If this matters…
Comment. Send a letter you'd like me to post. Like the Hickory Hound on my various platforms. Subscribe. Share it on your personal platforms. Share your ideas with me. Tell me where you think I am wrong. If you'd like to comment, but don't want your comments publicized, then they won't be. I am here to engage you.
Get in touch: hickoryhoundfeedback@gmail.com
HKYNC News & Views Nov 23, 2025 – Executive Summary , SEO, Cheat Sheet, Key Pointa
Hickory Hound News and Views Archive
-----------------
📤This Week:
(Tuesday): Hickory 101 - Lesson 3 – Hickory as a Legacy City - Here we talk about what it means to live in a “legacy city”—a place that once thrived but now struggles to adapt to change. You’ll learn how Hickory fits that pattern and why understanding it is the first step toward fixing it.
(Thursday): ⚙️Structural Schisms 4 - The Immigrant Labor Undercurrent - Hickory’s economy runs smoothly on the surface, but its foundation depends on people few ever talk about. Immigrant workers fill the jobs that keep the city functioning—building homes, serving meals, and caring for the aging population. They’re part of the community in every way but name, yet the system that needs them most gives them the least in return. This report looks at how that imbalance formed, why it continues, and what it means for Hickory’s future.
-----------------
📤Next Week:
(Tuesday): Hickory 101: Lesson 4 – The Hound’s Method - By the end of this lesson, you will begin to observe one aspect of how Hickory works — using the tools of data, observation, and lived experience — so that you’re no longer just looking at the town, but discovering how one part of its system operates.
(Thursday): ⚙️Structural Schisms 5: The Cost of Control - Good government depends on coordination. When that coordination breaks down, even well-intentioned efforts start working against one another. The Cost of Control examines how fragmentation, duplication, and competing jurisdictions make progress harder than it should be.
-------------------------
🧠Opening Reflection:
There is a hard truth forming across North Carolina that most officials are reluctant to say out loud: the state is not growing evenly, and it never has. What growth we do see is highly concentrated in a small handful of places, while large stretches of the state are holding steady at best and quietly eroding at worst. Hickory sits squarely inside that quiet erosion reality.
Charlotte, Raleigh, Asheville, and Wilmington have become the state’s economic anchors. These four cities do not just grow — they carry growth. They attract population, capital, infrastructure, institutional investment, and political attention. They generate the wage growth, the national headlines, and the measurable momentum. When statewide economic numbers look strong, it is because these four cities are doing the heavy lifting. When they cool, the state feels it immediately.
Hickory, by contrast, represents the other North Carolina — the one built on production, manufacturing, and self-reliance, but no longer located at the center of the modern economy. We are not collapsing, but we are not accelerating. We are not shrinking in population, but we are shrinking in relevance. We are watching jobs become more fragile, housing become more expensive than the local wage structure can support, and opportunity concentrate elsewhere.
The pandemic did not change this. It exposed it.
While Charlotte and Raleigh adapted and accelerated, while Asheville and Wilmington absorbed waves of new residents and outside capital, Hickory struggled to convert stability into momentum. We saw housing tighten without wages rising. We saw labor thin out without new pipelines forming. We saw infrastructure arrive in pockets without translating into broad-based economic lift. This is not about envy. It is about structure.
North Carolina is functioning as a state carried by four cities while the rest of the map is expected to survive on nothing. When you remove Charlotte, Raleigh, Asheville, and Wilmington from the data, what remains is not a strong middle — it is a fragile one. The state’s economic scaffolding is narrow, and Hickory is living inside the shadow of that design, not to the benefit of it. The question is no longer whether this concentration exists. It is what regions like Hickory are willing to do about it.
2023 North Carolina Geographical Regional Economic Distress Rankings
-----------------------------
⭐ Feature Story ⭐
Hickory versus the 4 North Carolina cities that are growing
Every city begins with a set of circumstances that shape its trajectory long before anyone calls it a “metro” or imagines its future scale. Geography, politics, industry, infrastructure—these early forces determine how a place grows, what kind of people it attracts, and what kind of economy it eventually becomes. To understand why Hickory diverged from Charlotte, Raleigh, Asheville, and Wilmington over the last century, you must begin with the foundational conditions that produced each city’s identity. These origins are not just historical footnotes; they are the structural DNA that still governs their direction today.
Hickory’s beginnings were modest and practical. The town emerged from a rail stop and developed around the furniture, textile, and fiber industries that became its signature. Its early economy relied on local craftsmanship, manufacturing skill, and an independent, production-driven culture. Hickory grew because it made things—goods that were shipped out of the region and into national markets. This gave the city a century of stability, but it also created a narrow economic base that struggled to evolve when global manufacturing shifted and industrial consolidation took hold. Hickory’s origin story is rooted in labor, industry, and self-sufficiency, traits that remain evident in the region’s character but also limit its ability to adapt without deliberate reinvention.
