How can Georgia's second tier cities grow to rival their counterparts in the Carolinas? (Atlanta: 2013, apartment)

[cwkimbro]

Norton,

I think you are mistaken from the numbers you copied over from your source.


Ultimately, it isn't a past-present difference. There are many great things about Georgia's cities, but they still haven't achieved the wealth of their counterparts further north.

I'd highly recommend comparing the BEA's GDP by Metropolitan areas. It really highlights where the wealth is and where the money is flowing.

[JoeTarheel]

This is all fine, but it's kind of hard to talk about GA while excluding 1/2 of the state (Atlanta). You can compare the other cities all day, but the fact is that Atlanta has more people and a higher GDP than the entire state of SC. It's hard to ignore that part of it.

[JoeTarheel]

Originally Posted by cwkimbro

Norton,

I think you are mistaken from the numbers you copied over from your source.


Ultimately, it isn't a past-present difference. There are many great things about Georgia's cities, but they still haven't achieved the wealth of their counterparts further north.

I'd highly recommend comparing the BEA's GDP by Metropolitan areas. It really highlights where the wealth is and where the money is flowing.

...unless you include Atlanta (as it should be) - then Georgia blows them out of the water. It's pretty hard to discuss Georgia while excluding Atlanta.

[cwkimbro]

Originally Posted by JoeTarheel

This is all fine, but it's kind of hard to talk about GA while excluding 1/2 of the state (Atlanta). You can compare the other cities all day, but the fact is that Atlanta has more people and a higher GDP than the entire state of SC. It's hard to ignore that part of it.

Joe,

This isn't a state vs state match.

We are discussing the question by the OP. The reason I'm asking we ignore Atlanta is it brought wealth to the area for very special circumstances that will not apply to Georgia's secondary cities. We are lucky to have the Geographic gem that became Atlanta, but it doesn't change where wealth is in the American South in the smaller cities and the rural landscape.

[cwkimbro]

Originally Posted by JoeTarheel

...unless you include Atlanta (as it should be) - then Georgia blows them out of the water. It's pretty hard to discuss Georgia while excluding Atlanta.

Again, this is not a state vs state match.

We are discussing the question directly posited by the OP

[Newsboy]

Originally Posted by cwkimbro

Again, this is not a state vs state match.

We are discussing the question directly posited by the OP

Except there's one fact that simply can't be ignored (and this is the point that is being made): If not for Atlanta (if the metro area DID NOT EXIST) there is absolutely NO doubt that each of Georgia's 2nd tier cities would be MUCH larger and MUCH more influential than they are today. Given the geography, natural resources and history of Georgia, it is 100 percent safe to assume that -- had Atlanta never been founded -- Macon, Augusta, Columbus and Savannah would ALL be large metros on the scale of the Carolina metros, if not larger. I'm talking MUTLIPLE METROS with 1-2 million residents. Everything about this state would be different -- from the state capital and certer of commerce, politics and education to the interstate system.

It is absolutely impossible to answer the OP'S question without acknowledging the very real fact that Atlanta's history, size and influence has affected growth in other parts of the state. How can Georgia's 2nd -tier cities grow to be rival Carolina cities? Roll back History 150 years and ELIMINATE ATLANTA!

[Columbuskidd92]

Macon does have a higher GDP than Florence....

2014

Macon 8.5 Billion
Florence 8.0 Billion

http://www.usmayors.org/metroeconomi...311-report.pdf

[cwkimbro]

Originally Posted by Newsboy

Except there's one fact that simply can't be ignored (and this is the point that is being made): If not for Atlanta (if the metro area DID NOT EXIST) there is absolutely NO doubt that each of Georgia's 2nd tier cities would be MUCH larger and MUCH more influential than they are today. Given the geography, natural resources and history of Georgia, it is 100 percent safe to assume that -- had Atlanta never been founded -- Macon, Augusta, Columbus and Savannah would ALL be large metros on the scale of the Carolina metros, if not larger. I'm talking MUTLIPLE METROS with 1-2 million residents. Everything about this state would be different -- from the state capital and certer of commerce, politics and education to the interstate system.

It is absolutely impossible to answer the OP'S question without acknowledging the very real fact that Atlanta's history, size and influence has affected growth in other parts of the state. How can Georgia's 2nd -tier cities grow to be rival Carolina cities? Roll back History 150 years and ELIMINATE ATLANTA!

But comparison purpose you must.

This also is a big assumption that all the development in Atlanta would be spread around in Georgia and has no impact on other cities in the Southern region.

Most of the investment and boom Atlanta got was from outsiders needing to access a hub that could bring in supplies from across the south and energy (coal) from the Midwest and access the heavy population of the northeast.

The issue is for comparison purposes with the exception of state government institutions the effect Atlanta had on investment from the South would have been very real for the Carolinas (especially south Carolina) , eastern Tennessee, and Alabama.

All the development Atlanta attracted, if the lynchpin fro the southern Appalachians didn't exist, could have gone to a number of places well outside Georgia as well. Atlanta wasn't built to access Georgia's resources, it was built as a hub to access resources across the south, the lower Midwest, and get coal energy.

Greensboro, Columbia, Charleston, Chattanooga, Birmingham, etch... are not immune from those amen affect just because there is a state border.

[therealpattman]

I made this thread primarily to focus on what our cities are missing that their Carolina counterparts have. Folks have beaten the Georgia city vs city to death, but I see very few that ask why the Carolina cities are doing so much better. Outside of huge tax breaks for large corporations and increase competition what are the Carolina's cities doing that are making them so much larger both in population and GDP? Personally I think it has to do with better connectivity and the increase of money into its larger areas as opposed to Georgia. While Atlanta may be the king of the south and the face of the state, the rural sectors of Georgia particularly South Georgia own the state. The state pours money into rural Georgia sometimes at the expense of Atlanta's infrastructure. In both Carolina's in seems to be the opposite. Riding on the interstate through most rural towns and you can tell the states haven't done anything with them. South Georgia continues to build 4 lane divided highways with very few users.

[therealpattman]

Originally Posted by Atlanta-Kid

Greenville isn't included?

Greenville is kind of it's owm beast. It's really not comparable to any city in Georgia. It has no large military installation nor major university, I mean Clemson is near but it's in Clemson and not Greenville.