The next Boomtown?

[Geechie North]

Ah,

But it's a matter of the change over time.

Look at the Trident Area of 1979 vis-a-vis today.

If that growth is repeated, and coupled with the growth of Jax, Savannah, and the Sea Islands, then you've got your "megaslopolis".

And, yes, I'm very familiar with the NE Corridor.

[ohioaninsc]

Was just checking this thread out, and my question is why do we want to see any of these cities grow they way you guys want? IE, for Cola, you want It to sprawl out even further? Sprawl is bad...any growth woudl be much better if it increased the DENSITY of the cities and not by growing outward....that is the old thinking that leads to higher energy prices and other higher costs...also, have any of you been along the SC/GA coastlines? Most of the land is protected...between Charleston and Savannah, there's an area called the ACE Basin, it's federally protected and is a pretty large area and even if it wasn't, it's not developable at all b/c it's mainly marshland...between Savannah and Brunswick it's similar, and again between Brunswick and Jax there it's also like that. The closest thing to a so called Megalopolis that may develop is the I-85 Corridor from Raleigh/Durham, NC through Charlotte and the SC Upstate into Atlanta, and even so, it will never develop the full density of the I-95 corridor from Boston through CT, NYC, NJ, Philly, Bal, DC and Richmond, VA. Again, why would anyone want that anyway? The best way for growth to occur is to redevelop the areas around the DTs and the inner suburbs and densify the cities...in that bet, Charleston has the most going for it, but I don't see any SC really overtaking the others by all that much.

[gvillesc]

In what way do you Charleston having an advantage? That the land is mostly divided into small plots already? Or that large areas in the neck are run down? Otherwise, you're not going to see much demolition in downtown Charleston, or developments that add density by utilizing height. In terms of building/structure density, yes, Charleston has a huge advantage because of what is already built. Otherwise, if we're talking about population, I'd say that Columbia and Greenville have great opportunities to capitalize on vacant lands in their cores, without height restrictions (except in a few districts). Every city in SC is a different beast, but I don't think you can compare them all and say that a few have outright advantages. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages to be considered.

[ohioaninsc]

Originally Posted by gvillesc

In what way do you Charleston having an advantage? That the land is mostly divided into small plots already? Or that large areas in the neck are run down? Otherwise, you're not going to see much demolition in downtown Charleston, or developments that add density by utilizing height. In terms of building/structure density, yes, Charleston has a huge advantage because of what is already built. Otherwise, if we're talking about population, I'd say that Columbia and Greenville have great opportunities to capitalize on vacant lands in their cores, without height restrictions (except in a few districts). Every city in SC is a different beast, but I don't think you can compare them all and say that a few have outright advantages. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages to be considered.

I guess I see Charleston as having a small advantage b/c the city's planning dept is already going for more dense developments (which don't necessarily require highrises-DC is fairly dense and has a height limit, as is DT Madison, WI). Magnolia and Noissette seem larger than any single project in Cola or Gville. But, all 3 cities have a lot of areas near their cores that they could develop in a a more dense manner.
What would help the cities boom even more is if the Southeast region would develop regional high speed rail, and each city would come up w/ some kind of light rail mass transit.
What really irks me though is seeing the cities (same all over the Southeast and southwest it seems) is seeing cookie cutter suburban develoment occurring further and further outside the city. That is not sustainable development.

[Rophlmao]

Development is only good for people looking to sell of their real estate. It only brings crime, crowds, higher taxes, and more intrusive laws.

"What really irks me though is seeing the cities (same all over the Southeast and southwest it seems) is seeing cookie cutter suburban develoment occurring further and further outside the city. That is not sustainable development."

With any luck the economy will slow this down for a decade or three, since all of it was a product of the housing bubble.

[waccamatt]

Originally Posted by Rophlmao

Development is only good for people looking to sell of their real estate. It only brings crime, crowds, higher taxes, and more intrusive laws.

"What really irks me though is seeing the cities (same all over the Southeast and southwest it seems) is seeing cookie cutter suburban develoment occurring further and further outside the city. That is not sustainable development."

With any luck the economy will slow this down for a decade or three, since all of it was a product of the housing bubble.

You're right; bigger is not necessarily better. Charlotte has experienced tremendous growth, but it's nearly impossible for infrastructure to keep up with that type of growth. I think good, steady growth and hopefully limited sprawl is the best.