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.
So I am looking into locations of the country that could be great in the future as I think about moving. One place that seems like it should do better by my personal estimation is Columbia SC. Why?
Columbia has:
The State Capital - Continual supply of people, architecture, history & jobs
USC - The flagship university of the state. Great for creating, attracting & maintaining talent. Highly useful in the age of intellectual capital and its role in business.
Decent size population - Good for creating and maintaining a healthy metro
Conagree river - The juncture of two rivers into one. Usually people like to be near rivers and have their cities nearby water features. It makes it fun and interesting.
Geographic location - Far enough inland to not get hammered by hurricanes, yet close enough to get to the beaches near Charleston. Close enough to get to Greenville & the mountains. It's also has other decently well performing metros in its general vicinity in the likes of Charlotte, Charleston & Savannah, maybe even Atlanta. Not super close, but close enough for a weekend.
Weather - Definitely hot, but people typically prefer the hot over the cold. More people choose Phoenix with its extreme heat rather than Vermont and the cold.
Let's look at the capitals of Atlanta & Raleigh as its neighbors, they are doing great. Nashville TN another capital on a river in the southeast is doing great. They have great schools & are state capitals. So what is going on? Is it the reputation? As you know people think of racism with SC. Is it bad management? Why hasn't Columbia been able to do what its neighbors have?
Not a fair comparison re Raleigh or Atlanta both of those cities have dozens of large homegrown corporate HQs. Compare instead with Knoxville and Tallahassee
So I am looking into locations of the country that could be great in the future as I think about moving. One place that seems like it should do better by my personal estimation is Columbia SC. Why?
Columbia has:
The State Capital - Continual supply of people, architecture, history & jobs
USC - The flagship university of the state. Great for creating, attracting & maintaining talent. Highly useful in the age of intellectual capital and its role in business.
Decent size population - Good for creating and maintaining a healthy metro
Conagree river - The juncture of two rivers into one. Usually people like to be near rivers and have their cities nearby water features. It makes it fun and interesting.
Geographic location - Far enough inland to not get hammered by hurricanes, yet close enough to get to the beaches near Charleston. Close enough to get to Greenville & the mountains. It's also has other decently well performing metros in its general vicinity in the likes of Charlotte, Charleston & Savannah, maybe even Atlanta. Not super close, but close enough for a weekend.
Weather - Definitely hot, but people typically prefer the hot over the cold. More people choose Phoenix with its extreme heat rather than Vermont and the cold.
Let's look at the capitals of Atlanta & Raleigh as its neighbors, they are doing great. Nashville TN another capital on a river in the southeast is doing great. They have great schools & are state capitals. So what is going on? Is it the reputation? As you know people think of racism with SC. Is it bad management? Why hasn't Columbia been able to do what its neighbors have?
South Carolina is considered racist? Seems like that's Alabama and Mississippi. Even Georgia outside of Atlanta has stronger racism. South Carolina has a healthy amount of transplants coming into certain urban areas.
South Carolina is considered racist? Seems like that's Alabama and Mississippi. Even Georgia outside of Atlanta has stronger racism. South Carolina has a healthy amount of transplants coming into certain urban areas.
Yeah, I thought that was weird. SC elected one of the few black senators currently in the US (and the only one from the South since Reconstruction) and an Indian governor, and people still think this?
my kids are competitive swimmers and we travel to Columbia a lot
I really enjoy going there - seeing USC and the DT areas - even in the past 5+ years, Columbia's revitalization/development in many areas has improved it significantly
I like Greenville a bit better because the summers here are somewhat less hot and we always get a couple of wintry events every year - Columbia seems to never get any wintry weather (that could be a plus for some)
I think Joe Taylor’s op-ed seemed to ignore the boom in construction we had a few years ago with new apartment buildings downtown. Friends of mine who haven’t been here in a while always comment on how many new buildings have gone up. I’d certainly like to see more being built right now, but we haven’t been stagnant. The Kline property at Gervais/Huger is being held by the Klines until they are ready to proceed with their preferred development. The same for Gervais/Assembly, there was an article a few years ago where the owner said he’d been approached by several developers but decided to hold on to the property because it was profitable for him and he was t ready to let it go. I hate this mindset and feel it is a bit pervasive here. However, we’ve had plenty of construction in the past five years. I do want to see more, though.
