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.
IMO Nashville is going to face the same problems with transportation infrastructure that Austin is, and these are problems that are already getting attention in the media.
Austin has much worse infrastructure, but I get your point. The problem in Nashville is that most seem content with sitting in traffic the way it is. The state also has a regressive pay as you go system in place for road construction meaning that much needed transportation projects are completely off the table.
Austin has much worse infrastructure, but I get your point. The problem in Nashville is that most seem content with sitting in traffic the way it is. The state also has a regressive pay as you go system in place for road construction meaning that much needed transportation projects are completely off the table.
Nashville may release a new transit plan including multiple counties. The new plan will include Murfreesboro and Clarksville regions. If Mayor Cooper pulls this off, it will be a part of his legacy.
Austin
Kansas City
Indianapolis
Columbus
Nashville
Charlotte
Raleigh
Jacksonville
I thought it might be interesting to compare these 8 Midwestern and Southern cities/metros. Currently, they are about the same size in population and still relatively "new" to the "big city" game. They are "new" to being recognized on a nationwide scale as being a "big city". They all seem to be on the upswing and in a state of boom.
I left out Ft Worth because it's part of the 7 million Metroplex, whereas these cities are about 1.5 million to 2.5 million and do not share their metro with another major city.
How would you rank these cities in terms of:
1. Future population growth. Will these cities/metros still be in the same peer group of cities with one another 30 years from now?
2. Brightest future / economic prosperity.
3. Big city Amenities - such as parks, libraries, museums etc.
4. Food/restaraunts
5. Culture
6. Cost of living
7. Night life
8. Infrastructure
9. Crimes
10. Diversity
11. Education levels of residents
12. Public transportation
13. Health care
14. Street/road/highway congestion.
P.S. I wanted to include Oklahoma City and Richmond. I don't know why but for some reason the poll wouldn't let me do 10 cities, so they were cut from the line-up.
Answering your postscript first: When you're taken to the poll, there's a field where you can specify the number of options the poll should offer. You can change this as many times as you want before you click on "Create Poll."
On to the list:
1. Future population growth: None of these places will do badly, but Austin, Charlotte and Nashville will lead the pack for at least the next decade or two - unless Austin chokes on its traffic so badly that people start to bypass it.
2. Economic prosperity: Charlotte and Austin. Kansas City will improve in this area now that the "border war" of "job creation" incentives is over.
3. Big-city amenities - One thing I think many here don't know is that Kansas City is not* new to the "big city" game. In the first two decades of the last century, it was one of the 20 biggest cities in the country. What it didn't have at the time was the large suburban belts that were already forming around the cities bigger than it. But it was also during this time that it built the park and boulevard system that makes it such a green and attractive city now, and it was also during these decades that William Rockhill Nelson and Mary Atkins left in their wills the funds that would endow the second-best-endowed art museum in the United States when it opened in 1931. That museum, from what I can tell, still outclasses its peers in the other cities on this list. So between the park and boulevard system, the Nelson-Atkins, and the fact that it's the only one of these cities to have both MLB and NFL teams as well as an MLS franchise and a fine public library system with a great new main facility, I'd say Kansas City actually has this in the bag.
4. Food/restaurants: KC and Austin, with a slight edge to KC, which has a little more ethnic variety. Both have great barbecue.
5. Culture: Depends what you're talking about. If it's the highbrow stuff - performing arts, museums, literary scene - KC again. If you're talking about the attitudes, behaviors, habits and tastes of the local population, Austin and Nashville have the most distinctive local cultures, and the Research Triangle the brainiest residents.
6. Cost of living: KC, Indy and Columbus lead the pack.
7. Nightlife: Austin and Nashville by an, ahem, country mile.
8. Infrastructure: Charlotte, Kansas City, Indianapolis, Columbus, in about that order.
9. Crime: Most of these cities are close to each other, but it's more of a problem in Kansas City.
10. Diversity: None of these cities make anybody's list for racial/ethnic/etc. diversity, but it seems to me that Charlotte and the Trangle may hold the lead here.
