What goes around, comes around
Throughout the early to mid-aughts, the national media jumped all over the Charlotte story. Formerly sleepy Southern town, driven to national prominence by the dual banking powers of Bank of America and Wachovia (and their predecessors). The story had everything: outsize personalities (Hugh McColl), country-boy-sticks-it-to-the-city-slickers, New South striving, plus that added air of exoticism that national (read: New York) media always attaches to the South.
But with the banking, ahem, situation, that story has changed. First the Washington Post (in a story by an Observer alum, no less) and now, of all papers, Toronto's The Globe and Mail (the New York Times of Canada) have written essentially the same story: banking boomtown goes bust.
Of course, we can quibble with the details: Charlotte isn't really busted, the job loss here hasn't been as dramatic as feared, Bank of America actually played a key role in saving the financial system (by buying Countrywide and Merrill Lynch), but the story is simply to easy too pass up.
I'm an editor; I know.
The dirty secret of editing a magazine or a newspaper is that too often, the editor decides what the story is before the actual reporting is done (never at this magazine, of course). Sometimes, the reporter decides. To me, that was clearly the case with the Washington Post story. It probably wasn't as thinly reported as it read, but I have little doubt that either reporter Binyamin Appelbaum decided what the story was in advance, or, more likely, his editor said, "Yo, Applebaum! You used to work in Charlotte, right? Go write me a story about how that little Southern upstart got what was coming to it." Or something like that.
Don't worry. The story will change. In a couple years, editors won't be able to resist the story of the banking boomtown that went bust and then made a remarkable comeback. But for now, we might want to get used to these kinds of stories. And remember that any press is good press--read the comments of the G&M story. With each article, each comment, Charlotte becomes less anonymous. All great cities experience setbacks. This is ours, and unfortunately it makes for a great story.
Link to G&M story, "Charlotte: The town that Bank of America took down" (Yes, of course it's a ridiculous headline. But it's irresistible for a Canadian copyeditor)
Email
Print
Feed
Richard Thurmond is editor and associate publisher of Charlotte magazine and its four sister publications. He started his journalism career as a sportswriter before he realized sportswriting = bad hours and low pay. Oh well. He's been on staff since 1995 and editor since 1999. Also, he thinks he is funnier than he really is, which is helpful information for reading this blog. Got something to say but too chicken to comment? 
Reader Comments:
Richard, you are simply too smart to write this sort of thing.
Why the assumption of a "remarkable comeback" -- I thought Uptown was already chockful of cheerleaders.
Yes, a comeback MIGHT happen, but it might not -- especially when you look at the tax rolls, the 990s of local non-profits (eg Foundation for the Carolinas got roughly a cool mil from Wachovia in 2008 -- does that happen again, forever?) and the jobless numbers.
Yes, there were massive problems with the G&M story, mostly the hyper hed. But the overhang represented by the Golden West and Countrywide portfolios is massive as well. And very real. Charlotte -- Uptown specifically -- sat at the tippy-top of a decade-long and trillions of dollars wide Ponzi scheme. No other way to blurb it.
The climb down from that illusion will be tricky and dangerous. And do not believe for a second that all the VPs and SVPs who were pulling down six-figure bonuses building that investment house of cards will be remotely useful going forward. Ditto the service industries that grew up to stroke them and buy glossy magazine ads by the 10K worth. What actual value-add skills do they have?
Just consider -- and I have no problem being 100% wrong on this -- that Charlotte from 1995-2007 was the equivalent of Silk Road boom town. Maybe not a Loulan, but perhaps closer to a Detroit than anyone in the local gilded class wants to admit.
In any event, that a Canadian fly-by dispatch produces such a backlash is telling in and of itself.
MeckDeck,
Thanks for the comment and the compliment. You're right, there's no guarantee of any kind of comeback. And my use of the word "remarkable," well, that was less of an assumption than a suggestion that such a thing would make for a better story, which is what I was trying to get at.
Still, though, call me boosterish, but I do think Charlotte will make some sort of comeback. This is not a city resigned to its fate like post-steel boom Pittsburgh or recent-years Detroit or New Jersey pretty much anytime. We're not saddled with deep-seated political corruption, there's no ingrained and broken way of doing things. The weather's nice. What shape that comeback takes, I don't think we know yet. Who's behind it, I don't think we know yet (look for a post on that soon). But I do believe that the story will change.
What exactly do we want to "comeback" to? To the Tryon Street "hookers & blow" banking excesses? To the boom of cookie-cutter McMansions homes filled with silver spoons and golden toilets? To the starched, squeaky clean banktown image that made so many young creatives say, "Charlotte? Meh."
I know many will disagree with me, but I think Charlotte needs some grit. Grit like you see and feel in places like Philly and Brooklyn. Take down Tryon's velvet ropes. Park a taco truck on the Green.
Bring some of the real city vibe of Central Ave. and NoDa to Southpark and Uptown. Create a regional artist community and watch inner city neighborhoods thrive through the SoHo effect. Make Charlotte a Mecca for tech start-ups and see the next Google overshadow the banks.
Lose the starch, embrace the grit, become a real city. That's how to comeback.
We cover the history of Charlotte from the mid 1700's until today on Charlotte's Longest-Running Daily City Tour by Queen City Tours and Travel and based on our knowledge of area history, Charlotte has always been lucky in that when one industry takes a nose dive, another one takes its place; e.g. banking replaced the textile industry. In addition, let us not forget that gold was first found near here in 1799.
As a former citizen of Pittsburgh, I take offense at your comment that Charlotte is not resigned to Pittsburgh's fate. After everything that's happened, it should be so lucky. Pittsburgh has reinvented itself, it's now a hub for research and health care. It's biggest problem now is getting the message out about its reinvention. Charlotte, even at the height of banking glory, has always been the kid jumping in the background all "hey, look at me, I matter too" So really, are these two cities so different(weather, sports teams, and age of construction aside)?
As a former citizen of Pittsburgh, I take offense at your comment that Charlotte is not resigned to Pittsburgh's fate. After everything that's happened, it should be so lucky. Pittsburgh has reinvented itself, it's now a hub for research and health care. It's biggest problem now is getting the message out about its reinvention. Charlotte, even at the height of banking glory, has always been the kid jumping in the background all "hey, look at me, I matter too." So, are the two cities really so different(weather,sports teams, and age of construction aside)?