So I am looking into locations of the country that could be great in the future as I think about moving. One place that seems like it should do better by my personal estimation is Columbia SC. Why?
Columbia has:
The State Capital - Continual supply of people, architecture, history & jobs
USC - The flagship university of the state. Great for creating, attracting & maintaining talent. Highly useful in the age of intellectual capital and its role in business.
Decent size population - Good for creating and maintaining a healthy metro
Conagree river - The juncture of two rivers into one. Usually people like to be near rivers and have their cities nearby water features. It makes it fun and interesting.
Geographic location - Far enough inland to not get hammered by hurricanes, yet close enough to get to the beaches near Charleston. Close enough to get to Greenville & the mountains. It's also has other decently well performing metros in its general vicinity in the likes of Charlotte, Charleston & Savannah, maybe even Atlanta. Not super close, but close enough for a weekend.
Weather - Definitely hot, but people typically prefer the hot over the cold. More people choose Phoenix with its extreme heat rather than Vermont and the cold.
Let's look at the capitals of Atlanta & Raleigh as its neighbors, they are doing great. Nashville TN another capital on a river in the southeast is doing great. They have great schools & are state capitals. So what is going on? Is it the reputation? As you know people think of racism with SC. Is it bad management? Why hasn't Columbia been able to do what its neighbors have?
I've thought a lot about this. Here are a few observations:
1. The State Capital: This has provided a nice baseline employment rate for the city, but it also takes a ton of land off the tax rolls. Since SC is not really growing much, this will not contribute much going forward.
2. USC: The university (of which I'm an alum) has historically underperformed. It is the third oldest publicly chartered university (after UNC and UGA), yet it is miles behind both. Why? It is in a state with terrible K12 education, there was not a culture of excellence for many years, its administration and staff does not know what "right" looks like (since they're almost all from the South), the population of SC is fairly small, the legislature has underfunded higher education for decades, etc., etc. On one hand, USC is the single biggest determinant of the future of Columbia as it has indirectly or directly generated almost all development in the past five years and will likely do so going forward. The Innovista concept (research campus) has not really panned out to date as the school's research funding is still relatively low (~$250M/year) and the culture of commercialising research is only now starting to permeate the labs. USC will continue to contribute to the city, but there is a legitimate concern that they are overindexing on power locally. As much as I love USC, Columbia needs to assert itself as being more than just a college town by checking USC's administration when they interfere with city affairs (which is often).
3. Decent size population: The city needs to annex land, full stop. The fact that some of the wealthiest areas of town are adjacent to, but not part of, the city of Columbia is problematic.
4. Congaree River: The Guignard family owns practically the entire Columbia side of the river. While they seemingly agreed to development years ago as part of the Sasaki Innovista Plan, my impression is that they are very reluctatnt to actually cede control. Furthermore, the Richland County penny sales tax, which at one time included a riverfront park, is currently in legal limbo because of misallocation of funds and seemingly has overcommitted its projected haul. I have a feeling the park will need its own independent funding. The river is the single biggest asset the city has and it is drastically underused. As far as reputation, vitality, and attractiveness goes, this is seemingly the silver bullet.
5. Geographic location: Much is made of this, but proximity to other things makes Columbia seem relatively dull. I actually think the city needs to start de-emphasizing the "two hours from the beach, two hours from the mountains" moniker.
6. Weather: Hoards of people from the Midwest and Northeast continue to move south, but most have never heard of Columbia. The city needs to put on a PR blitz in places like Rochester, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, and Cleveland which are more similar to Columbia than are New York, Chicago, Boston, and Philadelphia.
The single biggest reason the city has not developed as well, in my mind, is the state's binary focus on the Port of Charleston and the inland port of Greer (Greenville). Economic development efforts almost completely ignore the Midlands region in favour of the Lowcountry and Upstate. This has not changed from administration to administration, so the city will continue to underperfom unless it starts to develop its own organic development plan.
