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'm going to throw Providence, RI's hat into the ring. It has a growing population, a growing HHI, and seems to be on most "hot" real estate lists I've seen. And as evidence of the validity, we recently moved from Boston to Providence for many of the reasons others have (and the same reasons those lists like to highlight).
But Providence's growth is largely attributable to a combination of Boston's explosion (and the staggering real estate that comes with it) as well as the increase of hybrid and remote work flexibility. The Providence-Boston commute is tolerable when you don't have to do it every day (as quick as 35 minutes or so by train). It's not not the economic engine it was in its heyday, and it's arguably slipping even further behind Boston in terms of regional importance in spite of its growth. It was never (and will never) be irrelevant. Not as the seat of the State Government, home to colleges like Brown, RISD, PC, and JWU, numerous hospitals, and an active port. And I don't necessarily think the lines between regional hub/satellite city being blurred is necessarily a bad thing. But I do think it's a city that's growing and evolving in spite of decreasing economic relevance on both a regional and national level.
This made me think of San Jose.
It's one of the wealthiest cities in the world, yet if you frequent these forums you can see people get upset over the very idea that it should be considered its own independent city.
Wish I could help on the BBQ lol. Gotta go to Memphis for that though Edley’s in 12 South is pretty good. Also can check out Ed’s Fish, Slim and Huskey’s (Buchanan St. location) and Prince’s hot chicken (Antioch location).
Can check out QC’s Kitchen and Monell’s in Germantown as well.
Forgot to mention Big Al’s Deli in Salemtown. Good food and good people.
I don't understand what public transit and housing density have to do with a city's influence and/or relevance. The majority of the people in the US do not care about these things at all. Especially given that all but one of these cities is in the sun belt.
To me relevance means economy, cultural cache, media coverage, tourism, etc.
So unique architecture (typically brought on by space constraints) and iconic streetcars/trolleys/trams/subways (goes with cultural cache and tourism) don't add any influence and relevance?
What if OKC builds that 1900 foot skyscraper (housing density)? That wouldn't boost its relevance?
Why do you keep harping on city limit population? Just about every city in America has used annexation to increase population or do you believe there’s a major city that hasn’t? If you know one please let me know because every city on this poll has. Nashville, Jacksonville, Louisville etc have all consolidated city and county. City limits has absolutely nothing to do with how relevant a city is unless you have a skewed definition of what defines relevance.
Nashville’s not unique in expanding its city limits and if you knew what you were researching you’d know Nashville’s original city limits mainly included just downtown and parts of East, West and South Nashville. Heck if you wanna go way back the original city limits only consisted of just downtown. So are you saying we should only count cities that use the limits of their original settlement? Lol. At one point New York just consisted of Lower Manhattan, did they all of a sudden lose relevance once they expanded to include other boroughs? (Most of which contain suburban areas) Your point makes no sense.
Also, I’ve already mentioned Phoenix and Charlotte, good to know San Jose has light rail also but you specifically singled out Nashville and Columbus to make your point on light rail. Sounds like you have an axe to grind against those two in particular cause your points make no contextual sense as each city on the poll would disqualify according to your standards.
There's a difference between Chicago's annexations of the 1880's, NYC's of the 1890's, Los Angeles's of the 1910's and the annexations of Columbus/Nashville/Indianapolis of the 1970's.
Here's a scene from the post-annexation Columbus city:
How long has that been in the city limits? 50 years? I'm sure any day we'll see some dense infill there.
Pre 1950 annexation tended to be the annexation of already dense areas (like Pittsburgh/Allegheny city), or the annexation of develop able land which was quickly built out, like in the San Fernando Valley.
That's different from "hey, we'll just increase the size of our city 15X to double the census population! Sure, we'll have literal rural areas inside city limits, but that's what everyone does right?"
There's a difference between Chicago's annexations of the 1880's, NYC's of the 1890's, Los Angeles's of the 1910's and the annexations of Columbus/Nashville/Indianapolis of the 1970's.
Here's a scene from the post-annexation Columbus city:
How long has that been in the city limits? 50 years? I'm sure any day we'll see some dense infill there.
Pre 1950 annexation tended to be the annexation of already dense areas (like Pittsburgh/Allegheny city), or the annexation of develop able land which was quickly built out, like in the San Fernando Valley.
That's different from "hey, we'll just increase the size of our city 15X to double the census population! Sure, we'll have literal rural areas inside city limits, but that's what everyone does right?"
The fact that you continue to harp on city limits speaks volumes, even after multiple posters disagree. You still have yet to explain how city limits correlates to relevance? Do yourself a favor and research all the cities in the poll and you’ll learn that they all have very large land areas which included former suburbs with some annexing as recently as the mid 2010’s.
Also you’re incorrect on your point on Nashville as consolidation happened in 1963, that’s 61 years. That means no more annexing but actual growth and losses as the borders are fixed. If you’ve ever been to Nashville (It’s very apparent you haven’t) the primary high growth areas aren’t in the suburban areas of Davidson County but right in the city, specifically downtown, midtown and the core neighborhoods.
Charlotte on the other hand for example is 310 sq miles (which includes former independent suburbs in Mecklenburg County). These annexations occurred as recently as 2018. Is Charlotte no longer “relevant”?
This is why your point makes no sense. Why pick Nashville and Columbus out of the bunch yet every city on the poll had annexed at some point in their history some very recently?
I hope you realize growth and annexation can happen concurrently.
The fact that you continue to harp on city limits speaks volumes, even after multiple posters disagree. You still have yet to explain how city limits correlates to relevance? Do yourself a favor and research all the cities in the poll and you’ll learn that they all have very large land areas with some annexing as recently as the mid 2010’s.
Also you’re incorrect on your point on Nashville as consolidation happened in 1963, that’s 61 years. That means no more annexing but actual growth and losses and the borders are fixed. Charlotte on the other hand for example is 310 sq miles (which includes former independent suburbs in Mecklenburg County). These annexations occurred as recently as 2018. Is Charlotte no longer “relevant”?
This is why your point makes no sense. Why pick Nashville and Columbus out of the bunch yet every city on the poll had annexed at some point in their history some very recently.
An annexation of less than 2 square miles after the city had been established as the nation's secondary banking hub after NYC and had built a modern light rail system.
Has Charlotte annexed land into its city limits and just left it as an empty field for decades? I'm guessing no, and that's one big difference.
Nothing wrong with annexation, provided you actually build something on the annexed land that remotely resembles a city (sidewalks, buildings, etc.)
An annexation of less than 2 square miles after the city had been established as the nation's secondary banking hub after NYC and had built a modern light rail system.
Has Charlotte annexed land into its city limits and just left it as an empty field for decades? I'm guessing no, and that's one big difference.
Nothing wrong with annexation, provided you actually build something on the annexed land that remotely resembles a city (sidewalks, buildings, etc.)
I still fail to see your point?? So if a city annexed vacant land and doesn’t build on it it’s less relevant??
Honestly, I want to try to continue the discussion but it feels like I’m getting more confused by your points as time progresses lol.
I would say yes, because it now has to claim those open fields as part of the brand of the city. It shows neglect and general apathy.
Uhhh.. ok…. I hope you’re just trolling but let’s see if other posters on the thread agree lol.
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.