Charlotte emerged under entirely different conditions. It began as a transportation and trade hub, positioned at the crossroads of rail lines and commercial routes that connected the Carolinas to broader markets. Over time, Charlotte developed a merchant class, attracted early capital, and positioned itself as a financial center. The combination of geographic advantage, business ambition, and regulatory shifts eventually made it the banking capital of the Southeast. Charlotte’s growth was not an accident; it was the compound effect of infrastructure, capital concentration, and a long-term posture toward expansion. This early orientation toward commerce—not manufacturing—set the stage for the explosive metropolitan growth that followed.
Asheville’s origin story diverges from both the industrial Piedmont and the financial core of Charlotte. Located in the mountains, Asheville became a destination rather than a production center. It grew through tourism, health retreats, the arts, and the influx of seasonal residents drawn to its climate and scenery. This gave the city a service-based, hospitality-driven identity from the outset. Although Asheville’s early booms were unstable and vulnerable to economic cycles, its long-term appeal as a place people choose for lifestyle rather than employment laid the groundwork for its modern reinvention as a creative, cultural, and retirement hub.
Raleigh’s beginnings rest on political and institutional foundations rather than market dynamics. As the state capital, Raleigh benefited from stable public employment, administrative infrastructure, and the gravitational pull of universities and state agencies. These early advantages insulated the city from the volatility that affected industrial centers across the region. When Research Triangle Park was established in the mid-20th century, Raleigh’s institutional foundation gave it the capacity to absorb new industries, attract high-wage employers, and build a diversified knowledge economy. The city’s origin as a government and education center positioned it for long-term resilience and upward mobility.
Wilmington’s early identity was shaped by water. As a port city, its economic life centered on shipping, naval operations, trade routes, and the Cape Fear River. Although it suffered major setbacks after the Civil War, Wilmington’s maritime foundation provided a pathway to recovery through naval installations, port activity, and eventually tourism and coastal migration. The city’s origin as a gateway—connected to the world rather than enclosed within the Piedmont—gave it a dynamic, if sometimes uneven, growth pattern driven by external demand and geographic advantage.
Understanding these origins clarifies why North Carolina’s cities followed such different paths. Hickory grew through industry but lacked institutional anchors. Charlotte concentrated capital and became a financial power. Asheville leveraged natural appeal and lifestyle migration. Raleigh built around governance, universities, and research. Wilmington relied on its port and coastal position. These starting points created long-term trajectories that still define each metro’s capacity for growth, resilience, and adaptation. The divergence seen today did not begin in the last decade or even the last fifty years; it began at the beginning, in the founding conditions that shaped what each city could become and what it could not
The 5 cities — PRE-1900s
Population Trajectories and Foundational Dynamics Before the Turn of the Century
By the late 19th century, the five cities in this comparison—Hickory, Charlotte, Asheville, Raleigh, and Wilmington—had already taken on the basic shapes that would define their future possibilities. The decades leading up to 1900 reveal how early advantages compound, how geography and institutional power create different forms of gravity, and how a city’s original function influences its long-term economic ceiling. Population growth during this period is more than a demographic note; it is a measure of a city’s pull, resilience, and relevance during the formative years of modern North Carolina.
Hickory entered the 1890 Census with a population just over 2,000 residents, making it the smallest of the five by a wide margin. This reflected its early-stage development as a railroad stop and emerging manufacturing town. The city’s growth was real but constrained by its youth, its distance from major trade corridors, and its limited economic base. Hickory was a functional town—productive, self-contained, and industrious—but it did not yet possess the scale or diversification that would allow for rapid early expansion. Its pre-1900 growth was steady and meaningful for its size, but modest when compared to the explosive rise seen in the state’s urban centers.
Charlotte, by contrast, had already become a regional node by 1890 with more than 11,500 residents. Its role as a transportation and commercial crossroads allowed it to grow quickly even before the banking era that later defined it. Charlotte’s early strength came from its position in the Piedmont’s emerging trade network and its ability to attract merchants, capital, and labor. Its pre-1900 growth rates—consistently strong and structurally supported—revealed a city already capable of outpacing its neighbors in both scale and momentum. Charlotte entered the 20th century not as a small mill town but as an urban center with the infrastructure and ambition to grow far beyond its regional peers.
Asheville experienced one of the most dramatic early growth trajectories in the state. By 1890 it had surpassed 10,000 residents, despite its isolated geography. Its expansion was driven by tourism, health retreats, and the appeal of mountain environments to wealthy travelers from outside the region. Asheville was not built on industry or trade; it was built on desirability. The city’s pre-1900 population surge—one of the fastest in North Carolina—reflected a local economy dependent on visitors, seasonal residents, and service professions rather than factories or state institutions. While this created early volatility, it also established Asheville as a destination city long before other regions recognized the value of lifestyle-based economies.
