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.
"Amazingly after years of nurtured incubation, the businesses of arts and culture have exploded across the Midlands. Starting on Main Street and flowing in every direction, Columbia is now a full-blown arts and entertainment hub. While this is thrilling for residents and the visitors, it also is critical to relocation decision makers."
- Patrick Mason, the Center for Carolina Living
Data, that wasn't a very well written article. I hope he doesn't quit his day job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Columbiadata
Would you care to explain?
I'll go with 'matt' on this one.
I don't have a dog in this race, but that paragraph in the article was a stand-alone statement with no examples or substantiation. The whole article reads like a puff-piece put together by lining up 'note cards' and stringing them end to end.
For example, this stand-alone paragraph is similarly unclear:
"Columbia residents concerned about too much growth should consider other neighboring cities. Growth rate projections are double in places like Myrtle Beach, Raleigh and Charlotte. Cities with growth more comparable to the Midlands are Greenville, Charleston, Greensboro and the Aiken/Augusta area. "
and...
The math doesn't hold up in this paragraph:
"The 1990 U.S. Census tallied the population of the Columbia region at 548,936 people. By 2010, that number jumped to 767,598, an average increase of about 18 percent a year over the two decades"
That should read 18 percent each decade...quite a difference.
That is precisely what CarolinaLiving.com produces. Like realtors, they earn money while "selling" cities and regions in the Carolinas to prospective tourists, homeowners, and businesses.
I don't have a dog in this race, but that paragraph in the article was a stand-alone statement with no examples or substantiation. The whole article reads like a puff-piece put together by lining up 'note cards' and stringing them end to end.
For example, this stand-alone paragraph is similarly unclear:
"Columbia residents concerned about too much growth should consider other neighboring cities. Growth rate projections are double in places like Myrtle Beach, Raleigh and Charlotte. Cities with growth more comparable to the Midlands are Greenville, Charleston, Greensboro and the Aiken/Augusta area. "
and...
The math doesn't hold up in this paragraph:
"The 1990 U.S. Census tallied the population of the Columbia region at 548,936 people. By 2010, that number jumped to 767,598, an average increase of about 18 percent a year over the two decades"
That should read 18 percent each decade...quite a difference.
In general it's true that a lot of work has gone into making Columbia a more attractive place to live. I took the 18% a year part as an obvious journalistic oops and didn't feel it made the whole piece worthless. To me the part about too much growth means that if metros growing twice as fast and at the rate can handle it, Columbia can. I agree it's a puff piece, but this guy writes about other cities in the Carolinas, too, so keep your mind in puff piece mode if you ever read his articles about the cities so many people are so quick to look at through rose-colored glasses.
In general it's true that a lot of work has gone into making Columbia a more attractive place to live. I took the 18% a year part as an obvious journalistic oops and didn't feel it made the whole piece worthless. To me the part about too much growth means that if metros growing twice as fast and at the rate can handle it, Columbia can. I agree it's a puff piece, but this guy writes about other cities in the Carolinas, too, so keep your mind in puff piece mode if you ever read his articles about the cities so many people are so quick to look at through rose-colored glasses.
I knew he meant 1.8% per year, but the whole piece was written poorly, didn't have good flow and had little "meat" to it. That magazine is basically a piece of garbage that they give away for free in boxes on the street. You get what you pay for. I hate to see it, but journalism is a dying art.
I guess the Columbians worried about "too much growth" are the comment sections commies that normally chime in on growth/development issues. I cant imagine most people being against "growth" or more specifically "smart growth" unless they are referring to the more traditional "sprawl".. Even then people obviously are not against that either because the local governments still issue permits and people still buy homes in them.....
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.
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.
