Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-24-2010, 12:06 AM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,495 posts, read 32,933,707 times
Reputation: 7752

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by WestbankNOLA View Post
Galveston already had them....... they considered Houston because they realized how much risk they faced on the island.

Galveston had no industries. You are mistaken.

In Fact TEXAS had very little industries that were not directly related to agriculture at the time. By the time industries (such as oil in HOuston, Finance in DAllas, etc) were taking hold in Texas, Galveston was already dead.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-24-2010, 12:08 AM
 
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,035,535 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
New Orleans was the richest city in the North America at one point. It was All that and a bag of chips when NY was a fledgling

It was a major port for riches fromthe caribbean.

Most stuff from that area all had to pass through NOLA before it went up the mississippi.

Most of the lists we have today, back then NOLA would have been number one in all of them.

New York would not have come close. Chicago was puny back then and LA was not even settled.
A fun fact is that the reason Louisiana Purchase happened was because the US then wanted to acquire New Orleans, which at the time was the most prosperous port in the western hemisphere, all the extra land which was 1/3 the size of the country was really just a bonus to go along with New Orleans.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2010, 12:09 AM
 
Location: New Orleans, United States
4,230 posts, read 10,481,890 times
Reputation: 1444
Port/trade is an industry.
All of that cotton and sugar cane had to go somewhere.
Port = Traders/Bankers/Inversters and so on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2010, 12:09 AM
 
Location: Newark nj
195 posts, read 395,988 times
Reputation: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by BPerone201 View Post
You're right.
Chicago had them, and they had it bad- But Chicago is a huge city, so it wasn't as bad of an impact the way Newark was hit.
Newark had a population over 440K at one point, mostly white, and it is only 23 square miles- So the white flight and race riots in Newark was dramatic. The city went from being nearly 60% white to now, 17% White.
It's been making unbelievable strides lately ever since the city elected Booker for mayor- So the city is somewhat getting back up..
Even a few of Newarks inner-ring suburbs experienced huge white flights because of the general small land masses. East Orange is a big suburb with about a 90% Black population, and Irvington is about 80% Black. These 2 suburbs combined have a total population of about 120K

Especially since Newark was at the top in terms of having ans Industrial job market- Which is what brought lot of blacks who came from the south and replaced those jobs during WWII.
Newark is not 17% white it is 27% white you are off by ten percent .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2010, 12:12 AM
 
Location: New Orleans, United States
4,230 posts, read 10,481,890 times
Reputation: 1444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Awesome Danny View Post
A fun fact is that the reason Louisiana Purchase happened was because the US then wanted to acquire New Orleans, which at the time was the most prosperous port in the western hemisphere, all the extra land which was 1/3 the size of the country was really just a bonus to go along with New Orleans.
The crazy part is that the U.S. only wanted New Orleans, but because of the revolt in Haiti; Napoleon just gave it all up for a little of nothing.

Another interesting fact: The current state of Louisiana was not considered the Louisiana territory. It was the Territory of Orleans, while the rest of the Louisiana was the Louisiana Territory. New Orleans was known as the "Island of Orleans".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2010, 06:07 AM
 
Location: The City
22,378 posts, read 38,895,654 times
Reputation: 7976
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Around View Post
So population is the only metric to consider?

no but at some level there has to be enough scale
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2010, 09:08 AM
 
Location: Denver
6,625 posts, read 14,452,056 times
Reputation: 4201
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastSideMKE View Post
I disagree. A city doesn't need an arbitrary amount of people to be considered "major."
I agree. It's not the size of the boat, it's the motion in the ocean. I tell that to my girl every day. That said, having a single major company located in your city doesn't necessarily make your city major. With that logic, Bentonville, Arkansas is a major city.

Quote:
Insurance industry professionals who work in Midtown and the Loop answer to CEOs in Omaha and Hartford.
That's a bit of an overstatement. Omaha and Hartford are home to some very important institutions (Berkshire, Mutual of Omaha, The Hartford, Travelers, Aetna, etc)...but to suggest that insurance professionals in Midtown all have to answer to Omaha & Hartford is absurd. In case you hadn't noticed, there are quite a few majors in Manhattan too: MetLife, New York Life, AIG...with Prudential located minutes away in Newark.

So yes, there are a few very influential companies located in Hartford & Omaha...but to imply they are the ones calling the shots of the entire industry is a big stretch.

And once again, one or two major companies doesn't necessarily make a city "major". In fact, it's very comparable to when you said "a city doesn't need an arbitrary amount of people to be major". I totally agree. I think it takes several things: private company influence, major educational institutions, sizable (not necessarily huge) population, significant GDP, perhaps government influence, then to a lesser extent cultural attractions like museums, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2010, 10:26 AM
 
Location: Austin, Texas
3,092 posts, read 4,967,758 times
Reputation: 3186
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
Na, Galveston was already in decline by then and Houston was already growing. your ignorance is amazing.

Take it easy, it's really not that serious. I wasn't even trying to bash Houston.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2010, 11:15 AM
 
Location: Philaburbia
41,951 posts, read 75,160,115 times
Reputation: 66885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akhenaton06 View Post
That only has to do with municipal growth, not metro area growth which is county-based.
Well, no. There was not much growth of any kind in Franklin County, except for the state government and tOSU. Columbus tied water and sewer service to annexation, and in the 1970s started grabbing land out to and past I-270, and into adjoining counties. Bottom line: If a company wanted to build along I-270, taking advantage of tax breaks and relatively inexpensive land, and it also wanted water and sewer service, that company had to agree to have its land annexed into the city.

Voila. Instant growth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2010, 11:24 AM
 
Location: Houston Inner Loop
659 posts, read 1,376,350 times
Reputation: 758
Quote:
Originally Posted by Awesome Danny View Post
A fun fact is that the reason Louisiana Purchase happened was because the US then wanted to acquire New Orleans, which at the time was the most prosperous port in the western hemisphere, all the extra land which was 1/3 the size of the country was really just a bonus to go along with New Orleans.
It's ironic that N.O. has turned into such a pit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top