Raleigh’s pre-1900 identity was defined by its role as the state capital. With more than 12,600 residents in 1890, Raleigh maintained a stable population rooted in government employment, educational institutions, and administrative functions. While Raleigh did not grow as aggressively as Charlotte or Asheville during this period, its base was durable; public-sector stability insulated it from the economic shocks that affected trade and tourism communities. Raleigh’s early trajectory reflected the long-term value of institutional anchors—universities, government offices, and public infrastructure that generate steady employment and steady population growth even in periods of national or regional volatility.
Wilmington entered the 1890 Census as the largest of the five cities, with a population just over 20,000. As North Carolina’s principal port, Wilmington benefitted from maritime trade, naval activity, and access to global shipping routes. Despite suffering catastrophic losses during and after the Civil War, its port economy enabled it to rebuild and maintain a larger and more diversified population base than any city in the Piedmont. Wilmington’s pre-1900 growth established it as one of the state’s major urban centers—one whose fortunes rose and fell with the tides of global trade but whose foundational economic role ensured long-term significance.
Taken together, the pre-1900 landscape shows five cities starting from five fundamentally different positions. Hickory was a small but determined manufacturing town. Charlotte was a rising commercial hub. Asheville was an early tourism magnet. Raleigh was a stable seat of government. Wilmington was a major port city with international reach. These starting points matter because they shaped how each city entered the 20th century—what population scale they carried forward, what economic engines they depended on, and what vulnerabilities were already visible before industrialization, suburbanization, and modern economic policy took hold.
Population and growth through the decades
The 5 cities — 1900 to 1950
The First Half of the 20th Century: Industrial Rise, Urbanization, and Structural Separation
The first half of the 20th century marks the moment when North Carolina’s cities grew out of their origins and began to move into their long-term economic patterns. Industrialization, rail consolidation, the expansion of municipal boundaries, and the spread of public infrastructure altered the scale and identity of every city in this comparison. This period includes the textile boom, the rise of large-scale manufacturing, the shocks of the Great Depression, and the early signals of postwar suburbanization. Population growth during these five decades reveals how each city adapted—or failed to adapt—to rapid economic change.
Hickory entered the 20th century as a small manufacturing town, but it experienced a burst of population growth tied directly to the rise of furniture, textiles, and hosiery production. Between 1900 and 1940, Hickory’s population expanded from 2,535 to more than 13,000 residents—an increase of over 400% across four decades. These gains reflected the city’s strategic position within the industrial Piedmont, where railroad access and labor-intensive manufacturing created reliable employment and steady urbanization. Hickory’s identity became fully industrial during this period, and while this specialization delivered significant early growth, it also concentrated the city’s economic future in one direction. By 1950, Hickory was stable, productive, and regionally important, but still small compared to the state’s emerging major metros.
Charlotte’s trajectory during this period was on an entirely different scale. At the start of the century, Charlotte’s population was already seven times larger than Hickory’s. By 1950, it had grown to 134,042 residents—transforming into a true regional city. Charlotte benefitted from the centralization of railroads, the rise of cotton trading, and a growing commercial class that reinvested profits into banking, utilities, and land. Unlike Hickory’s single-industry concentration, Charlotte diversified early. Its growth from 1900 to 1950—more than 650%—reflected both urban annexation and a deepening economic base that made the city resilient to industrial shocks. Even during the Great Depression, Charlotte maintained an upward trajectory due to its commercial and financial orientation. This period set the foundation for the city’s eventual emergence as the banking capital of the Southeast.
Asheville experienced some of the most dramatic swings of any city during the first half of the century. The early decades brought explosive growth—fueled by tourism, wellness resorts, and outside investment—but the city’s finances collapsed during the Depression, leading to decades of stagnation. Its population grew sharply from 1900 to 1930, but the 1930s brought a sharp slowdown and municipal insolvency. Asheville entered 1950 with only modest gains compared to its early potential. This trajectory reveals the inherent volatility of a destination city dependent on seasonal revenue, speculative development, and tourism-driven cycles. Asheville’s struggles in the 1930s left it with long-term debt and limited capacity for mid-century reinvestment, but its identity as a cultural and tourism center persisted.
Raleigh’s growth from 1900 to 1950 was steady and institutionally supported. The city expanded from approximately 13,600 residents to more than 65,000—an increase of nearly 400%. As the state capital, Raleigh benefitted from sustained public employment, the expansion of universities, and early investments in research and administrative infrastructure. Unlike industrial cities, Raleigh was insulated from the collapse of manufacturing markets during the Depression. Government and education created a stabilizing effect, ensuring that the city could grow even during economic downturns. By 1950, Raleigh had positioned itself for a transition into a knowledge-driven, research-oriented economy that would accelerate in the decades ahead.
