the middle of a cluster of cities, which makes the outlying areas much more urban, whereas columbia is surrounded by a lot of nothing.
You guys take this message board stuff waaaay too seriously. I was just making a point and people got upset over a computer screen. Good grief. I'll just go back to reading you guys fight. It is entertaining.
As a sidenote to the main subject, which is Columbia vs. Greensboro. Both of those cities have large college presences, so the "point" you made is absolutely irrelevant and adds nothing to the main subject of discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi
Greensboro is in the middle of a cluster of cities, which makes the outlying areas much more urban, whereas columbia is surrounded by a lot of nothing.
When you're referring to the "outlying areas," are you referring to the other cities in the region (Winston-Salem, High Point) or the Greensboro suburbs? If the latter, there's absolutely nothing urban about Greensboro's sprawl at all. In that regard, it wouldn't be different from Columbia.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.