Let's look at the capitals of Atlanta & Raleigh as its neighbors, they are doing great. Nashville TN another capital on a river in the southeast is doing great. They have great schools & are state capitals. So what is going on? Is it the reputation? As you know people think of racism with SC. Is it bad management? Why hasn't Columbia been able to do what its neighbors have?
To be fair, no city in SC is on the level of Raleigh, Nashville, or Atlanta. That says a lot about the state as a whole, not Columbia specifically.
I've thought a lot about this. Here are a few observations:
1. The State Capital: This has provided a nice baseline employment rate for the city, but it also takes a ton of land off the tax rolls. Since SC is not really growing much, this will not contribute much going forward.
2. USC: The university (of which I'm an alum) has historically underperformed. It is the third oldest publicly chartered university (after UNC and UGA), yet it is miles behind both. Why? It is in a state with terrible K12 education, there was not a culture of excellence for many years, its administration and staff does not know what "right" looks like (since they're almost all from the South), the population of SC is fairly small, the legislature has underfunded higher education for decades, etc., etc. On one hand, USC is the single biggest determinant of the future of Columbia as it has indirectly or directly generated almost all development in the past five years and will likely do so going forward. The Innovista concept (research campus) has not really panned out to date as the school's research funding is still relatively low (~$250M/year) and the culture of commercialising research is only now starting to permeate the labs. USC will continue to contribute to the city, but there is a legitimate concern that they are overindexing on power locally. As much as I love USC, Columbia needs to assert itself as being more than just a college town by checking USC's administration when they interfere with city affairs (which is often).
3. Decent size population: The city needs to annex land, full stop. The fact that some of the wealthiest areas of town are adjacent to, but not part of, the city of Columbia is problematic.
4. Congaree River: The Guignard family owns practically the entire Columbia side of the river. While they seemingly agreed to development years ago as part of the Sasaki Innovista Plan, my impression is that they are very reluctatnt to actually cede control. Furthermore, the Richland County penny sales tax, which at one time included a riverfront park, is currently in legal limbo because of misallocation of funds and seemingly has overcommitted its projected haul. I have a feeling the park will need its own independent funding. The river is the single biggest asset the city has and it is drastically underused. As far as reputation, vitality, and attractiveness goes, this is seemingly the silver bullet.
5. Geographic location: Much is made of this, but proximity to other things makes Columbia seem relatively dull. I actually think the city needs to start de-emphasizing the "two hours from the beach, two hours from the mountains" moniker.
6. Weather: Hoards of people from the Midwest and Northeast continue to move south, but most have never heard of Columbia. The city needs to put on a PR blitz in places like Rochester, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, and Cleveland which are more similar to Columbia than are New York, Chicago, Boston, and Philadelphia.
The single biggest reason the city has not developed as well, in my mind, is the state's binary focus on the Port of Charleston and the inland port of Greer (Greenville). Economic development efforts almost completely ignore the Midlands region in favour of the Lowcountry and Upstate. This has not changed from administration to administration, so the city will continue to underperfom unless it starts to develop its own organic development plan.
I'd also add that Columbia lacks wealthy business families that often serve as benefactors and philanthropists for cultural amenities and tourist attractions.
To add to your comment concerning annexation, Columbia is truly between a rock and a hard place there. It is the capital of a state with rural-dominated, anti-urban interests which makes annexation very difficult and city-county consolidation practically impossible. Although Columbia's population is similar to Charleston's, I recall reading that its tax base is closer to that of Rock Hill's. Combine all this with the high-profile privately-held land in downtown in particular that owners don't want to sell, and it doesn't paint the rosiest of pictures.
Honestly the state just isn't progressive enough for Columbia to truly thrive. It is content with tourism and manufacturing driving the state's economy and it fails to make the necessary investments in education and infrastructure. But as I've said elsewhere, I honestly think this is all by design to keep the state politically conservative.
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.