Wilmington’s story in the first half of the 20th century is characterized by fluctuation and recovery. Its population rose from approximately 20,900 in 1900 to 45,000 by 1950—a doubling over fifty years. Wilmington’s growth was tied to maritime trade, naval shipbuilding, and wartime mobilization. The port economy provided both opportunities and vulnerabilities; global conflicts spurred employment, while peacetime shifts created periods of stagnation. Wilmington remained significant, but its growth lagged behind the breakaway acceleration seen in Charlotte and the stability seen in Raleigh. However, its position as North Carolina’s primary port ensured that it remained one of the state’s key urban centers entering the postwar era.
Across these five decades, the separation between the cities became unmistakable. Charlotte emerged as the dominant urban center of the Piedmont. Raleigh carved out a stable institutional path. Asheville expanded early but stalled during the Depression. Wilmington retained coastal importance but grew more slowly. Hickory rose rapidly within its industrial niche but remained proportionally small due to its narrow economic base. By 1950, the hierarchy was set: Charlotte and Raleigh were poised for major metropolitan expansion, Asheville and Wilmington carried specialized identities, and Hickory—despite its industrial strength—entered the second half of the century without the diversified foundation needed to match the growth curves of the state’s emerging economic engines.
The 5 cities — 1951 to 1999
The Second Half of the 20th Century: Suburbanization, Globalization, and Structural Divergence
The period from 1951 to 1999 marks the most decisive turning point in the development of North Carolina’s cities. This era includes postwar expansion, the rise of suburban America, the decline of traditional manufacturing, and the emergence of research, government, finance, tourism, and port-driven economies. It is during these decades that the trajectories of the five cities diverge most sharply, revealing long-term structural advantages and constraints that still define regional outcomes today.
Hickory entered the postwar era with momentum. Its manufacturing base remained strong throughout the 1950s, 1960s, and into the 1970s. The city grew from 14,755 residents in 1950 to over 28,000 by 1990—a near doubling driven by prosperous furniture factories, textile mills, and related industries. For several decades, Hickory served as a model of a productive mid-sized industrial city. However, the same concentration that fueled its rise also made it vulnerable. As global trade expanded and manufacturing began to consolidate and offshore, Hickory’s economic stability became increasingly fragile. By the late 1980s and 1990s, early signs of strain—automation, plant closures, and shrinking margins—were already visible. The city grew during this period, but it did so on a foundation that was becoming structurally exposed to global competition.
Charlotte experienced the opposite trajectory: diversification, expansion, and acceleration. From 1950 to 1999, Charlotte’s population surged from 134,042 to nearly 400,000. The city expanded its boundaries through annexation and aggressively positioned itself as the banking center of the Southeast. Key decisions—including the consolidation of utilities, the rise of major corporate employers, and regional infrastructure investments—transformed Charlotte from a large Southern city into a major metropolitan engine. The emergence of interstate highways, the expansion of Charlotte Douglas Airport, and the 1980s wave of banking deregulation all compounded its advantages. By the end of the 20th century, Charlotte had become one of the fastest-growing urban centers in the nation, with a diversified economy and a widening lead over the rest of the state.
Asheville’s second-half 20th century story is one of slow repair and gradual reinvention. Burdened by municipal debt after the Great Depression, the city spent decades paying off obligations and limiting capital investment. From 1950 to 1990, Asheville’s population fluctuated, reflecting economic instability and limited growth capacity. However, by the 1980s and 1990s, a new trajectory emerged. Tourism strengthened, the arts and creative sectors expanded, and in-migration from other states began to reshape the region. Asheville’s rebound was built on lifestyle, culture, and environmental appeal rather than industrial or institutional anchors. While the city did not grow rapidly during this period, it laid the groundwork for the 21st-century identity that now defines it.
Raleigh’s transformation became unmistakable in this era. In 1950, Raleigh was a modest state capital with a population of 65,000. By 1990, it had grown to more than 212,000—more than tripling in size. This expansion was driven by the establishment and maturation of Research Triangle Park, the strengthening of major universities, and the growth of government and professional services. Raleigh’s knowledge-based economy allowed it to sidestep the manufacturing shocks that hit Hickory and other Piedmont cities. Instead of relying on a single economic engine, Raleigh leveraged a cluster of public institutions and high-wage employers. By the late 20th century, it had become a model of a diversified, future-oriented urban center.
