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.
Hmmm, why Austin? It does many things well but does it top any of the categories we're looking at? Doesn't seem like it.
Why Charlotte either? The "categories" the OP gave skew FAR more to Orlando, New Orleans, and maybe one or two other cities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueRedTide
Dallas Houston Miami or Atlanta. Can We have a discussion of Southern Cities without mentioning those 4. Is that Possible? Outside the "Big 4" The Most Influential/Powerful City in the South IS!?
-Most American influence
-Most Global Influence
-What City if it disappeared would affect the most lives
-Most powerful city in the South IS!?________
Since things like GDP, corporations, so on and so forth aren't a criteria I don't see how Austin can be singled out and questioned as to why its being mentioned while Charlotte gets a pass.
The criteria the guy gave skews to Orlando and solely Orlando since it is the only one of the bunch that has a decent global network.
I See the Case for Austin. The Almighty capital of TEXAS. Probably the first city out the bunch that's going to grow beyond a Million people within city limits even before Charlotte...Can Go Toe to Toe with Charlotte economically and all this will increase as time goes on. The Future is defiantly on Austin's side Charlotte too, But I think even more so with Austin
I See the Case for Austin. The Almighty capital of TEXAS. Probably the first city out the bunch that's going to grow beyond a Million people within city limits...Can Go Toe to Toe with Charlotte economically and all this will increase as time goes on. The Future is defiantly on Austin's side
Austin has a better economy than Charlotte on a pound-for-pound basis. Its job growth is higher, it has a legit white collar economy, it has the lower unemployment rate. The reason Charlotte has a larger GDP is because it is the larger city by 600,000 people in the metropolitan area at this point. I expect that to change eventually, Austin's economy is growing several folds faster than is Charlotte's. Austin is both the most educated city and metropolitan area in the entire Southern United States when you factor out Washington DC.
Austin's economy is far better for the tech industry, especially for start-ups, investor financing, and innovation (as indicated by its high-volume Venture Capital funding -- highest in the South by a lot), far better for research and development, far better for government (obviously), far better for education (Charlotte doesn't really have anything comparable to the University of Texas at Austin), far better clean tech and clean energy industry (Austin's legit in this sphere), far better for foreign investment (you can directly see the impact of the EB-5 program on the Austin skyline, by the way), far better film and music industry, so on and so forth. Charlotte is significantly better than Austin in the banking industry.
Austin is the more expensive real-estate market (the third most expensive in "the South" after Washington D.C. and Miami/Fort Lauderdale) and its real-estate prices are appreciating at double-digit pace annually and have been doing so for quite some time now. So its housing market is stronger and more robust and the real-estate industry is more prominent there than Charlotte currently. It is also America's fastest growing metropolitan area (over 1 million people) and has been all of the 4-5 years of this decade, after tying for second (with Raleigh-Durham and after Las Vegas last decade). It is more foreign born and more diverse and integrated than Charlotte. It has the better culinary scene as its food vendors, restaurants, and establishments get high-praise and credit by revered national ranking agencies, in addition to it being the center of all of Texas' Barbeque largesse (Austin's metropolitan area) and one of the main nodes for Tex-Mex too, its more diverse than Charlotte so at worst goes toe-to-toe with Charlotte on food varieties. Probably more tourist friendly than Charlotte too, but I don't know for sure or not (since I don't know Charlotte's tourism offerings well enough), with South-by-Southwest, the underground caves, coves, cisterns, swimming holes, large lakes, Hill Country, Texas Wine Country (booming and now the 4th largest in America after CA, WA, OR), Austin City Limits (event), 6th Street, Rainey Street, Formula One, so on.
Honestly, your criteria is only for Orlando and to a lesser extent New Orleans to succeed. If you had actually included relevant factors at determining importance, then for the time being right now, the answer would be Charlotte or Tampa Bay Area, for now at least. Austin has a lot of strengths on Charlotte (a lot) but Charlotte still has the better banking industry, the larger population base (metropolitan level), the more extensively global international airport (for now), and better public transportation system.
I fully expect that to change within 10 years though.
Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 09-02-2015 at 12:50 PM..
Why Charlotte either? The "categories" the OP gave skew FAR more to Orlando, New Orleans, and maybe one or two other cities.
Since things like GDP, corporations, so on and so forth aren't a criteria I don't see how Austin can be singled out and questioned as to why its being mentioned while Charlotte gets a pass.
The criteria the guy gave skews to Orlando and solely Orlando since it is the only one of the bunch that has a decent global network.
I think the criteria as listed in the original post, such as American and global influence, can include GDP and as such, Charlotte would be a valid choice.
Austin is both the most educated city and metropolitan area in the entire Southern United States when you factor out Washington DC.
Actually Raleigh-Cary is the most educated metropolitan area in the South (outside of DC), but Austin isn't far behind at all. This is going by 2010 statistics. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...reas.html?_r=0
I think it's also worth mentioning that Charlotte has a higher per capita GDP than Austin as well, not just in raw numbers.
And due to Texas' location along the Southern border, Austin certainly has a higher Hispanic population, primarily Mexican (which is the source of a large chunk of its foreign-born population), but I'm not sure if I'd say that it's more diverse than Charlotte on that basis alone--at least in the city proper. They both have similar Asian percentages (between 5-6%), Charlotte has a larger Black population (35%), and Austin has a larger Hispanic population (35%). Charlotte's Hispanic population (13%) is also a little larger than Austin's Black population (8%).
Actually Raleigh-Cary is the most educated metropolitan area in the South (outside of DC), but Austin isn't far behind at all. This is going by 2010 statistics. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...reas.html?_r=0
I think it's also worth mentioning that Charlotte has a higher per capita GDP than Austin as well, not just in raw numbers.
True and I knew that but was using PCSA for everywhere (CSAs for places that have one, MSAs for places that don't). The information you've posted by the New York Times appears to exclude the Durham side of the Research Triangle since it is going by MSA only. They are close either way, both in bachelors and high school graduation. Same tier in regards to education attainment overall, like you said, but the (slight) edge is Austin's. I wont be making any cases that Raleigh-Durham is behind though, to me, same tier and both ahead of the rest of the South sans Washington DC.
Percent high school graduate or higher, 2013 (most recent available):
- Austin-Round Rock, TX Metro Area: 88.6%
- Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC CSA: 88.4%
Percent bachelor's degree or higher, 2013:
- Austin-Round Rock, TX Metro Area: 41.5%
- Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC CSA: 40.7%
I think the criteria as listed in the original post, such as American and global influence, can include GDP and as such, Charlotte would be a valid choice.
I think one of us should just ask the OP by what he means when he says American Influence and Global Influence instead of filling it in ourselves since we don't know the guy or how he thinks. I mean the dude asked "What City if it disappeared would affect the most lives" so I know at the very least, I definitely don't share the same brainwaves as this dude and "American Influence or Global Influence" in his mind could be anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutiny77
And due to Texas' location along the Southern border, Austin certainly has a higher Hispanic population, primarily Mexican (which is the source of a large chunk of its foreign-born population), but I'm not sure if I'd say that it's more diverse than Charlotte on that basis alone--at least in the city proper. They both have similar Asian percentages (between 5-6%), Charlotte has a larger Black population (35%), and Austin has a larger Hispanic population (35%). Charlotte's Hispanic population (13%) is also a little larger than Austin's Black population (8%).
Being in a state that is on the border only helps Austin with Mexican people and Central American people. What about people from other parts of the world though? Being in a border state didn't help Austin with South America, Asia, Oceania, and Europe. In reality by both percentages and raw numbers Austin has more Asian Indians, Chinese, Bangladeshi, Filipino, Malaysian, Pakistani, Thai, Vietnamese, Taiwanese, Sri Lankan, South Korean, Japanese, Israeli, Mongolian, Singaporean, Indonesian, Persian, and Arab people among the Asians. Charlotte has a larger population in percentages and raw numbers for Laotian, Hmong, and Cambodian among the Asian groups.
