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.
•I think it isn't debatable that Miami is an economic and educational underachiever. The city is pushing towards a 6.2-million person metropolis (7th largest), yet has a troubling income/wealth disparity, low wages, high cost of living, crazy high poverty rate, abysmal educational attainment; The U is a prominent school, but compared to peer cities, Miami is an outlier in that a)it doesn't boast an elite (Top 20-ish) university; and b) it doesn't have multiple elite universities....
Miami is also an economical laggard in output, as its GDP is less than Seattle, a city with over 2 million fewer people, and a GDP that is significantly behind the cities it's often compared to: Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Philadelphia, etc...I'm sure there are a lot of favorable things about Miami. I think it's also fair to call it an underachiever within its grouping...
•Buffalo has to be considered an underachiever, as its fallen so far behind most of its peer cities in nearly every important metric...
•Cleveland has taken a humbling fall from grace within it's own state, and relative to Columbus and Cincinnati, it is very easy to consider Cleveland an underachiever...
•where does Las Vegas overexcel besides being a global tourist and nightlife destination? It isn't known for having the greatest quality of life balance, and looks small (in the figurative sense) compared to most similarly-sized cities...
Other cities that deserve a mention on the underperformers list: Milwaukee, Memphis, St. Louis, Tampa, Norfolk/Virginia Beach...
I think that one of the things that people keep saying is a lot of these old south cities didn't boom, Birmingham, Memphis, Richmond etc. that hit a wall, much like their Northern counterparts. But they hit a wall because they had an urban core. Meanwhile cities that didn't really exist before WWII like Charlotte, Nashville, Raleigh, Miami, were able to mold themselves into exactly what people wanted at the time because they were a blank slate.
Save for a few cities like Houston and Atlanta that had geographic reasons that they basically needed to be in that exact location.
Which means people are misconstruing the OP in some cases. I think your point makes sense, but Richmond isn't an underachieving city by a long shot and doesn't deserve mention with cities that do (Memphis, etc)...
Which means people are misconstruing the OP in some cases. I think your point makes sense, but Richmond isn't an underachieving city by a long shot and doesn't deserve mention with cities that do (Memphis, etc)...
I think Richmond outperforms its peers, but those cities shouldn’t be its peers. Richmond should be in the Baltimore/Charlotte/Portland tier.
What cities could have been much larger or influential but never lived up to their potential?
Consider development paths, geography, immigration, technology, etc.
I would say for population there are certainly three metro areas that are unusually weak economically for their size.
El Paso, Texas
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Tucson, Arizona
El Paso has a per-capita income 33 percent below the national average. Basically, a city of extremely high commercial property taxes, higher electric rates than other major Texas cities.
Can see why El Paso is such an economically weak city. Ultra-high taxes, a workforce that is pre-occupied with raising huge families that is undependable and much higher electric rates than cities like San Antonio
Gone from 48,000 manufacturing jobs in 1994 to 16,000 today.
116,000 non-health care, education, government jobs in a metro of 840,000 people.
Albuquerque has so much going for it with the excellent climate relative to most of the country ,appealing scenery.
Albuquerque also is in a state with huge amounts of oil and natural gas and all the wealth that comes with that.
One would think that it would be in the same league as Salt Lake City or Denver with all it has going for it with a huge amount of high-paying federal jobs and some of the highest amounts of oil reserves in the country located in New Mexico.
Albuquerque economically is nearly 50% wealthier per-capita than El Paso and Tucson and has everything going for it except for the tremendous crime rates that likely limit the amount of new employers willing to consider the city.
Tucson, Arizona only has 238,900 non-health care, government, education jobs for a metro of over a million people.
Tucson is known to be very anti-business and pro-high tax compared to Phoenix.
Which means people are misconstruing the OP in some cases. I think your point makes sense, but Richmond isn't an underachieving city by a long shot and doesn't deserve mention with cities that do (Memphis, etc)...
