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.
What he is saying is not that Charleston hasn't grown, but by annexing property, they've been able to capture some of that growth in their boundaries. Charleston has 90 something square miles to its name. Greenville has 26 or so. Thus, if Greenville tripled its land area, it too would have a significantly larger population.
At the end of the day, Greenville and Charleston areas are essentially the same size in terms of population.
If I can chime in here, Charleston has in fact grown primarily through annexations over the past 30 years. But not by way of annexing developed tracts. It annexed tracks of undelveloped land such as Daniel Island that have been subsequently developed and have added thousands of new residents. Sure Charleston annexes individual existing homes but this only represents a small portion of the overall growth of Charleston. So Charleston has grown through new influx of new residents, especially over the past 15 years.
If I can chime in here, Charleston has in fact grown primarily through annexations over the past 30 years. But not by way of annexing developed tracts. It annexed tracks of undelveloped land such as Daniel Island that have been subsequently developed and have added thousands of new residents. Sure Charleston annexes individual existing homes but this only represents a small portion of the overall growth of Charleston. So Charleston has grown through new influx of new residents, especially over the past 15 years.
Charleston actually has over 100 sq miles.
Thank you. You are right. Annexation of developed areas has been quite small in the last fifteen to twenty years. Our largest growth is from people moving in from other States.
Just because you chose the hick upstate that does not mean everyone else would. Some like elegance over sticks. Charleston was sophistacated before Greenville was in existence.
I have a second home in Western NC and it feels like the upstae of SC. In the sticks.
Your spelling & childish behavior tell me that you know nothing about elegance. If you do have a second home, I'm sure you visit it when mommy & daddy plan a trip up there. Now it's past your bedtime, so run along son.
Your spelling & childish behavior tell me that you know nothing about elegance. If you do have a second home, I'm sure you visit it when mommy & daddy plan a trip up there. Now it's past your bedtime, so run along son.
I'm sure you know not what you are talking about. So you run alone and leave the thinking to others. BTW have you ever heard of a TYPO before?? Probably not.
Last edited by Scotty011; 08-28-2011 at 07:41 PM..
If I can chime in here, Charleston has in fact grown primarily through annexations over the past 30 years. But not by way of annexing developed tracts. It annexed tracks of undelveloped land such as Daniel Island that have been subsequently developed and have added thousands of new residents. Sure Charleston annexes individual existing homes but this only represents a small portion of the overall growth of Charleston. So Charleston has grown through new influx of new residents, especially over the past 15 years.
Charleston actually has over 100 sq miles.
Exactly what I'm talking about. In the end though, it really makes no difference as to how it's done. The fact is that comparing city growth in SC makes ZERO sense. But, yes, Charleston was proactive in obtaining land that could lead to growth, and thus grew because it annexed land.
What's amusing, however, is that Scotty is making all these claims.
Exactly what I'm talking about. In the end though, it really makes no difference as to how it's done. The fact is that comparing city growth in SC makes ZERO sense. But, yes, Charleston was proactive in obtaining land that could lead to growth, and thus grew because it annexed land.
What's amusing, however, is that Scotty is making all these claims.
My claim is exactly like he said above. Very little annexation of developed land occurred in the last twenty years. Undeveloped land was annexed and people from elsewhere moved here. You are claiming that all annexation was with already developed land. This is absolutely incorrect. Out of staters came in and developed this land.
My claim is exactly like he said above. Very little annexation of developed land occurred in the last twenty years. Undeveloped land was annexed and people from elsewhere moved here. You are claiming that all annexation was with already developed land. This is absolutely incorrect. Out of staters came in and developed this land.
I said Charleston has annexed land and been able to grow. The status of development on that land is unimportant.
Anyway, what is the population point you're trying to make? You're very adamant on insisting that out of staters have been moving in droves to the CITY of Charleston.
Very little annexation of developed land occurred in the last twenty years. Undeveloped land was annexed and people from elsewhere moved here. You are claiming that all annexation was with already developed land. This is absolutely incorrect. Out of staters came in and developed this land.
Does it make a difference whether or not new annexation includes established residential neighborhoods or not? Cities often annex undeveloped land with the intention of increasing their tax base by encouraging the development of new residential space. Basically, the end result is the same either way. A city may add to its tax base, while its metropolitan area may not be growing at the same rate.
Personally, I believe Charleston is well positioned for long-term prosperity with the addition of a Boeing manufacturing plant.
I'm not ready to discount the powerful I-85 corridor though. It is established and has plenty of room to expand. Greenville County alone added more than 70,000 residents during the last ten years. The city directly benefits from population growth within its metropolitan area.
For jobs, it would be Greenville but everything else goes to Charleston. It's in a fantastic location, better scenery, weather, etc. It's got a beautiful downtown with nice historical buildings. It's my favorite city in the Southeast.
That's a matter of opinion really. If you consider hurricanes blowing though better weather you've lost your mind. While I like Charleston I'll take Greenville because they have four seasons which Charleston doesn't. As someone else said Asheville is an hr away give or take, the Blue Ridge parkway isn't much further. This is like comparing the mountains to the beach it's a personal thing. I'm not big on picking sand out my arse all the time. Traffic sucks the times I have been to Charleston the tourist don't help. It's like living in a resort town. I'll pass I do like the small town feel that Greenville has. I like the mountain air as well. As I said before it's a matter of personal opinion.
Last edited by reed067; 08-31-2011 at 06:41 AM..
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.
Charleston was sophistacated before Greenville was in existence.
