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.
Another superimposed image of the Carroll South of the Ballpark office tower.
The site across the street from the Hyatt Place where that parking lot and law firm offices are located would be a great location for the 5,000 seat arena the city has in its 2030 plan. Imagine seeing that in the backdrop from the ballpark as well.
Would become the Sports and Entertainment District.
A pretty cool market and wine/cocktail bar is opening soon in the old Preyer Brewing spot beside Machete Restaurant. Its called "The Borough Market and Bar". Seems like a unique concept that offers something different. Should do good in that spot.
Another superimposed image of the Carroll South of the Ballpark office tower.
The site across the street from the Hyatt Place where that parking lot and law firm offices are located would be a great location for the 5,000 seat arena the city has in its 2030 plan. Imagine seeing that in the backdrop from the ballpark as well.
Would become the Sports and Entertainment District.
Are you kidding me? Many companies in primarily white collar sectors are not bringing their business to cities where they feel they will have a hard time recruiting and retaining the types of employees they tend to hire. If people don't feel safe or otherwise comfortable, they aren't going to want to live in those areas and that translates to a big problem for the company. That's just one of the bigger considerations that comapnies have when selecting where they want to establish business. When considering where to invest, they do consider a whole range of things, such as QOL, crime stats, taxes, per capita income, education opportunities and quality of the educational system, political climate, racial makeup, and other demographics.
This is why you see southern cities like Atlanta, Nashville, Charlotte, and Raleigh continuing to land many, many more high paying jobs as compared to Birmingham, Columbia, Richmond, and Greensboro.
Companies tend not to locate in high crime areas within a city; those are the places where people don't feel particularly safe.
Crime rates should be interpreted in context, not within a vacuum.
It would be unrealistic to expect Greensboro to go from where it currently is straight to competing with the likes of Atlanta, Nashville, Charlotte, and Raleigh. Attracting economic investment more along the lines of Richmond, Charleston, Greenville, etc. would be much more realistic and representative of real progress.
Whether it's here or anyplace else, companies look for many of the same qualities in a city under consideration for a home. Reasonable levels of taxation, access to a skilled and educated workforce, honest and efficient government, location, sound infrastructure. And yes, crime and safety. On your two particular points, I'll have to disagree. I find city and county leaders to be forward-thinking and pragmatic with regard to attracting business and growing the local economy. Sitting between Charlotte and Raleigh, Greensboro's not likely to hit a home run. It's singles, doubles and fundamentals here to win the game, with the Randolph Megasite and the available PTI parcel being the exceptions that come to mind, but it's when and possibly even if. And taxes are already low compared to competing metros. Moving forward and certainly with respect to attracting future business, the areas of law enforcement, education and infrastructure will need more money, not less. Everybody wants lower taxes, myself included, I just don't see it as a practical vision for Greensboro or Guilford County. Keep taxes low while emphasizing location, infrastructure, a local airport with robust aerospace growth capacity, multiple higher learning institutions as well as a plentiful labor pool. And we need "light rail" like an Eskimo needs ice.
I should note that I wasn't speaking in general in that post but had Greensboro specifically in mind. Realistically, the next level of economic investment for Greensboro isn't Apple, Google, Oracle, etc. but more like some of Spartanburg, SC's recent wins. And I can assure you, while Spartanburg has made much progress in recent years, it's not utopia and isn't statistically dissimilar from Greensboro in many respects. I'm aware that it has other advantages that Greensboro doesn't mostly related to geography, but it's a close enough comparison.
Companies tend not to locate in high crime areas within a city; those are the places where people don't feel particularly safe.
Crime rates should be interpreted in context, not within a vacuum.
It would be unrealistic to expect Greensboro to go from where it currently is straight to competing with the likes of Atlanta, Nashville, Charlotte, and Raleigh. Attracting economic investment more along the lines of Richmond, Charleston, Greenville, etc. would be much more realistic and representative of real progress.