Wilmington’s second-half 20th century story shows modest but steady growth consistent with a coastal city dependent on port activity, naval installations, and early waves of tourism and retirement migration. Its population rose from 45,043 in 1950 to more than 55,000 by 1990—a slower increase than Raleigh or Charlotte, but still positive. Wilmington faced challenges, including the decline of wartime shipbuilding and fluctuating maritime activity, yet its coastal geography ensured long-term appeal. By the 1990s, new patterns of in-migration and tourism, coupled with port modernization, began to reshape the city into a growth center poised for expansion in the coming century.
Across these five decades, the structural differences between the cities sharpened. Charlotte and Raleigh became nationally competitive metros. Asheville stabilized and reinvented itself. Wilmington diversified and prepared for a coastal growth surge. Hickory, while still strong in manufacturing, began to feel the limits of an economy built on a single sector that was losing global advantage. By 1999, the die was cast: the cities with diversified economies, institutional anchors, and strong infrastructure were positioned for acceleration, while cities dependent on traditional industrial production faced a challenging transition into the new economic era.
The Chart above was derived through US CENSUS reports researched through Google Gemini AI. It displays median household income and to the right of the 2010. 2020, and 2023 columns are the percentage growth of household income from 1999-2010, 2011-2020, and 2021-2023.
The 5 cities — The Last 50 Years (1970–2020)
Modern Trajectories in a Post-Industrial, Post-Suburban, Knowledge-Driven North Carolina
The last fifty years reveal the clearest separation in the growth paths of North Carolina’s major cities. Between 1970 and 2020, Charlotte and Raleigh became national metros, Asheville transformed into a lifestyle destination, Wilmington gained momentum as a coastal migration hub, and Hickory—once the industrial anchor of the western Piedmont—entered a long period of slowed growth and structural constraint. This period captures the rise of globalization, the collapse of traditional manufacturing, the explosive expansion of knowledge-sector employment, and the ongoing realignment of population toward cities with institutional depth and economic diversity. It is the era that explains the modern map of North Carolina.
Hickory began this period with modest but stable momentum. Its population grew from roughly 20,569 in 1970 to 43,490 in 2020—an increase of just over 110% across five decades. That may appear significant, but the slope matters. Hickory’s growth was steady but shallow, and most of it occurred before the full impact of global manufacturing pressures arrived in the early 2000s. The region absorbed waves of economic shocks as textiles, furniture, and hosiery production consolidated or moved offshore. While pockets of fiber-optic manufacturing and data-center development emerged later, the overall story of the last fifty years is one of a city maintaining population stability but losing ground economically to metropolitan regions with diversified engines. Hickory held on, but it did not accelerate.
Charlotte’s trajectory is the starkest contrast. From 241,420 residents in 1970 to more than 874,000 in 2020, Charlotte expanded by more than 630% over the period. This reflects not just natural growth, but a coordinated economic shift: banking consolidation, airport expansion, interstate connectivity, and corporate investment. Charlotte became a national logistics hub and the banking capital of the Southeast, attracting young professionals, high-income employment, and long-term capital. The last fifty years consolidated Charlotte’s role as the dominant urban center of the Carolinas, widening the gap between itself and every other city in the state.
Raleigh experienced similarly transformative growth. Its population rose from 122,830 in 1970 to 467,665 in 2020—an increase of nearly 280% driven by the maturation of Research Triangle Park, sustained university expansion, and the rise of knowledge-sector employment. While Charlotte grew on finance, Raleigh grew on education, government, technology, and research. Raleigh’s stability in the 1970s and 1980s, combined with the tech-sector boom of the 1990s and 2000s, established a multifaceted economic engine that continues to outperform nearly every mid-sized metro in the Southeast. Over the last fifty years, Raleigh evolved from a modest state capital into one of the nation’s most consistently growing knowledge metros.
Asheville’s growth over the last half century has been more modest in absolute numbers but significant in trajectory. The city grew from 57,929 in 1970 to 94,589 in 2020—an increase of roughly 63%. Though the population gains appear smaller than those of the Piedmont metros, Asheville’s transformation has been qualitative rather than quantitative. The city repositioned itself as a creative and cultural hub, attracting tourism, retirees, second-home owners, and members of the creative class. The city traded industrial growth for lifestyle-driven migration, which produced steady but slower population gains. Asheville’s rise in the last fifty years demonstrates the viability—and limitations—of an amenity-based urban model.
Wilmington’s growth reflects a coastal city transitioning into a migration and logistics hub. From 46,169 residents in 1970 to 115,451 in 2020, the city grew by roughly 150%. While Wilmington’s mid-century trajectory was uneven, the last fifty years brought sustained in-migration, port modernization, university expansion, and coastal economic development. The region became a magnet for retirees, remote workers, and tourism-linked service employment. Its growth has been more volatile than Raleigh’s or Charlotte’s, but the long-term trend is upward, driven by geography and external demand.
