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 just spend a week there last summer with my friend in Seattle. It's a changing place but not for the better.
A lot of people think Seattle is growing to fast. Pike Place Market expansion , 1 billion dollar convention center expansion, 250 million dollar Aquarium expansion , West Lake Center mall expansion, Amazon Jungle Biosphere all downtown with dozens of towers. Also several new parks like South Lake Union and Waterfront park.
I want to mention Oklahoma City....it's not a "cool" city in any way and still punches well below its weight for its size but 10 years ago there was pretty much nothing. Downtown was entirely abandoned and dilapidated and was comparable to Amarillo as far as things to do. Now, it's an alright small city with quite a bit of new housing as well as bars/restaurants and I would say it competes pretty well with cities in the 500,000-900,000 metro range (a tier below where it should be). If it wasn't for the weather and how conservative it is, I would think it would have the chance at being up and coming, at least as much as places like Omaha and Jacksonville are.
Other than that, I have to say Austin, Denver, Portland, and Seattle. It's hard for any place to compare to those cities in terms of growth and change.
DC hands down. It went from Murder Capital to prolific gentrification. Some may point to one or two areas of their cities, but it's dwarfed in comparison to what happened in DC. The demographic changes alone are pretty massive.
No other city had this scale or amount of turnaround in this short a time period.
You're right:
Quote:
Washington has had a significant African American population since the city's foundation.[92] African American residents composed about 30% of the District's total population between 1800 and 1940.[25] The black population reached a peak of 70% by 1970, but has since steadily declined due to many African Americans moving to the surrounding suburbs. Partly as a result of gentrification, there was a 31.4% increase in the non-Hispanic white population and an 11.5% decrease in the black population between 2000 and 2010.[93]
There's a fair argument for NYC for change over the last two decades. I still think New Orleans had the most significant change, but NYC also had a huge change between 1996 and 2016, not for better or worse, but just different in a lot of ways and to many more people than most cities. You would think that a massive city would have so much inertia that change is hard to come by, but the differences especially in the outer boroughs are pretty severe. Besides the huge drop in crime, there's also the huge influx of Asian immigrants in the city which has changed things considerably what with all those and the massive change that the 9/11 attacks wrought.
In 1995 Minneapolis had 99 homicides which gave it a rate of 26 per 100,000. That is lower than Baltimore and Detroit today, but higher than Philly, Chicago and Oakland. I used to hear gunshots all the time and it seemed like the city was on the edge of falling apart. You would not know that city from the Minneapolis that exists today.
Lots of new stuff has been built too, but the biggest change has been in the vibe of the city. Everywhere you went in the inner half of the city there were storefront brothels, gang tags, and drug deals on the corner.
Last edited by Drewcifer; 01-18-2016 at 09:23 PM..
I gotta add Boston as well ..it's booming right now, growing faster than it has since the 70s .. and now suddenly its transforming into a huge center for tech and innovation. GE is moving their world headquarters there. It's definately stepping up its game. Not bad for a 350 year old city
The Cardinals have been around for more than 20 years. In fact they're one of the oldest in the league. They've only existed in Arizona for about 30 years though. (Damn you Bill Bidwill)
The Cardinals are one of two original franchises in the NFL. It surprised me when they mentioned that during Saturday night's broadcast, so I looked it up. Turns out it's true. The Cardinals have been around longer than the Green Bay Packers.
The Cardinals in Chicago go back to the late 19th century. Chicago-St. Louis-Arizona over the past 118 years. The Cardinals and Bears represented Chicago in the NFL in 1920, and Green Bay entered in 1921. Except for a few newspapers, nobody covered these teams at the time. TV was still decades away, and radio was still experimenting with few stations, and the NFL was not on their radar. But perhaps we are getting off topic here. Sorry.
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.
