SkyscraperCity Forum banner

Big Rustbelt cities vs. Small/midsized Sunbelt cities

5702 Views 57 Replies 13 Participants Last post by  NLouisianaJay
Which do you see poised to perform better in the years to come: big Rustbelt cities (e.g., Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh) or small/midsized Sunbelt cities (e.g., Raleigh, Huntsville, Jacksonville), and why?

P.S.--I'm considering metro/urbanized area populations when I speak of size.
Not open for further replies.
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
People never see the real side of Atlanta. The booming urban areas are hidden from downtown. I absolutely love the character from all of our different neighborhoods around the city. Take for example the edgewood area-east of downtown. (i think that's its name) There are lofts converted from an old shoe factory, and retail stores converted from warehouses and factories. This is the same development happening in cities like milwaukee, chicago, cleveland, ect. It is ridiculous how people have formed this ideological idea of atlanta having a few downtown towers and tons of sprawl shooting out like bamboo trees. Atlanta is just like any old american city these days that is having a downtown condo boom/ gentrification. But It is still evident that the sprawl rate is extremely higher than most northern cities.

Oh^^and the only thing Atlanta really misses is a huge natural landmark. Say-mountains, navigable river, ocean, great lake, ect. Providided, atlanta does have the chat. river, stone mountain, & countless amount of trees.
To each city its own. No need to compare cities. I thought this type of vs. discussion was banned...mods? But anyways.....
Like I said, Atlanta does not have the big natural landmark like an OCEAN, RIVER, GREAT LAKE, MOUNTAINS. That does not take away from the city whatsoever, but it does make a difference to some people if they want to live there. The trees, hills, and gorges give atlanta a beautiful landscape, but not a natural landmark.
Oh and btw, these are mountains:

Downtown is not near stone mountain, or visible appalachians mountains. Yes, we have hills and valleys, but not 9,000 feet peaks within viewing distance. Allatoon and Lanier do not equal great lakes or an ocean. Atlanta is a basically a land-locked city. This still does not inhibit it from a top transportation hub in the country.
Thank you for the geography lesson, I've never seen a mountain before...the Appalachians aren't mountains??? There are two huge lakes, Allatoona and Lanier, and the Chattahoochee River runs through Atlanta. But I think you're just wanting an whatever you want to say, of course. It's a subjective matter, and I think Atlanta does have as much a natural landmark in Stone Mountain as anywhere else. What other city has a huge piece of exposed granite sticking out of the Earth?

Just a side note - a sandpile can be considered a natural landmark.
Sorry for the 'natural landmark', as it should have been national/signifigant natural landmark.
do you mean to say cities are not near the great lakes? If thats true: chicago, milwaukee, cleveland, toledo, toronto, rochester, buffalo...need I say more?

Im in atlanta right now...I do not see mountains. Im sticking with my opinion.
I wouldn't think so, since most cities aren't near those...
I think allatoon and lanier (reservoirs?) are beautiful, but too far from downtown for me
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Not open for further replies.