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.
Not a fan of WV but haven't been to Charleston so I won't comment on that. I will say that Roanoke doesn't seem terrible, just outdated and run down in many areas.
There's a big difference in the vibe/feel of these cities in my opinion. Charleston is more yuppy and growing fast. Birmingham is not either.
Charleston has a distinct food "flavor" called LowCountry which is kinda cajun, kinda southern, and kinda spicy. It's strong but good. There are some very fancy restaurants in each city, but Charleston's fancy restaurants have more character and charm. Charleston also has better/more seafood obviously.
The historic parts of Charleston are actually tourist attractions where thousands of people are out walking.. While Birmingham has some great historic buildings, they're not really tourist attractions.
Lastly, if you want to go on a long jog in Charleston, you can cross the bridge or run on the beach. There are not many good jogging paths in Birmingham more than a mile or two long.
I love and lived in both cities and this by no means Birmingham isn't great too.
Charleston has a distinct food "flavor" called LowCountry which is kinda cajun, kinda southern, and kinda spicy. It's strong but good. There are some very fancy restaurants in each city, but Charleston's fancy restaurants have more character and charm. Charleston also has better/more seafood obviously.
Never heard of the Low Country food category but that sounds interesting. I hear Charleston has one of the best foodie scenes in the country. I believe a chef from there was featured on a popular Netflix show.
Charleston, SC is deep lower, coastal South with giant Live Oak trees, Spanish Moss, Palmettos, and coastal scenery. It has lots of Old South character.
Birmingham didn't even exist until after the Civil War, although it grew explosively in the late 1800's and early 1900's. The setting is at the tail end of the Appalachians, so the scenery is very different from Charleston's with hills and ridges covered in hardwoods and pines. The "look" is more consistent with other interior, upland places of the Southeast like Atlanta, Chattanooga, Nashville, etc. Birmingham does blend well with the Deeper South, though, so you do see some (less impressive) Live Oaks, lots of Camellias, big azaleas, Gardenias, etc.
Oh sorry. I would say both of those metros offer an upgrade in amenities over Charleston WV or Roanoke. Mainly in things like restaurant options and entertainment. Also, both Birmingham and Charleston SC will have a better social/night life for when you want to get out of the house and meet some people. Both will have better/more luxury items like shopping, clubs, golf, etc.
Also, Birmingham's downtown feels more "urban" to me as it has a better skyline and city feel. While Charleston's downtown is more livable and developed.. But Birmingham is doing a great job on that front. In 10 years, downtown Birmingham will be much more livable for someone like me who has pretty high demands.
Also, I don't think there's "a point" to which the tables suddenly turn. That's very geographical and dependent on the local industry. But if I had to put a number on it, I'd say when your metro is 1 million + is when things should start to change.
Charleston, WV will offer mild winters with the least amount of humidity. A big city beach person would love Charleston, SC. A outdoorsy slower paced mountain person would love Charleston, WV.
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.