Taken together, the last half century establishes the modern hierarchy of North Carolina’s cities. Charlotte and Raleigh emerged as the state’s economic engines, achieving exponential growth and national relevance. Asheville and Wilmington grew steadily by leveraging environmental and lifestyle advantages. Hickory maintained population stability but lost competitive position as global manufacturing weakened its core economic base. By 2020, the difference in long-term structural advantage between diversified, institutionally anchored cities and single-sector industrial cities was unmistakable. The last fifty years did not merely highlight the divergence—they cemented it.
The Table above shows each cities household income as a percentage of the top city's household income for each corresponding year.
-------------------------------
The 5 cities — PRESENT 2025
The Pandemic Years and the Post-Pandemic Reality Across North Carolina’s Urban Hierarchy
The period from 2020 to 2025 did not rewrite North Carolina’s urban hierarchy. It exposed it. The pandemic did not create new winners or losers, but it intensified existing advantages and weaknesses. Housing, labor markets, healthcare access, institutional resilience, and economic diversity were stress-tested within a matter of months. Cities with diversified economies, knowledge industries, and institutional depth accelerated. Cities with narrow economic foundations stalled, stabilized, or fell further behind. The five cities in this study entered the pandemic on different footing, and they emerged with those differences widened.
Hickory entered the pandemic already carrying the weight of long-term industrial decline. Manufacturing was no longer the anchor it once had been, and the region’s wage structure relied heavily on lower-margin production, retail, and service employment. The pandemic introduced labor shortages, supply-chain disruption, and housing pressure at the same time. Hickory experienced a paradox: population stability without economic momentum. Housing costs rose faster than wage growth. Labor participation thinned. Small business fragility increased. The emergence of data centers and fiber infrastructure offered a partial counterweight, but these investments did not translate into large-scale wage expansion for local households. The pandemic years did not collapse Hickory, but they hardened its position as a region fighting to hold ground rather than gain it.
Charlotte experienced the pandemic as a temporary shock, not a structural derailment. Its financial, logistics, and corporate infrastructure shifted rapidly to remote work and digital continuity. Capital did not leave; it reorganized. The banking sector, corporate headquarters, and airport-driven logistics ecosystem rebounded rapidly. Population inflow continued, driven by domestic migration and professional-class relocation. Housing costs surged, suburban sprawl accelerated, and infrastructure stress increased. By 2025, Charlotte had not only recovered but moved into a new tier of regional dominance. The pandemic acted as an accelerant, not a disruptor. Its institutional weight absorbed the shock and translated crisis into consolidation.
Raleigh’s experience closely mirrored Charlotte’s in structural terms, though through different industries. The Research Triangle region transitioned more cleanly into remote work models, biotech acceleration, and technology sector expansion. Universities adapted quickly to hybrid systems. Government institutions remained stable. Federal research funds, healthcare innovation, and private technology investment accelerated. Population growth continued through domestic migration, and real estate values surged. By 2025, Raleigh’s position as a national-level knowledge economy hub strengthened. The pandemic did not weaken Raleigh’s model; it validated it. The city emerged with deeper capital markets, stronger institutional cohesion, and increased national visibility.
Asheville encountered the pandemic in a fundamentally different way. Its tourism-driven economy collapsed almost overnight, revealing the vulnerability of a service and hospitality structure dependent on movement and leisure. However, Asheville rebounded rapidly due to a second force: remote work migration. As the workforce untethered from urban offices, Asheville’s lifestyle appeal surged. Housing demand spiked. Short-term rental markets expanded aggressively. Property values rose faster than local wage growth. The pandemic years intensified Asheville’s internal contradictions: higher demand without corresponding wage expansion for service workers, increasing housing precarity, and growing tension between lifestyle migration and local economic capacity. By 2025, Asheville had grown in desirability but also in structural strain.
Wilmington experienced a dual shock and surge. Tourism collapsed temporarily in 2020, but coastal migration accelerated rapidly in the years that followed. Retirees, remote workers, and second-home buyers flooded the region. Housing inventory tightened, property values increased sharply, and infrastructure burdens intensified. The port continued operating, and logistics activity recovered faster than anticipated. Wilmington’s pandemic era can be described as compression and rebound: short-term shock, followed by long-term growth pressure. By 2025, the city is more desirable, more expensive, and more strained, but structurally stronger than it was pre-pandemic.
Across all five cities, the pandemic years reinforced a central truth: cities with diversified economic engines and institutional depth gained ground, while cities with narrow economic foundations merely endured. Hickory did not collapse, but it did not break into a new trajectory. Charlotte and Raleigh expanded their lead. Asheville and Wilmington intensified their attractiveness while exposing their fragility. The pandemic did not level the field. It tilted it further, rewarding cities that were already structurally prepared for economic shock and remote-work transformation.