11. Education levels of the residents: The Triangle and Austin top this list.
12. Public transportation: Charlotte, then a scrum involving KC, Austin and Indianapolis. Charlotte has the best-developed rail transit system. KC just took a groundbreaking step.
13. Health care. The Triangle first, then Columbus, then the rest.
I think the three Midwestern cities will hit their stride (again, in KC's case) in the later years of the period we're talking about, but I'd pick Charlotte overall out of these.
*Anyone know when the forum backend will get its formatting and support for HTML display back?
Last edited by MarketStEl; 01-13-2020 at 11:00 PM..
I live in and love Austin but no offense, based on the criteria I'm seeing here, many of these are going to be more apt for Raleigh or even Nashville and Indianapolis rather than Austin.
1. Future population growth. Will these cities/metros still be in the same peer group of cities with one another 30 years from now:
Austin will probably outgrow all of these cities within 30 years.
2. Brightest future / economic prosperity.:
It's pretty close with Nashville and Raleigh but Austin wins -ONLY IF YOU'RE IN TECH- for all around economic diversity, Charlotte.
3. Big city Amenities - such as parks, libraries, museums etc.
Austin in parks and libraries. Museums, I'm unsure but Austin is not known for them.
4. Food/restaraunts
Austin
5. Culture
Raleigh
6. Cost of living
Raleigh
7. Night life
Austin
8. Infrastructure
Indianapolis <=> Raleigh > Nashville > Austin
9. Crimes
Hard to say, Austin is pretty safe from what I've seen but I'm not sure how the other metros fair in terms of crime.
10. Diversity
Raleigh
11. Education levels of residents
Austin <=> Raleigh
12. Public transportation
Charlotte > Indianapolis > Austin > Nashville
13. Health care
Raleigh
14. Street/road/highway congestion.
From best to worst:
Indianapolis > Raleigh > Charlotte > Nashville > Austin
Last edited by Need4Camaro; 01-14-2020 at 09:26 AM..
Honestly alot of these cities on this list are also helped by the fact that they are state capitals (Austin, Columbus, Indianapolis, Nashville, and Raleigh). That means regardless of the economy there will always be a slight advantage they have by being the center of their state's political scene in that they will be a little more diverse economically and not just manufacturing like you find in many cities in the Midwest and South. They can diversify a little more easily.
Several of these cities are aided by the fact and will continue to be viewed as big cities if they retain major sports. In Austin's case Univ of Texas. In Charlotte, Nashville, Indianapolis, Kansas City and Jacksonville they have NFL, NBA, Hockey or multiple of these that help. Yes, they would be large cities that could grow without these sports, but don't underestimate wanting to provide housing, amenities for super start athletes as a way to attract them to a city. These organizations also create many jobs and pump lots of money into neighboring businesses. The one drawback and potentially a financial conundrum with these teams is when/if they hold the communities hostage for bigger and better stadiums that can tie up tax dollars or city revenue.
Someone said, "why did Indianapolis and Columbus get ranked higher than they thought." Here's where I think Indy and Columbus might get the nod in being able to grow and expand in ways some of these other cities can't:
I know that in looking at all of these cities we are looking at suburbs too as in the metro area, but I do think what will truly be interesting and start to separate some of these cities will be HOW they grow from here. The lakes, rivers, hills/mountains around some of these cities are major draws to the area for people. Who doesn't want to be far away from these types of amenities, beauty, outdoor activities, etc? HOWEVER, those same things can hinder growth. One of the things mentioned is traffic congestion and infrastructure. Those can make it harder to live further from the downtown/ work areas. I still think companies will want to move to those areas, but there may be some times where finding a suitable site for their company and places to live for their employees could complicate some of that. Will these cities be able to grow UP and not just grow OUT. Others of these cities like Columbus and Indianapolis are a little less constricted by natural surroundings and that could lead to them, while not being a haven for outdoor activities, seeing more significant growth than some that might be limited by physical features. State lines while not a physical feature could impact a place like Charlotte or Kansas City where taxes or laws in one state may not be as ideal for living or working and thus cut off some of the growth.
