Is Birmingham a "major city"? (Greenville, Carolina: real estate, schools)

[sleepless in Bham]

Originally Posted by Newsboy

Birmingham is not a "powerhouse" of anything ... for a metro of 1.2 million it's pretty underwhelming in fact. In Alabama, both Mobile and Huntsville are far more dynamic cities than Birmingham IMO.

For Birmingham to become a "major" city, it's going to have to start seeing at least SOME of the kind of economic and population growth that Atlanta and other sunbelt cities have experienced for decades. And that's just not happening. Between 2010-12 Metro Atlanta added more than 170,000 people. Metro Birmingham added 8,000!

Mobile and Huntsville are more dynamic?......LMAO!!!!!!.

[cpg35223]

Originally Posted by Newsboy

Birmingham is not a "powerhouse" of anything ... for a metro of 1.2 million it's pretty underwhelming in fact. In Alabama, both Mobile and Huntsville are far more dynamic cities than Birmingham IMO.

For Birmingham to become a "major" city, it's going to have to start seeing at least SOME of the kind of economic and population growth that Atlanta and other sunbelt cities have experienced for decades. And that's just not happening. Between 2010-12 Metro Atlanta added more than 170,000 people. Metro Birmingham added 8,000!

Look, I realize that you're a journalist with an axe to grind against a town where you simply didn't work out, but have you ever realized that uninformed statements like this might be part of the reason why?

Yeah, Mobile has had two major ED projects come on board. But Birmingham fares far better than Mobile across the board. Huntsville has had very low unemployment for several decades, but a large part of that reason has been the space program and the DoD, two sources of funding that are very, very iffy at the moment. Slash funding to those two programs and Huntsville empties out in a big, fat hurry. We're talking tumbleweeds blowing down the Bob Jones because, aside from a Toyota engine plant up there, there's very little industry in that town. And the word 'dynamic' would never apply in any meaningful sense. Maybe you should hie thyself to a dictionary to learn what the word actually means.

Growth is cyclical. Birmingham went through a very nice growth binge in the 80s and 90s on the shoulders of banking and paused during the past five years because -- Why? -- banking went through possibly the most brutal five years the industry has seen since the Great Depression. However, in the past five years, the region has undertaken some very meaningful structural reforms that will likely pay off over the next five-ten years. Downtown, for example, has undergone quite a renaissance. The city is suddenly on the map as a major distribution center. After all, the railroads don't simply invest hundreds of millions just because they're feeling public spirited.

[JoeTarheel]

Being a major city really has nothing to do with growth or how "dynamic" the city is. Lots of major cities are not growing or haven't been for decades, and they are far from dynamic (Baltimore, Detroit, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, etc)...but they are still considered major cities.

[ttownfeen]

There are only a handful of 1st tier major cities, and Birmingham is not one of them. I would say only Atlanta, Charlotte and New Orleans are major national cities in the South. (I don't consider Texas or Florida south of the panhandle part of the South, and I'm iffy on Virginia.) Birmingham is a 2nd tier major city (regionally major) due to the banking presence, but it has fallen behind Nashville, Raleigh, Memphis. I would put Birmingham on equal footing with Jacksonville and Lousivlle.

[PortCity]

Originally Posted by fltonc12

I don't think of Birmingham as a major city to even the South.

Maybe one day, but definitely not now.

I guess I should also say I do not think the South has 1 major city. Atlanta, Houston, Miami, Charlotte and Raleigh would all qualify as a major city for different reasons.

Atlanta,Dallas,Houston, and Miami yeah.

[po-boy]

Obviously there is no universally agreed upon definition of "major", so this is all subjective, but IMO Birmingham is a major city in the South, but not nationally.

The metro population of over a million makes it one of the top 10-15 cities in the south, but barely in the top 50 nationally. Plus, Birmingham's profile just isn't that high. It is most known as a steel city and a scene of racial problems 50 years ago. I can't remember the last time I heard about Birmingham on a national level for a recent event. It also isn't home to any major universities (UAB is solid, but certainly not elite on a national level) and doesn't have any pro sports teams.

Taking a broad definition of South, the leading cities are Atlanta, Houston, Dallas and Miami. Cities like Charlotte, Nashville, San Antonio, Austin and New Orleans are the next tier. They are larger and more well known than Birmingham (except New Orleans which is similar in size to B'ham but much more well known). IMO Birmingham is in the next group which has places like Memphis, Jacksonville, Louisville, and Raleigh (and Raleigh is a fast grower which will soon be in the next tier up if it isn't already).

[PortCity]

Originally Posted by mcalumni01

as far as southern cities, it's three categories for me....

1st tier - Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Miami
2nd tier - Charlotte, New Orleans, Tampa
3rd tier - Memphis, Birmingham, Nashville

How is New Orleans listed a tier above B-ham,Memphis, and Nashville and they are all larger metros lats I saw ?

[po-boy]

Originally Posted by ttownfeen

There are only a handful of 1st tier major cities, and Birmingham is not one of them. I would say only Atlanta, Charlotte and New Orleans are major national cities in the South. (I don't consider Texas or Florida south of the panhandle part of the South, and I'm iffy on Virginia.) Birmingham is a 2nd tier major city (regionally major) due to the banking presence, but it has fallen behind Nashville, Raleigh, Memphis. I would put Birmingham on equal footing with Jacksonville and Lousivlle.

I think this is about right if you are taking a narrower definition of the South. Only thing I would change is that I would put Nashville at the bottom of the first tier (with NOLA).

[ttownfeen]

I can agree with Nashville - it straddles the line.

I feel Texas is a region all to itself, and its cities dwarf the cities of the Deep South. Houston, Dallas, Austin alone would knock all but Atlanta down a tier.

If I were to add Virginia, I would add Norfolk of the 1st tier simply due to this military presense (it works for San Diego), Richmond to the Birmingham-Jacksonville-Louisville tier, and exclude Northern Virginia because it's become so intertwined with Washington.

[jpillinois]

Originally Posted by greenvillebuckeye

Any city or metro area that plays host to 3 or 4 professional sports can be dubbed a "major" city. i.e. Atlanta, Tampa, Miami, Houston, Dallas.

with that being said places like Charlotte (Bobcats and Panthers) and New Orleans (Saints and Hornets) would probably be 2nd tier

nashville, memphis, san antonio, raleigh, jacksonville (florida) would be 3rd tier

Just my opinion as cities that have 3 or 4 pro sports teams have the economic base and population in place to take care of these organizations. they set themselves apart in other areas then as well most likely....

That the way I think of it too. No Major League teams=Not a major city!

To extrapolate - To be a national major city it must have All 4 Major League sport teams. NHL, NBA, MLB, NFL.