A moment of clarity, by 2025, North Carolina’s urban system is no longer just stratified by population or industry. It is stratified by resilience capacity—the ability of each city to absorb shock, reorganize quickly, and convert disruption into opportunity.
The 5 cities — MOVING FORWARD
Future Trajectories and Structural Realities for North Carolina’s Urban System
Moving forward, North Carolina’s urban landscape will continue to follow the structural patterns established over the last fifty to one hundred years. Cities do not reinvent themselves overnight, and past trajectories provide the clearest indicators of future direction. Charlotte and Raleigh will remain the state’s primary engines; Asheville and Wilmington will continue to grow through quality-of-life migration and geographic demand; and Hickory—while not declining—will remain constrained unless it confronts the structural realities that have limited its growth since the end of the manufacturing era.
Hickory’s future depends on its ability to convert its existing assets into durable economic engines. The region has a strong fiber-optic backbone, access to new data-center investments, proximity to Charlotte’s expanding metropolitan sphere, and a cost of living that remains competitive. These are not small advantages, but they are insufficient on their own. Hickory lacks a major research university, a port, a state capital apparatus, or a high-wage corporate ecosystem. Without these elements, the city cannot expect the rapid population gains seen in Raleigh or Charlotte, nor the lifestyle-driven migration that fuels Asheville. The path forward requires a realistic approach: targeted economic development rather than broad aspirational marketing, institutional partnerships, workforce alignment, and a commitment to stabilizing housing costs and infrastructure.
Charlotte’s long-term trajectory will remain upward. Its airport, banking sector, logistics network, and corporate presence make it one of the most structurally advantaged metros in the Southeast. Even if growth slows, the region has already achieved “escape velocity,” meaning its economic gravity is strong enough to sustain momentum regardless of national cycles. The city will expand further into surrounding counties, drawing labor, capital, and innovation from across the region. For Hickory, Charlotte’s pull can be either an opportunity—through commuter inflow and supply-chain integration—or a threat, if the city loses its young workforce to metropolitan wages and amenities.
Raleigh’s future is similarly secure. Government, education, and technology form a triad of stability that few American regions can match. Research Triangle Park will continue to evolve toward advanced manufacturing, biotech, clean energy, and AI-driven industries. Raleigh’s challenge will not be growth, but managing it. High housing costs, infrastructure strain, and suburban sprawl will force policy decisions, but the region’s competitive position will remain strong. Raleigh’s trajectory is a reminder that cities anchored by knowledge institutions and government infrastructure endure economic upheavals more effectively than cities bound to a single industrial sector.
Asheville will continue to follow a lifestyle-driven path, attracting retirees, remote workers, and those seeking natural amenities. Its growth rate will remain moderate and punctuated by housing constraints, wage stagnation, and infrastructural limits, but the foundational appeal of the mountains will sustain long-term population increases. Asheville’s influence will remain qualitative rather than quantitative: a cultural hub rather than an economic engine. Its presence in the state’s hierarchy shows that identity-based growth—while real—is not a substitute for diversified economic foundations.
Wilmington will remain shaped by its port, coastline, and the continued migration of retirees and remote workers. Climate risk, infrastructure pressure, and housing volatility will challenge its scalability, but the region’s long-term prospects are strong. Port modernization, logistics integration, and coastal desirability provide a stable upward trajectory. Wilmington’s growth will remain more cyclical than Raleigh’s or Charlotte’s, but it will not be reversing its long-term climb.
For Hickory, the future requires a sober understanding of scale and position. The city is not competing with Charlotte or Raleigh. It is competing for stability, adaptability, and the ability to hold its population, retain its young adults, and create conditions where a diversified local economy can emerge. Global manufacturing will not return in the form it once held; the 20th-century industrial model is gone. But advanced materials, data infrastructure, food systems, health access, and logistics are sectors where Hickory can build incremental strength. The city’s challenge is moving from a defensive posture—reacting to losses—to a strategic posture that cultivates long-term resilience.
North Carolina’s urban system is no longer fluid; it is stratified. The top metros will remain at the top. The coastal and mountain cities will retain their niche appeal. The opportunities for Hickory lie not in replicating the trajectories of structurally advantaged cities, but in building a sustainable, realistic, regionally grounded model that aligns with its assets, geography, and workforce. Moving forward means acknowledging what the city is, what it is not, and what it still can become through disciplined planning rather than inherited momentum.
--------------------------
My Own Time Ω
When you live in a place long enough, you start to hear what isn’t being said out loud.
