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 picked Phoenix of the cities/metros on your list. I'd also throw in Charlotte. It meets the criteria, but the central city is very nice and not in decay like many other large U.S. cities.
I've often wondered this. What is the first city that comes to mind when people think of the sunbelt. I think some primary criteria for being sunbelt are.
Massive growth in the past 20 or so years.
New sprawling suburbs that outperform the inner city core.
Booming economy
Warm climate
Strong interstate system
So growth, warmth, and transportation is all that matters?
How about scenery, leisure activities, culture, food, friendliness, quality of life? "Quintessential" shouldn't ignore those factors. Otherwise, you're just talking about city that's growing and able to keep up with the transportation element. That's just work and rat race stuff.
So growth, warmth, and transportation is all that matters?
Along with actual geography, those would be among the primary elements that define the Sunbelt. We're not talking about an actual "best cities" list here.
Along with actual geography, those would be among the primary elements that define the Sunbelt. We're not talking about an actual "best cities" list here.
Well, as someone from the "sunbelt", I'd never rate places in the region strictly on work and economic factors. Lifestyle and leisure factors are just as important.
Well, as someone from the "sunbelt", I'd never rate places in the region strictly on work and economic factors. Lifestyle and leisure factors are just as important.
Apparently you're still looking at this from a "best cities" perspective. Lifestyle and leisure factors have little to nothing to do with the actual meaning and history of the term "Sunbelt."
I would say Phoenix, or maybe Vegas. The reason is unlike the other cities on the list, both of them were virtually nonexistent prior to the 1950s. In contrast, you can find more individual neighborhoods in Atlanta, LA, Dallas, Houston, and Miami which don't really fit the Sun Belt "stereotype."
Bingo before the Sunbelt boom, and interstate project DFW, Houston and Atlanta where already a million people.
Atlanta and Birmingham are gild age cities, That boom into major cities 1870-1910.
Than LA, Dallas, Houston, Miami started to boom 1900- 1940
Cities like Charlotte, Orlando, Raleigh, Austin, Las Vegas are cities that became major cities post 1950's, 1960's. With in the Sunbelt era.
So a lot of the core neighborhoods have small yard plots. closer to the street, and were built before the popular use of drive ways. as shown in the picture above and below.
Phoenix is winning, but I'm voting for Dallas (including Fort Worth and its suburbs). It's literally right at the buckle of the Sunbelt and is the fastest growing metro area, even more so than Phoenix. Of course, a wide network of highways, new urbanism development (another important criterion), the lack of heavy rail mass transit. It continues to sprawl heavily and continues to receive lots of transplants, while having a rather underwhelming fine arts scene for a city its size. Not to mention its wide array of suburban/secondary city downtowns and activity areas: Ft. Worth, Plano, McKinney, Mesquite, Frisco, Denton, Arlington, Garland, Irving, Richardson, Richland Hills, Grand Prairie, and even some others. The "massive growth in 20 years" is a bit too little since this would only imply the 21st century for the most part, when in reality it basically describe growth since the late 1960s, right when air conditioning became mainstream, or about the last 50 years or so.
Phoenix is next closest, but its a little TOO hot/sunny compared to the others. Houston would be third with a similar layout to Dallas, but is a little less sunny due to the Gulf and increased humidity, plus there isn't as diverse of a collection of suburbs and secondary cities like you'll find in DFW. I'd put Atlanta at fourth, thanks to the still large sprawl present but with less of a transplant growth rate compared to its peers, and can get quite cloudy at times due to high humidity. Los Angeles was classically this for much of the 20th century, but is starting to develop more in the lines of more dense, non-sunbelt cities with a rapid expansion of transit, decreased affordability, and a culture scene that basically meets or exceeds all other legacy, non-sunbelt cities.
Last edited by Borntoolate85; 01-11-2018 at 07:31 AM..
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.
