Skyscraper City Forum banner
1 - 20 of 40 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
204 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I have noticed in the US that many states just have one big metro area but in my home state of NC there are really three big metros; Charlotte, Triangle, and Triad (pop 1M+). I was looking for some opionions on this. Do you think it hurts a state like NC to have three metros or help it? I look at cities like Atlanta, Denver, Minneapolis, and Las Vegas to name a few and it appears that the density tends to help their state in getting mass transit, skyscrapers and so forth. I know CA and TX have plenty of metros with more than 1 million and it doesn't hurt them but the also have a combined pop. of close to 60 Million. NC is only 8.5 Million and very small compared to their state size, so what do you think?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,319 Posts
If urban feel is what we want, we don't need large numbers to achieve that. If our area's economy is stable and provides a good environment to major corporations, then skyscrapers may follow. Density and good transportation options will improve, but this depends on the local officials, not exclusively on the population numbers. For as long as the city allows sprawling, unconnected communities to pop up all over the place, we can kiss transportation initiatives goodbye :( Whether we have 500,000, 1 million, or 5 million people, we won't get what we want, unless we plan well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,229 Posts
If you had one city with a 4 million metro instead of three with 1-2 million, you'd probably have better chances of all of those things. The reason TX and CA have several cities with big-city amenities is that they have several big, big cities---metros over 5 million. You can't expect any of your smaller cities to be on par with Minneapolis, Atlanta, etc.

As far as state funding for these types of projects though, I'm sure it helps to have only one major metro so that the funds don't have to be divided. I know there are always disputes about Tulsa thinking it's not getting a fair share of state funds.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,098 Posts
I like the way our 3 "big" metros are scattered about the state. The economy is different in each metro, and it is more evenly spread throughout the state giving the state a more homogeneous feel.

A state with one huge metro will hurt if it's economy hurts. A state with 3 fairly large metros with different ecomonies will fare better. I liken it to a plane with 3 engines........if one goes out, the others keep it going. If a plane has one huge engine and it goes out, they are screwed.

Plus, I just like how no one metro totally dominates the state......the population is evenly distributed. :)
 

·
...wolf in cheap clothing
Joined
·
734 Posts
It's better to spread the wealth, so to speak, than for everything to be concentrated in a single place, which causes everything else in that state to be ignored. It's worst in the case of Boston or Atlanta when not only is there one gigantic city in the state, but it's also the state capital. Barring a political dynasty that has built up its clout for decades, money will always pour into Atlanta and Boston before it trickles into someplace like Macon, Columbus, or Savannah, or Springfield or Worcester.

The only thing I'd change is for one of the big metros to be here in the mountains. We often feel ignored by Raleigh except when they're ramming another road project that nobody wants down our throat.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,098 Posts
samsonyuen said:
Don't they all compete with each other though, with three cities? That's one advantage of a singular metro.
Our "big 3" : Triangle (Raleigh/Durham/Chapel-Hill), Triad (Greensboro/Winston-Salem/High-Point), and Charlotte don't really compete with each other as much as people like to think because they all have different economies.

I will say that sometimes people from Charlotte will bitch about Raleigh (our state capitol) using funds for themselves and projects for the eastern part of the state.
So there is a little friction between the Charlotte and Raleigh areas.... :runaway:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,845 Posts
samsonyuen said:
Don't they all compete with each other though, with three cities?
That can be a good thing, in some ways.

But the situation is the same in SC. Columbia, Charleston, and Greenville are all roughly the same size, but the economies have different emphases. Even the coastal areas, Charleston, Myrtle Beach, and Beaufort-Hilton Head, have different vibes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
204 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
I would say to the competition question posed is that we all have different industries that we attract and are going after. The Triangle is tech/pharmacutical Charlotte is banking/financial services and Triad is Manufacturing ( ie Dell) and Consumer services (ie Krispy Kreme).

Now you will get surprises like when Credit Suisse chose the Triangle to build a campus with 800 employees, or Fidelity interested in bringing 5000 employees to the Triangle or Charlotte have a bio tech campus built outside in the burbs that will amount to $1 billion in investment there. The Triad announced recently that is it going to market itself better for the biotech/ pharmacutical jobs. This competition I think can be good because the companies can see that they have more than one area to choose to house their facilities.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,319 Posts
triadcat said:
So there is a little friction between the Charlotte and Raleigh areas.... :runaway:
The politicians in Raleigh have nothing to do with the city. They don't represent it, they don't understand it, and quite frankly they don't care about it. Our friends from Charlotte - or any other NC city - need to open their eyes and see that Raleigh doesn't get as much as they may think it does. Sure, it is the capitol of the state, but it doesn't exactly get its fair share as a city. If those who complain actually lived in this area they would have formed a different opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,261 Posts
Charlotte & Raleigh tensions are rather more unique than other relationships - not only is there an economic & cultural rivalry, but also the very traditional city/region vs state capital. Often it's not specifically the capital city itself, but what it represents politically. But other times there may be an assumption that the capital city might take advantage of it's position.

...I don't know.