For most of my life, the story North Carolina tells about itself has been written from four vantage points: Charlotte’s skyline, Raleigh’s research parks, Asheville’s mountain glow, and Wilmington’s waterfront. Those are the camera angles that make the brochure. Those are the places that soak up the charts, the headlines, the conference panels, and the ribbon-cuttings. And if you look strictly at the numbers, it is hard to argue with that focus. The state’s own economic mapping shows what most of us already feel — the overwhelming majority of real growth is clustered around those four anchors, and the rest of us are trying to hold our footing on shifting ground.
Hickory sits in that “rest.” We are not a ruin. We are not a ghost town. We are not a tragic case study. But we are not on the winning side of the trajectory either, and pretending otherwise is a luxury reserved for people who do not live here. The numbers describe one story: modest population growth over a long window, fibers of new investment, data centers, the occasional flattering ranking or magazine profile. The lived reality describes another: wage compression, fragile opportunity, a constant sense that the best-case scenario is simply not sliding any further backward while the big metros continue to pull away.
When Charlotte or Raleigh add jobs, increase wages, or pull another corporate headquarters, it gets framed as a North Carolina success story. And on paper, that is true — the tax receipts land in Raleigh, and the statewide averages look stronger. But from a porch in Hickory, what it often feels like is this: the ladder moved further out of reach. When Asheville’s housing market overheats or Wilmington’s coastal property spikes, we are told it is evidence of how “desirable” North Carolina has become. What it actually means is that the people serving those economies — the workers who clean rooms, fix roofs, keep the lights on, and staff hospitals — are taking on more strain for less security. Meanwhile, communities like ours carry the quiet costs: aging infrastructure, stagnant wages, and a growing sense that we are becoming an afterthought in the state we helped build.
The pandemic brought this into sharp focus. The four anchor cities were stressed, yes, but they were buffered. High-wage remote workers logged in from home. Government payrolls continued. Research, logistics, finance, and port activity resumed quickly. Capital shifted and reorganized but did not disappear. By 2025, those metros had not just recovered; they had consolidated their advantage.
Hickory did what Hickory always does — we endured. But endurance without leverage is not the same thing as opportunity. We faced rising housing costs without a commensurate jump in earnings, labor shortages without fresh pipelines, and a cost of living that no longer lined up cleanly with our wage base. The pandemic did not topple us; it just hardened the reality that we are fighting uphill in a system that was never recalibrated for places like this.
I do not say this from a place of envy. I am not jealous of a skyline. I am not pining for a condo in South End Charlotte or a loft in downtown Raleigh. What I am questioning is the basic honesty of our statewide narrative. We celebrate four cities and then speak as if their success naturally spills over to everyone else. It does not. It never has. Without those anchors, the state’s economic profile sags hard toward distress and stagnation. With them, what we really have is a two-tier system — one tier living in a future-facing economy, another stuck patching the seams of a past model that has already been priced out of the game.
Hickory is not blameless in this story. We did not choose to diversify when we were strong. We did not demand the kinds of institutions — universities, research centers, public investments with long-term multipliers — that might have changed our trajectory. We were busy working, producing, shipping, and surviving. We trusted that being indispensable to the manufacturing backbone of this state was enough. It was not. When global trade and corporate consolidation shifted the playing field, our work ethic stayed the same, but the scoreboard changed. Communities like ours paid the price quietly, household by household.
I am not interested in self-pity. I am interested in accurate diagnosis.
If North Carolina’s growth is now overwhelmingly carried by Charlotte, Raleigh, Asheville, and Wilmington, then that needs to be said plainly — not as praise, but as a structural fact with consequences. If the rest of the state, including the Hickory region, is expected to get by on residual benefits, hand-me-down capital, and a handful of targeted grants, then that needs to be said plainly too. You cannot fix what you refuse to name.
From where I sit, Hickory’s story is not over. But it is not going to be rewritten by branding exercises, lifestyle slogans, or borrowed prestige from other regions. It will only change if we stop pretending we are playing the same game as the four growth anchors. We are not. They are competing on a national stage. We are fighting for regional stability, household viability, and the right not to be slowly hollowed out while everyone congratulates themselves on “North Carolina’s success.”
“My Own Time” is where I say these things as simply as I can: I love this place. i write these epochs not to tear the place down, but as assessments of where we stand. This is a testament of what Hickory has given, what it has lost, and what it still has left. I also know that love is not enough. If Hickory is going to have a future that is more than managed decline, we will have to stop accepting a statewide narrative that uses our endurance as background scenery for someone else’s highlight reel. We deserve a strategy, not a slogan. And that begins with telling the truth about who is actually growing in North Carolina — and who is just trying not to disappear.
------------------
Haiku
Quiet town watches
Bright cities pull the daylight
Roots hold in hard ground
Fortune Cookie Reading
A place that remembers what built it will not disappear — but it must decide what it will become. Today’s strength lies not in chasing louder neighbors, but in recognizing its own weight, value, and unfinished work.