But in say 1940 Richmond, Atlanta, New Orleans and Houston were the biggest cities in the South and Memphis, Birmingham and Louisville were all much more important. They were passed up or lost ground relatively to Nashville, Tampa, Miami, Raleigh, and Charlotte because they could easily mold into the "modern city" ideal of the 50s-70s. While Richmond, NOLA, Memphis etc had the same problems (to various extents) as their Northern counterparts.
Wow! I had no idea about Jacksonville and the possibility of Disney buying up land near there. I just looked that story up and whoa, what an absolute massive mistake that Ed Ball guy made...yikes. Ooof.
Most federal government jobs are in the DC area with only a few in Baltimore. Besides one can't argue that private industry has been devastated in that area especially with the overregulation of the steel industry and unfair trade agreements. For example the region used to have the largest steel mill in the nation at Sparrows Point but that's permanently closed now. Maryland's tax code is very hostile to private enterprise with its high taxes and overregulation but the state is run by the DC suburbs so the powers that be don't understand the importance of the private sector. Speaking of which, its not a major city but Western Maryland is FAR below its potential because state government refuses to allow natural gas fracking, which has brought prosperity and high paying jobs to Western Pennsylvania and northern West Virginia. The same gas is in the ground in Western MD but the state government refuses to let them drill because that would offend the liberal sensibilities of voters in the DC suburbs.
Most federal government jobs are in the DC area with only a few in Baltimore.
The Baltimore area has way more than "a few" federal government jobs. Fort Meade is the state's largest employer with over 50,000 employees and that's to say nothing of the other federal agencies with a large presence in the metro area (e.g., SSA, CMS, etc.).
I think that one of the things that people keep saying is a lot of these old south cities didn't boom, Birmingham, Memphis, Richmond etc. that hit a wall, much like their Northern counterparts. But they hit a wall because they had an urban core. Meanwhile cities that didn't really exist before WWII like Charlotte, Nashville, Raleigh, Miami, were able to mold themselves into exactly what people wanted at the time because they were a blank slate.
Save for a few cities like Houston and Atlanta that had geographic reasons that they basically needed to be in that exact location.
I've always felt that Savannah should be larger than it is since it was built to be something grand but some posters told me about malaria, hurricane threats, and the fact people were just moving inland.
Regarding the urban core subject: how is it possible that Atlanta doesn't have elements of Savannah's grid system and housing style? I mean, that is style is uniquely Georgian and one would think that those moving from Savannah back then would have just replicated that in North Georgia (then again, GA was the weakest Colony with weak culture at the time). Atlanta with a Savannah style layout and squares would have been a plus back then and today.
I've always felt that Savannah should be larger than it is since it was built to be something grand but some posters told me about malaria, hurricane threats, and the fact people were just moving inland.
Regarding the urban core subject: how is it possible that Atlanta doesn't have elements of Savannah's grid system and housing style? I mean, that is style is uniquely Georgian and one would think that those moving from Savannah back then would have just replicated that in North Georgia (then again, GA was the weakest Colony with weak culture at the time). Atlanta with a Savannah style layout and squares would have been a plus back then and today.
Savannah was founded in the first half of the 18th century and planned by James Oglethorpe, who established the Georgia colony. Atlanta was founded as a railroad hub by the state of Georgia about 100 years later, 25 years before the Civil War broke out, and it was the rail lines that largely dictated development patterns in the city early on; plus it's not like anyone back then knew that Atlanta would eventually become the monster that it is today. There wasn't too much movement from Savannah to Atlanta before the Civil War since Savannah was easily the most populous and wealthiest city in the state. Atlanta mainly attracted industrialists, many from the North, as its economy didn't much rely on slavery and agriculture but transportation and New South industries after the Civil War.
Augusta was also designed and laid out by Oglethorpe but for some reason, he didn't incorporate multiple squares into the design for that city. It has a solid grid system but only one square, or plaza--Augusta Common.
Last edited by Mutiny77; 08-07-2018 at 05:47 AM..
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.