But otherwise - I'm not sure if any option is any better. Or feasible, if Raleigh, Durham, Greensboro, Winston Salem - or even Greenville & Spartanburg, SC weren't larger - would Charlotte be? Hard to tell if Charlotte is prospering from taking advantage of a populous region. But maybe Charlotte would be larger.

Nonetheless it's a moot point.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,098 Posts
Raleigh-NC said:
The politicians in Raleigh have nothing to do with the city. They don't represent it, they don't understand it, and quite frankly they don't care about it. Our friends from Charlotte - or any other NC city - need to open their eyes and see that Raleigh doesn't get as much as they may think it does. Sure, it is the capitol of the state, but it doesn't exactly get its fair share as a city. If those who complain actually lived in this area they would have formed a different opinion.
Tell that to the Charlotte forumers at Urban Planet. I haven't been there in a while, but it seems they like to bitch about Raleigh every once in a while.

I agree......it's only the politicians in Raleigh that are the ones that determine where state funds go, not the city.
But like I said.....tell that to the Charlotte forumers :runaway:
 

·
I'm Panamerupean!!!!!!!
Joined
·
1,432 Posts
That's what I think sometimes.

Some examples are Seattle and Washington,Phoenix and Arizona,Atlanta and Georgia,New York City and New York,Chicago and Illinois,Milwaukee and Wisconsin,Oklahoma City and Oklahoma. (New York also has Buffalo but it is not even close as the massive NYC)...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
325 Posts
I don't understand why there's a rivalry between Raleigh and Charlotte. They're the biggest and fastest-growing cities in the state, but the similarities end there. There's practically nothing to be rivals about.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,845 Posts
panamaboy9016 said:
Some examples are Seattle and Washington,Phoenix and Arizona,Atlanta and Georgia,New York City and New York,Chicago and Illinois,Milwaukee and Wisconsin,Oklahoma City and Oklahoma. (New York also has Buffalo but it is not even close as the massive NYC)...
OKC doesn't dominate Oklahoma; you also have Tulsa.

And Madison is a great contender in Wisconsin as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,061 Posts
When people in Charlotte do not blame Raleigh for roads and etc., it is the NC politicians that meet in Raleigh to make laws and pass out funds to the state.

Raleigh does not get any more than Charlottle or the Triad. All the large cities in NC are getting short change from the NC politicians, due to the formula they use to fund these cities and the rural areas of the state.

I go to Raleigh a lot to see family, and I do not think Raleigh is getting an unfair share of money from the state. They get more new building for the state goverment, because it is the state capital.

I don't think the city of Raleigh Center City is not organize as Charlotte Center City Partners.
Raleigh
http://www.raleighnc.gov/portal/ser...ontent/dept/public/Dept-AboutUs-Planning.html

Charlotte
http://www.charlottecentercity.org/nav800.cfm?cat=21&subcat=115
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
97 Posts
this converstaion makes me remember of a converstaion I had when I was transfered to our Charlotte to work (when I was HR rep at the RDU Airport). He told me "many people here in Charlotte always thought Raleigh was biggest city in the state." I corrected him of course, but he said that because he always thought that all capitol cities were large cities. we all know thats not the case.......but it did feel good to hear him say that even though it was n't true. Some state capitol are the largest cities in their state (Columbia)but if they are not the largest, they are a major city in the state.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
325 Posts
On a national scale, very few states have the capital as the largest city, while also having other major cities in the state. A handful have the capital as the only major city (Georgia, Colorado, Arizona, Utah).

Minnesota and Tennessee are the closest examples I can think of. Neither's capital is the largest municipality, but both are in the largest metropolitan areas, and both have other major cities.

North Carolina is following the path of the largest states: California, New York, Texas, with several major cities, one of them being the capital, and another being the largest city.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,845 Posts
Quadrilateral said:
On a national scale, very few states have the capital as the largest city, while also having other major cities in the state.
Off the top of my head: South Carolina, West Virginia, Ohio, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Iowa

Just wanted to count. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,790 Posts
Quadrilateral said:
On a national scale, very few states have the capital as the largest city, while also having other major cities in the state. A handful have the capital as the only major city (Georgia, Colorado, Arizona, Utah).

Minnesota and Tennessee are the closest examples I can think of. Neither's capital is the largest municipality, but both are in the largest metropolitan areas, and both have other major cities.

North Carolina is following the path of the largest states: California, New York, Texas, with several major cities, one of them being the capital, and another being the largest city.
Colorado as Colorado Springs, close to 800,000 (I believe). Arizona has Tuscon, a metro very close to one million.

And I like the way Texas is distrubted:

Dallas/Fort Worth: the banking center of the state, with a population of 6.1 million.

Houston: the oil/energy and aerospace center of the state, with a population of 5.4 million.

San Antonio: the military and tourism center of the state, with a population of 1.9 million.

Austin, the Capitol: the computer and technology center of the state (Silicon Hills), with a population of 1.5 million.

El Paso: another military head for the state, with a population of 750,000.
 
1 - 20 of 40 Posts
Top