Top 3 cities that are the biggest miss (cost, state, better)

[Logicist027]

Which cities do you think miss the mark the most in the states? When I say miss the mark, I mean either they are smaller or less well developed than they should be. Which places are under-performing? Which places perform well but could easily perform much better? Give us at least a top 3.

[Logicist027]

I'll start it off. I'll go

1. Houston - This place didn't need to be so ugly. It would have been great had this place developed in a much better way. Imagine if they had kept the bayous as parks and they didn't develop so much on the floodplains. This place could be a warm weather nice city close by the coast. It could have still grown to be a large size, but much more loved if it was developed differently. Texas doesn't need two large cheap cities. (Dallas & Houston) Dallas could have been the cheap one and Houston could have been the nicer one.

2. San Diego - Not because it's not a really nice city, but it could easily be a great city. By stopping ~3 million they are still too much in LA's shadow. That place should at least be double the population. It would be a premier city in the world if it was a large city.

3. Birmingham - It has a nice university, decent location and could have extended the southeast farther west. Because it didn't get much better, it didn't join Atlanta in becoming a far better city. It would be nice if Alabama's largest city was much nicer. Also it would be better because all of Alabama would be much better.

4. Seattle - I think today Seattle holds the country back by not growing much more. It has much of the same issue that San Diego has, it doesn't want to get really big. For being a tech capital and beauty capital, this place should aspire for more. It would be nice if the PNW had one really large city and this one makes the most sense for it to be that city. Seattle should look to double it's population rather than push for slow growth. Not to mention this place is much more insulated from the bad effects of climate change.

[mhays25]

The Seattle area does allow growth. Every county and significant municipality is required to accommodate 20 years of growth per State projections. We just limit sprawl, and pile on costs. And the theoretical 20-year concept means that despite frequent upzones we're always behind, making land expensive. We also don't do much to recruit corporate relocations, but those are questionable anyway given the handouts the big ones tend to require.

As for the main topic, I don't really get the premise.

[18Montclair]

I suppose just about every major metro region in the country could sustain a lot more people even with their current economies...

based on 2020 data

CSAs/MSAs Population if GDP Per Capita was $50,000(Difference from Official Population)
New York CSA....41,047,720(+18,556,000)
Los Angeles CSA.. .25,011,200(+6,381,000)
San Francisco CSA..22,023,060(+12,414,000
Washington CSA....16,052,980(+6,180,000)
Chicago CSA...14,230,020(+4,459,000)
Boston CSA...13,496,500(+5,202,000)
Dallas CSA....11,049,310(+2,862,000)
Houston CSA....9,932,720(+2,591,000)
Philadelphia CSA...9,877,600(+2,633,000
Seattle CSA...9,409,380(+4,456,000)
Atlanta CSA...9,289,940(+2,340,000)
Miami CSA...7,919,800(+1,011,000)
Detroit CSA...6,111,420(+787,000)
Minneapolis CSA....5,832,140(+1,785,000)
Phoenix CSA....5,655,720(+541,000)
Denver CSA...5,390,760(+1,738,000)
San Diego MSA....4,808,220(+1,475,000)
Cleveland CSA.....4,179,280(+601,000)
Portland CSA....4,054,340(+771,000)
Orlando CSA....4,030,180(-199,000)
Tampa MSA.....3,385,000(+141,000)

[jjbradleynyc]

I'll add these--

*Memphis, TN--
cons--crime is too high, too many neighborhoods that are in bad shape: vacant lots, underutilized lots, low density, rough looking houses, bad schools. Not enough high paying white collar opportunities. The Graceland area still is a bit tacky and sits in a sketch region--needing a completely redevelopment/improvement plan. Nashville up the road, has left Memphis in the dust.
pros--in recent years, downtown and the surrounding neighborhoods have a lot of new construction development, and redevelopment of older buildings. Midtown is established, somewhat walkable in some areas, and very nice. The metro region is growing well in several areas (Desoto county, MS and eastern suburbs)

*Louisville, KY--
cons--crime has ticked up the past couple of years. The pandemic really hit downtown hard, and tourist traffic is minimal, some places out of business. Downtown has a lower residential population than it should, and the pandemic and BLM protests have not helped, but really hurt both growth and perception here. Should have a pro team and a better airport. Local gvt resists growth and lots of change-a bit parochial thinking regionally still.
pros--lots of cool neighborhoods, great originals for the city with Louisville Slugger, Muhammad Ali birthplace, Bourbon Trail, Kentucky Derby. Great bones for historic buildings in many neighborhoods--lots more potential.

[masssachoicetts]

1. St. Louis- Literally was set to be a top 5 city back in 1900. Even a top 10 city was guaranteed in 1930. But the city destroyed itself so much, continued to make poor decisions and fell to a city far below what it was worth to be. Built to be. It would be a Boston, Philadelphia, DC by now.. and instead... it's more or less relevant as a Pittsburgh, Buffalo or Orlando.

2. Portland OR.

3. San Antonio- Hopeful for its future though.

[Nemean]

Of the Alabama cities, I'd actually say Mobile is the one that underperforms compared to potential the most. All the major Alabama cities could be on this kind of list. Even Huntsville underperforms in a sense compared to other historic tech areas (though it looks like people have woken up to it recently), but Mobile is the biggest offender. It really ought have the clout of other historic southern ports along the lines of Savannah, Charleston and New Orleans, but it lags behind. Alabama as a whole actually has taken advantage of its "lagging behind" in that across the state in that it allowed a sense of historic building preservation to kick in before mass growth. Alabama still needs to up its wildlife preservation, though. The Forever Wild Land Trust has done a lot and is quite popular in the state, but the state has an abnormally high amount of wildlife that ought be preserved with abnormally low country-wide recognition. Mobile Bay is particularly affected in such a way. It feels weird to say, but Alabama could set up itself to be the "smart growth" sunbelt state if it tried.

Another area I'd say is Toledo, OH. It actually has a nice location, getting the benefits of the Great Lakes with less of the lake effect snow.

For a city not growing much compared to others in the state, I'd say Corpus Christi, TX. It's got some nice looking beaches, and a potential hook as a Hispanic civil rights city.

[908Boi]

Baltimore

[KodeBlue]

Originally Posted by 908Boi

Baltimore

This

[treemoni]

If select midwestern cities got their ish together and could join forces with others in the region, the midwest would give the coastal areas a run for their money. The midwest has more land. Unfortunately, this is a pipe dream. Too many chiefs.....