I totally agree with you. I'm just saying don't leave out certain factors that weigh heavily on decisions made by C-level executives and site selection committees when trying to understand why a company may or may not choose a certain area over others.
Crime rates and the overall perception of a city's safety usually always play a big part in those decisions, regardless of what city you're talking about.
I totally agree with you. I'm just saying don't leave out certain factors that weigh heavily on decisions made by C-level executives and site selection committees when trying to understand why a company may or may not choose a certain area over others.
Crime rates and the overall perception of a city's safety usually always play a big part in those decisions, regardless of what city you're talking about.
I'm glad you mentioned perception because I think that tends to be a much more important factor than actual crime rates. Places with a reputation for violent crime specifically tend to have more of an uphill climb in terms of attracting economic investment as opposed to cities with high crime rates which lack such a reputation.
When looking at this list of the 50 most dangerous cities in the country, several--especially within the top 5-10--certainly do have a reputation for violence but quite a few others don't, such as Albuquerque, Anchorage, Wichita, Nashville, Houston, Chattanooga, Tulsa, Indianapolis, and Cincinnati. DC certainly used to have that reputation, but it's waned a good bit over the past two decades. I think the latter group tends to have a combination of sustained high crime rates over the long term, moderate to high levels of urban blight, economic and population stagnation, political corruption, frequency of egregious crimes (e.g., mass shootings), level of social unrest in the recent past, not as strong of an appealing identity in other areas, etc. which give them the reputations they have. Many of the cities that lack a violent reputation just aren't known for much of anything at all nationwide which is helpful when it comes to its cons, but not as helpful when it comes to its pros. I think Greensboro falls into that category and being located in North Carolina, whose reputation the Republicans in the state legislature haven't managed to completely destroy over the past decade, gives it a bit of a boost.
Practically, I think potential companies are mostly looking at the geography of violent crime in the cities they zero in on. If it tends to be relegated to certain parts of town that can be avoided relatively easily, that's definitely more assuring than crime patters that are more randomized and dispersed.
Everybody can't be Nashville, arguably the #1 media darling city these days with surging popularity and a positive cultural identity completely eclipsing any sort of reputation for crime.
I'm glad you mentioned perception because I think that tends to be a much more important factor than actual crime rates. Places with a reputation for violent crime specifically tend to have more of an uphill climb in terms of attracting economic investment as opposed to cities with high crime rates which lack such a reputation.
When looking at this list of the 50 most dangerous cities in the country, several--especially within the top 5-10--certainly do have a reputation for violence but quite a few others don't, such as Albuquerque, Anchorage, Wichita, Nashville, Houston, Chattanooga, Tulsa, Indianapolis, and Cincinnati. DC certainly used to have that reputation, but it's waned a good bit over the past two decades. I think the latter group tends to have a combination of sustained high crime rates over the long term, moderate to high levels of urban blight, economic and population stagnation, political corruption, frequency of egregious crimes (e.g., mass shootings), level of social unrest in the recent past, not as strong of an appealing identity in other areas, etc. which give them the reputations they have. Many of the cities that lack a violent reputation just aren't known for much of anything at all nationwide which is helpful when it comes to its cons, but not as helpful when it comes to its pros. I think Greensboro falls into that category and being located in North Carolina, whose reputation the Republicans in the state legislature haven't managed to completely destroy over the past decade, gives it a bit of a boost.
Practically, I think potential companies are mostly looking at the geography of violent crime in the cities they zero in on. If it tends to be relegated to certain parts of town that can be avoided relatively easily, that's definitely more assuring than crime patters that are more randomized and dispersed.
Everybody can't be Nashville, arguably the #1 media darling city these days with surging popularity and a positive cultural identity completely eclipsing any sort of reputation for crime.
Image and perception is everything. As we know, the media can make or break a city, despite the true facts around crime statistics, culture, etc. Look at Detroit. Most people have no interest in living there or visiting there simply based on how that city has been protrayed by the media.
That could be a possible site. I know talks of a convention center on that site have been going around.
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.
