What is the most quintessential sunbelt city? (neighborhoods, zoned)
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.
I've often wondered this. What is the first city that comes to mind when people think of the sunbelt. I think some primary criteria for being sunbelt are.
Massive growth in the past 20 or so years.
New sprawling suburbs that outperform the inner city core.
Booming economy
Warm climate
Strong interstate system
I would say Phoenix, or maybe Vegas. The reason is unlike the other cities on the list, both of them were virtually nonexistent prior to the 1950s. In contrast, you can find more individual neighborhoods in Atlanta, LA, Dallas, Houston, and Miami which don't really fit the Sun Belt "stereotype."
First city that came to mind was Phoenix fits the description very accurately, Vegas would be my next choice. Yeah, I could see L.A. coining the term, but it doesn't wear it quite like phoenix, and Vegas do.
Los Angeles held the title before anyone else.
I'm not even sure the moniker would even exist if not for LA.
The term "Sun Belt" was invented by Kevin Phillips in 1969. Los Angeles was already the third largest city with 2.8 million by then. Hell, Los Angeles already had more than 1.2 residents in 1930 - which is well before there were many car-centric neighborhoods. The core of the city has been heavily upzoned, but it's fundamentally early 20th century streetcar suburbia more than postwar automotive suburbia (which is more in the real suburban areas, barring the San Fernando Valley). It certainly doesn't look like old east coast cities (LA has almost no surviving Victorian buildings outside of Downtown - it only had 100,000 people in 1900), but it doesn't look like sprawlville either.
Not LA. It's actually not growing that fast anymore compared to a few decades ago; during the 2000s, a number of its inner-ring suburbs actually lost population. LA is also pretty dense for a Sunbelt city, at well over 8,000 per square mile. For context, that's denser than Milwaukee or Seattle and comparable to most inner-ring Chicago suburbs.
I'm going with Phoenix, Atlanta, or Houston. Probably Atlanta or Houston, since I think Phoenix is largely attracting retirees and families rather than Millennials.
Not LA. It's actually not growing that fast anymore compared to a few decades ago; during the 2000s, a number of its inner-ring suburbs actually lost population. LA is also pretty dense for a Sunbelt city, at well over 8,000 per square mile. For context, that's denser than Milwaukee or Seattle and comparable to most inner-ring Chicago suburbs.
I'm going with Phoenix, Atlanta, or Houston. Probably Atlanta or Houston, since I think Phoenix is largely attracting retirees and families rather than Millennials.
Wouldn't this be backwards?
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton
I would say Phoenix, or maybe Vegas. The reason is unlike the other cities on the list, both of them were virtually nonexistent prior to the 1950s. In contrast, you can find more individual neighborhoods in Atlanta, LA, Dallas, Houston, and Miami which don't really fit the Sun Belt "stereotype."
I'm going with Phoenix, Atlanta, or Houston. Probably Atlanta or Houston, since I think Phoenix is largely attracting retirees and families rather than Millennials.
This just in, Millennials are having children.
You're welcome.
This just in, Millennials are having children.
You're welcome.
Pretty soon millennials will be the primary spenders.
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.