Going past Asia, Austin has a larger expat population in raw numbers for every country in Oceania (Australia, Polynesia, Micronesia, Melanesia, New Zealand). Both cities roughly split the European expat populations and Charlotte kills Austin in Africa. Likewise Austin routs Charlotte in South America.
Racially, I agree, neither is more or less diverse than the other since like you mentioned, Austin is well represented in Latinos and Charlotte's in African Americans. When looking at nationalities, I give it to Austin, it decisively routs Charlotte in the Asia and Oceania fields after losing in Africa but winning in Latin America.
Ethnically I disagree. Austin's 6,500 immigrants each year is proportionately in line with Atlanta's 18,500 each year considering Austin has 50,000 less than 2 million people and Atlanta has 6.2 million people (so one-third the size and one-third the immigrants of Atlanta but in percentage terms the same), it is higher than Charlotte's and higher from several continents (not just places south of the Texas-Mexico border).
All of this going off the latest possible information from the Census' official website (factfinder.census.gov).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutiny77
I think it's also worth mentioning that Charlotte has a higher per capita GDP than Austin as well, not just in raw numbers.
Yeah, the breakdown is like this. Charlotte has the larger GDP and the higher GDP Per Capita. Austin has the faster GDP growth rate and faster GDP Per Capita growth rate.
Austin has the higher Per Capita Income for Total Personal Income even though Charlotte (due to being 600,000 larger) has the larger Total Personal Income overall. Austin's Per Capita Total Personal Income is growing faster and its overall Total Personal Income is growing faster as well.
What this means is that Charlotte has the slightly richer corporate economy (Gross Domestic Product), while Austin has the slightly richer general population (Total Personal Income).
The larger Gross Domestic Product and the larger Total Personal Income is why I would personally go with Charlotte being more important than Austin, for the time being. I fully expect this to change though if Austin keeps it going for at least 10 more years (it wont need all 10 years to pass Charlotte but will need 10 to pass it and then widen the gap). I personally think given Austin's strengths that it already has the better resources in place to be a more important city than Charlotte but I wont say its more important until it passes it in both Gross Domestic Product and Total Personal Income (and closes the population gap, at least). So for Charlotte versus Austin, for the present I would go with Charlotte for sure. In the future, Austin.
However, for this thread, by the OP's vague criteria, it is Orlando. If looking at other factors that are not mentioned by the OP to determine most important, then I would go with Tampa Bay Area overall. It is the largest and the regions economy is the largest (when using the FL DOT, FL DOF, and Neilson Media Market definitions). If we toss out the use of those definitions for the Tampa Bay Area, then my choice would be Charlotte for the actual most important city in the South (using factors not mentioned by the OP) or Orlando (using factors specified in this thread), for the time being.
Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 09-02-2015 at 02:45 PM..
True and I knew that but was using PCSA for everywhere (CSAs for places that have one, MSAs for places that don't). The information you've posted by the New York Times appears to exclude the Durham side of the Research Triangle since it is going by MSA only. They are close either way, both in bachelors and high school graduation. Same tier in regards to education attainment overall, like you said, but the (slight) edge is Austin's. I wont be making any cases that Raleigh-Durham is behind though, to me, same tier and both ahead of the rest of the South sans Washington DC.
Percent high school graduate or higher, 2013 (most recent available):
- Austin-Round Rock, TX Metro Area: 88.6%
- Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC CSA: 88.4%
Percent bachelor's degree or higher, 2013:
- Austin-Round Rock, TX Metro Area: 41.5%
- Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC CSA: 40.7%
I think one of us should just ask the OP by what he means when he says American Influence and Global Influence instead of filling it in ourselves since we don't know the guy or how he thinks. I mean the dude asked "What City if it disappeared would affect the most lives" so I know at the very least, I definitely don't share the same brainwaves as this dude and "American Influence or Global Influence" in his mind could be anything.
