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.
Let's pretend that NYC, LA, and Chicago never existed. Would Washington DC finally be recognized as more than simply a national seat of government, but a legitimate cultural, entertainment, and financial capital as well? Would some combination of San Francisco, Boston, and/or Miami fill the gaps? Toronto, perhaps (and would it be the NYC of the Americas and not just of Canada?) Would American culture be more subdued worldwide? Would the US have a more rural/pastoral, or even "cowboy" reputation (it already kinda-sorta exists, but perhaps be more prevalent)?
The only way I can see that happening is if other cities took on the role of NYC, LA, Chicago. NYC has been the financial capital, Chicago the food capital, and LA the entertainment capital. In some parallel universe, some other cities could have taken on those roles. Maybe NYC never had the Erie Canal, and some other city was able to tap into the wealth of the Midwest (like Philly with the Pennsylvania Canal or Baltimore with the B&O Railroad or even DC with the C&O Canal). So, maybe, somehow, Philadelphia could have become the equivalent of NYC today and NYC would be like a Philly. Or maybe no eastern connections ever would have been made, and New Orleans would have become a more dominant city at the end of the Mississippi River. And with Chicago, maybe St. Louis or Milwaukee or Detroit somehow could have taken the place of Chicago.
In the end, some other cities would have had to take on those roles. But, NYC, Chicago, and LA are the cities they are today because of their unique locations, people, history, etc. If Philadelphia ever turned into the dominant Northeast city for some reason, it still would look nothing like NYC today. NYC looks like NYC because of a lot of unique factors that Philly does not have.
So I really don't think the country as a whole would look that much different. It wouldn't be any less or more rural/urban or cowboy. We'd just have a different triumvirate of cities. I also don't see Toronto becoming like modern NYC unless Canadian history took a dramatically different course (like if they had joined with the US during the Revolution or something).
without NYC, LA, CHI, i think Boston and Philadelphia would be the elite cities of the US.
I think Philadelphia would be significantly larger, almost as big as present day NYC. Baltimore too.
I'm not sure Boston would be much bigger. A lot of NY growth didn't impend or effect Boston and it's trajectory was set. I don't think Boston was set up to be a premier mega city.
My vote goes to Philadelphia all the way. St. Louis for Midwest and out West ... Hmm... I'm not sure. SF is very geographically constrained. Maybe it would be denser throughout the Bay Area? But I'm thinking somewhere down the California coast.i don't know though. LA.boomed because Media and Hollywood, so I'm not sure who else had a seed planted.
Let's pretend that NYC, LA, and Chicago never existed. Would Washington DC finally be recognized as more than simply a national seat of government, but a legitimate cultural, entertainment, and financial capital as well? Would some combination of San Francisco, Boston, and/or Miami fill the gaps? Toronto, perhaps (and would it be the NYC of the Americas and not just of Canada?) Would American culture be more subdued worldwide? Would the US have a more rural/pastoral, or even "cowboy" reputation (it already kinda-sorta exists, but perhaps be more prevalent)?
Let's pretend that NYC, LA, and Chicago never existed. Would Washington DC finally be recognized as more than simply a national seat of government, but a legitimate cultural, entertainment, and financial capital as well? Would some combination of San Francisco, Boston, and/or Miami fill the gaps? Toronto, perhaps (and would it be the NYC of the Americas and not just of Canada?) Would American culture be more subdued worldwide? Would the US have a more rural/pastoral, or even "cowboy" reputation (it already kinda-sorta exists, but perhaps be more prevalent)?
Philadelphia was the big kahuna when the country was born: it was the financial capital, home of the most widely circulating newspapers and seat of the national government.
It lost the last of these to Washington and everything else to New York in the century that followed.
Chances are some other city — St. Louis in the Midwest, San Francisco on the West Coast — would have assumed the roles played by Chicago and LA now. The country is simply too big and too spread out to have all of the commerce, finance and creative talent concentrated on one side of it.
Yeah, the growth was going to happen, it would have just happened in a different place. The movie industry, tied so much to location, is perhaps the most interesting question. While Florida and Louisiana were early sunny locales, I tend to think storms would have kept filmmakers looking. San Diego seems logical, and perhaps the biggest beneficiary of an LA-less America.
I think Philadelphia would be significantly larger, almost as big as present day NYC. Baltimore too.
I'm not sure Boston would be much bigger. A lot of NY growth didn't impend or effect Boston and it's trajectory was set. I don't think Boston was set up to be a premier mega city.
My vote goes to Philadelphia all the way. St. Louis for Midwest and out West ... Hmm... I'm not sure. SF is very geographically constrained. Maybe it would be denser throughout the Bay Area? But I'm thinking somewhere down the California coast.i don't know though. LA.boomed because Media and Hollywood, so I'm not sure who else had a seed planted.
don't you think that Boston would be bigger since without NYC, it would have been a bigger draw for immigrants, and later black migrants during the Great Migration?
don't you think that Boston would be bigger since without NYC, it would have been a bigger draw for immigrants, and later black migrants during the Great Migration?
Philadelphia definitely would of taken the place of NYC if NYC did not exist moreso than Boston. Philadelphia for nearly 125 years of American history was the financial, political and cosmopolitan capital of the nation.
It lost the political crown to DC and the financial crown to NYC (although there is a large abundance of that old financial wealth in Philadelphia's suburbs still today).
Fun fact: Pennsylvania was supposed to be the nation's capital. It lost it to DC, by just one vote.
Philadelphia definitely would of taken the place of NYC if NYC did not exist moreso than Boston. Philadelphia for nearly 125 years of American history was the financial, political and cosmopolitan capital of the nation.
It lost the political crown to DC and the financial crown to NYC (although there is a large abundance of that old financial wealth in Philadelphia's suburbs still today).
Fun fact: Pennsylvania was supposed to be the nation's capital. It lost it to DC, by just one vote.
That’s just not true. The country didn’t have a financial center in 1715. There just wasn’t much connection between colonies pre 1765 or so.
Even during the Revolution New York was a loyalist stronghold because it was tied to London far more any Colonial city.
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.