If the cities don't have great mass/public transportation and do have physical features limiting growth than housing and other COL will increase whereas Columbus and Indianapolis having more ability to expand out means housing costs will stay lower since there won't be a lack of housing in desirable areas like you'd maybe see in a Nashville or Austin. I think Indy and Columbus will also need to get more mass transit, but from most suburbs it's 30 to 45 min drive even in rush hour. Whereas in rush hour trying to get to say Lake Travis in Austin area can be a nightmare from what I've heard/read. Just look at examples like Chicago, Philadelphia, LA, and others. People are only willing to expand so far into the suburbs before the commute becomes too much of an issue. People in Chicago don't typically want to be as far west as Elgin or Aurora because that commute starts to get over an hour and that's just by Metro, driving would be worse.
I think all of these cities are in really good spots economically to continue to grow into the future because they have diversified economies, are close to institutions of public learning, have a lot of either outdoor activities or other cultural events to attend, and (currently) decent COLs. However, as stated I think the biggest separation of how their legacy continues going forward becomes will be who starts to either prioritize public transit/infrastructure that allows either growing UP or growing OUT.
I don't think there is one set answer as it really depends on what people in those cities and areas value, age of residents (we know millenials are typically more on board with living downtown than suburbs), and what is the state's/city's political agenda (conservative or liberal could potentially hinder economic development or infrastructure depending on what they value).
To me, the operative word the OP used is "new." And from the list the new cities on a national scale that are hitting strides are:
Charlotte
Austin
Raleigh
I think we are hearing about these cities when it comes to politics, sports, business, and livability.
To me, the operative word the OP used is "new." And from the list the new cities on a national scale that are hitting strides are:
Charlotte
Austin
Raleigh
I think we are hearing about these cities when it comes to politics, sports, business, and livability.
I see what you're saying, but pace the 1979 Robert Altman film, I would include Nashville in this category too.
Yes, it's had a national reputation for years thanks to its being the epicenter of the country music industry, but as a big city, it's a relatively recent arrival to the club: Memphis historically held that role among Tennessee cities. (It had a political boss in the 1930s who had a national reputation similar to that of Boss Tom Pendergast in Kansas City. Anent the latter: Missouri's only President, Harry S Truman, got elected to the U.S. Senate in 1934 after serving as Presiding Judge of the Jackson County Court (="Chair of the County Commissioners"). Wags called him "the Senator from Pendergast.")
Charlotte, Austin, Raleigh and Nashville have the "Juice" right now. And should continue for the next decade or so. Jacksonville despite it's size has been an underdog forever and is largely absent from conversations with it's peers, and may finally start to come into it's on this decade.
Indianapolis, Columbus and Kansas City had their boom years several decades ago and I feel now have very steady growth patterns and have the bones to support large cities in the future.
For the win. Charlotte which has been doing the right thing for a while now with good leadership, Austin (as long as they can manage COL and transit) much the same with Nashville.
Raleigh-Durham has all the right pieces for continued long-term growth and is arguably the most diversified economically of the bunch.
I'm from Raleigh, and now live in Austin and was glad to see this posted yesterday by a local news outlet. The city is well aware of it's increasing transit issues and has grand ideas to add to the red line with green, and blue lines and potentially a subway as well.
Charlotte, Austin, Raleigh and Nashville have the "Juice" right now. And should continue for the next decade or so. Jacksonville despite it's size has been an underdog forever and is largely absent from conversations with it's peers, and may finally start to come into it's on this decade.
Indianapolis, Columbus and Kansas City had their boom years several decades ago and I feel now have very steady growth patterns and have the bones to support large cities in the future.
For the win. Charlotte which has been doing the right thing for a while now with good leadership, Austin (as long as they can manage COL and transit) much the same with Nashville.
Raleigh-Durham has all the right pieces for continued long-term growth and is arguably the most diversified economically of the bunch.
I'm from Raleigh, and now live in Austin and was glad to see this posted yesterday by a local news outlet. The city is well aware of it's increasing transit issues and has grand ideas to add to the red line with green, and blue lines and potentially a subway as well.
Saw that too; it will be one of the items in this week's "New Starts" column on Next City. That should be available on the site tomorrow (Thursday 1/16).
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.
