The Rustbelt cities are given that name for a reason. I'm not sure what you mean when you say that I'm implying that they are "on their way down," but the fact of the matter is that their performances have seriously slipped since their glory days. Of course this is not a pronouncement of final doom, nor does it mean that they currently don't have anything working in their favor economically, but the reality is indeed that they are not performing nearly as well as they once were. Conversely, the opposite is true of several Sunbelt cities.
I can already tell from just looking at those figures, without doing any calculations, then when you consider how the GMP of the smaller/midsized Sunbelt cities has grown percentage wise, they are outcompeting the Rustbelt cities. Just look at the Jacksonville and Cleveland figures. Obviously Cleveland has a larger GMP, but in terms of absolute growth, Jacksonville grew by the same amount as Cleveland. However, I think that the Rustbelt cities still have an advantage simply due to their size and all that goes along with that, like their larger GMPs; however, how much of an advantage will that have in the long run compared with the rapidly-growing Sunbelt cities? That question is along the lines of what I wish to explore here.
You can't just say, "Oh, those cities are smaller so of course they will have faster growth." Look at some of the larger Sunbelt cities, such as Dallas, Atlanta, Phoenix, etc. that already have large GMP figures and high GMP growth. It is this loss of "market share" that I'm highlighting here, as I think it would have something to do with future economic growth and performance.
As I stated in an earlier post, I'm speaking of Rustbelt and Sunbelt primarily in an economic sense here, not in terms of geographical location. I fully realize that there are cities that are geographically located in the Rustbelt that are doing quite well economically and have managed to escape the Rustbelt reputation, and that there are cities geographically located in the Sunbelt that tend to have more in common with declining industrial urban centers in the North and Midwest. For the comparison as I've set it up here, size and long-term growth will be the wildcards. I asked the question because I wanted to get others' thoughts on this. I know you may be a bit sensitive to this topic as you hail from the Rustbelt, but this isn't a "Bash the Rustbelt!" thread and I really don't appreciate you foisting that implication on me. I actually believe that in terms of urban diversity, the Midwest holds the title in the U.S. and I'm rooting for a comeback for those declining urban centers that have much to offer in several respects that the typical Sunbelt city cannot presently match. I just simply want to get people's thoughts on how these two categories of cities will perform over the long term in view of their advantages and disadvantages and then make comparisons--nothing more, nothing less. If you think the advantages that the large Rustbelt cities currently enjoy position them for greater economic growth and prosperity over time, then just say that and say why. But please don't act like the question isn't at least worth exploring, even if you personally feel that way.
I agree with your first assesment, but I hardly think that climate ranking high on someone's priority list when it comes to relocating is shallow. Of course it's not everything, but when combined with economic opportunity and the like, it makes much sense.
These are also good points, but something else should be taken into consideration, which is a highly educated workforce. I don't know the exact figures, but I know that several of the large Rustbelt cities are having trouble retaining college graduates, whereas that is no problem for some of the smaller/midsized Sunbelt cities, particularly Raleigh. Of course, all industries don't require a large swath of its workers to hold masters degrees, but a highly educated workforce usually bodes well for all sectors of employment growth across the board in a metropolitan area. The irony of this is that some of the large Rustbelt cities actually have great institutions of higher learning, such as Pittsburgh. They definitely have what it takes to turn the tide, which is already starting to happen in several of them (such as Pittsburgh), but they have a big perception problem to overcome.
I just think he meant that Atlanta really isn't as geographically defined as some other cities out there, even some not too far away (e.g., Chattanooga, Greenville, Augusta). As much as I love Atlanta, I must admit that the city's immediate geographical setting is pretty boring.
That's basically what I was getting at. And yes, that Chattahoochee runs through Atlanta, but one would be very hard pressed to argue that it prominently figures into the cityscape.
