Traditional Legacy Cities vs New Rising Cities (Phoenix, metro, living)
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.
Aren't most legacy cities mostly in the Northeast with a couple in the Midwest plus New Orleans? Even Savannah and Charleston could be looked at as legacy cities.
To quote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton
Again, the OP is misusing the term. Legacy city is basically a rebranding of rust belt. It means a city which had its heyday in late 19th/early 20th century and has since underwent a period of decline. The "Legacy" represents legacy institutions (museums, architecture, theater, etc) that you wouldn't expect a city of it's size to have, yet it retained due to the history of being a larger city in the past.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Western Urbanite
Legacy Cities:
Cleveland
Pittsburgh
Baltimore
St Louis
New Orleans
Detroit
Birmingham
Cincinnati
Milwaukee
etc.
An interesting fact, San Diego was originally supposed to be the Big City in southern California, rather than Los Angeles. What stopped it from happening was railroad access. The only rail line out of San Diego went to Los Angeles, where Los Angeles had a hub and spoke of rail lines going several different places. The rest was history.....
This is because San Diego is the natural "last stop" for goods leaving the US and first import point from Asia. San Diego was deliberately denied rail access by monopoly corporations in the Bay Area for some time, IIRC. If San Diego had been linked to the interior United States before 1870 it might have been like Hong Kong now.
Or to put it another way, look at the time periods in which most segments of the city were developed. American cities are naturally patchworks of different development periods and styles. LA and Seattle's main strips outside of downtown are vestiges of the horse-drawn omnibus lines and later streetcar lines. Higher density development follow these historic lines, with buildings tapering off in density as you move away from the main lines. While there are many detached single family houses in LA/Seattle, these residential areas were still developed far differently than modern-day single family house developments, which don't follow historic streetcar lines and function/look very different from each other.
Seattle has been compared to the Chinese city of Chongqing. Chongqing-shiny, new, modern architecture, quite dense. But I think Seattle will turn into an uneven patchwork of the old and new.
Conceivably, if "urban villages" become largely new construction, perhaps they could be described as Chongqing districts.
LOL! Denver fits the definition of a "Legacy" city, it was established in 1858. I might add, within that defintion, that "losing population" and "Lots and Lots to do" are somewhat mutually exclusive.
Denver is NOT a legacy city, regardless of when it was founded. Even if1858 was when someone began its journey, by that time east coast cities were FAR along. Second, growth in Denver was relatively small for a hundred years. It stood out only because it was the tallest midget in the room in the Mountain time zone. It really got into the national conscious in the 1960s and actually I believe the 1980s it became a real destination place.
Some of the posters here are really dense. Just because a city like Austin or Denver got a charter in the 1800s doesn't mean it should be considered a legacy city! Austin is a GREAT example! Year it got its founding way back when but it was nothing but an trading post! Hell go look at pics of Austin pre 1960! It was SMALL! Austin had probably 125K people. vs. Detroit which peaked in the 1950s at 1.7 Million residents! NYC, Chicago, and Philly were BIG places on a worldwide scale pre WW II. Many of the cities listed as rising are those who have pre 1900 history but nothing significant. And remember, the invention of Air Conditioning and the Automobile were KEY events for Rising cities and their sprawl.
Some of the posters here are really dense. Just because a city like Austin or Denver got a charter in the 1800s doesn't mean it should be considered a legacy city! Austin is a GREAT example! Year it got its founding way back when but it was nothing but an trading post! Hell go look at pics of Austin pre 1960! It was SMALL! Austin had probably 125K people. vs. Detroit which peaked in the 1950s at 1.7 Million residents! NYC, Chicago, and Philly were BIG places on a worldwide scale pre WW II. Many of the cities listed as rising are those who have pre 1900 history but nothing significant. And remember, the invention of Air Conditioning and the Automobile were KEY events for Rising cities and their sprawl.
People are only responding to the overall narrative here on C-D. Intended or not, "New Rising City" in this context is probably being perceived as a pejorative. Because of this, it's no surprise to me that people are trying to line up into the legacy city camp on this thread.
I get the legacy vs. rising cities concept, but my God why are there people saying SF is a 'rising city'?! It was urban well before the 1900's. Anyways. My heart is in Chicago, and so large, old, Northern metropolises will always win for me.
I personally think we should break it down another tier. In my mind, there are legacy cities, cities that emerged around 1880's-1920's, and then cities that really only started taking off post-WWI. That second tier captures all the cities that reached populations of around 100K and over pre-1900 (LA, SF, Seattle, etc.)
I personally think we should break it down another tier. In my mind, there are legacy cities, cities that emerged around 1880's-1920's, and then cities that really only started taking off post-WWI. That second tier captures all the cities that reached populations of around 100K and over pre-1900 (LA, SF, Seattle, etc.)
Maybe a bit of the first post of the OP is needed to be read?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueRedTide
Do Americans prefer to reside in Tradicitonal Legacy Cities (NYC,Chicago,Boston etc) vs New Rising Cities (Houston, Dallas, Atlanta etc)
So Everyone Loves a Visit to New York but how many of you would want to live there..How many of you can afford to live there?? How does $1700 dollars a month for rent for 400 sq ft apartment sound? Still want to live in New York? Better question is can you afford to live in New York. Enter the Sunbelt cities. Houston for example $650 for 800 sq feet apartment double the living space get in New York. In Addition Cities like Houston and Dallas are growing faster than cities like New York and Chicago. So if that's the Case, Which kind of city do Americans Really prefer. I Know this is City Data and so the Automatic Natural Impulse is to say New York New York New York but come on be practical Can you really afford $2000 a month rent...The Question is Where do Americans prefer to live not visit
Traditional Legacy City
EXPENSIVE
developed in the 1700 or 1800's
Compact
Vibrant & Fast Pace
Great Walkable Downtowns and Urban Centers
Lots and Lots to do
Extensive Public Transportion
High Taxes
Losing population
Already Culturally Significant
THE definition of CITY
New York City
Chicago
San Francisco
Boston
Washington Dx
Philadelphia
Cleveland
Baltimore
St Louis
New Orleans
etc
(list not set in stone)
New Rising Cities
CHEAP
Laid Back & Slower Pace
Developed(ing) in the 1900's to present day
Suburban THE DEFINITION of Suburban
Relatively Uninspiring Downtowns and Urban Centers
Lack of efficient public transit
Not as much to do
Becoming Culturally Significant but not there yet
Expansive and Sprawling
Low Taxes
Rapidly Gaining population/full of transpants
Money goes further More bang for your buck
Houston
Dallas
Los Angeles
Atlanta
Miami
Nashville
Charlotte
Austin
Raleigh
Phoenix
Las Vegas
etc
(list not set in stone)
Just a few points I'd change being the -- Cheap-- cities as New Rising and definition of -- Suburban -- as there are exceptions.
Key points is NEW RISING is not merely AGE OF FOUNDING. But in our CURRENT period growing in population and stature too. Some Cali cities date back to being a Spanish settlement. Founding of Seattle also is not to make it more Legacy in its key growths of levels today as a New Rising one. But the term Legacy City is not standard defined term. As you can't just Google search it.
Definitely need a third tier. Many cities don't fit the two types.
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.