Being in a state that is on the border only helps Austin with Mexican people and Central American people. What about people from other parts of the world though? Being in a border state didn't help Austin with South America, Asia, Oceania, and Europe. In reality by both percentages and raw numbers Austin has more Asian Indians, Chinese, Bangladeshi, Filipino, Malaysian, Pakistani, Thai, Vietnamese, Taiwanese, Sri Lankan, South Korean, Japanese, Israeli, Mongolian, Singaporean, Indonesian, Persian, and Arab people among the Asians. Charlotte has a larger population in percentages and raw numbers for Laotian, Hmong, and Cambodian among the Asian groups.
Going past Asia, Austin has a larger expat population in raw numbers for every country in Oceania (Australia, Polynesia, Micronesia, Melanesia, New Zealand). Both cities roughly split the European expat populations and Charlotte kills Austin in Africa. Likewise Austin routs Charlotte in South America.
Racially, I agree, neither is more or less diverse than the other since like you mentioned, Austin is well represented in Latinos and Charlotte's in African Americans. When looking at nationalities, I give it to Austin, it decisively routs Charlotte in the Asia and Oceania fields after losing in Africa but winning in Latin America.
Ethnically I disagree. Austin's 6,500 immigrants each year is proportionately in line with Atlanta's 18,500 each year considering Austin has 50,000 less than 2 million people and Atlanta has 6.2 million people (so one-third the size and one-third the immigrants of Atlanta but in percentage terms the same), it is higher than Charlotte's and higher from several continents (not just places south of the Texas-Mexico border).
All of this going off the latest possible information from the Census' official website (factfinder.census.gov).
Yeah, the breakdown is like this. Charlotte has the larger GDP and the higher GDP Per Capita. Austin has the faster GDP growth rate and faster GDP Per Capita growth rate.
Austin has the higher Per Capita Income for Total Personal Income even though Charlotte (due to being 600,000 larger) has the larger Total Personal Income overall. Austin's Per Capita Total Personal Income is growing faster and its overall Total Personal Income is growing faster as well.
What this means is that Charlotte has the slightly richer corporate economy (Gross Domestic Product), while Austin has the slightly richer general population (Total Personal Income).
The larger Gross Domestic Product and the larger Total Personal Income is why I would personally go with Charlotte being more important than Austin, for the time being. I fully expect this to change though if Austin keeps it going for at least 10 more years (it wont need all 10 years to pass Charlotte but will need 10 to pass it and then widen the gap). I personally think given Austin's strengths that it already has the better resources in place to be a more important city than Charlotte but I wont say its more important until it passes it in both Gross Domestic Product and Total Personal Income (and closes the population gap, at least). So for Charlotte versus Austin, for the present I would go with Charlotte for sure. In the future, Austin.
However, for this thread, by the OP's vague criteria, it is Orlando. If looking at other factors that are not mentioned by the OP to determine most important, then I would go with Tampa Bay Area overall. It is the largest and the regions economy is the largest (when using the FL DOT, FL DOF, and Neilson Media Market definitions). If we toss out the use of those definitions for the Tampa Bay Area, then my choice would be Charlotte for the actual most important city in the South (using factors not mentioned by the OP) or Orlando (using factors specified in this thread), for the time being.
Generally agreed on most points...well-reasoned and detailed response.
Yeah, I don't want to come across as a Charlotte basher. I think its a neat city with a very bright future in every way possible. Lots to offer too.
I do think that the region should develop a really strong university both at undergraduate level and graduate level before it becomes an area of 4 million people. Avoid going the Orlando/Tampa Bay Area/Phoenix/Las Vegas/Portland route in regards to educational institutions. Its one area where I think Charlotte can take a page or lesson from Raleigh-Durham just north of it.
To be fair, I also think Tampa Bay Area and Orlando (as well as Las Vegas, Portland, and Phoenix) could all do better if they improved on the educational institutions front. Not saying a place needs to become a Boston or a Raleigh-Durham or anything, but at least one legit top-notch sort of school would do. Something on the caliber of Nashville's Vanderbilt would work swimmingly in these other cities too or even something around the caliber of Miami's University of Miami or Dallas' Southern Methodist University would work really well. However, I am well aware that to improve colleges and universities, it takes years and cannot be done overnight -- hope investments are made, in my opinion.
Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 09-02-2015 at 03:23 PM..
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.
