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.
Legacy city has PAST periods of RAPID GROWTH that had slowdowns and declines coinciding with de-industrialization and moving overseas of manufacturing and many times a drastic Ethnic change.
Most never recovered former population growths. But some maintained Statue and Cores that actually surpass the heyday. Subjective yes. Some Legacy cities are not listed in the rust-belt. Though in look and declines? They sure fit as one. Whether steel mills or textile mills? They all declined and rusted. Like a Philly and Baltimore
Overall NO Large Northern city is a New Rising one? Boston merely did not see the kinds of declines as the rest. Its status as a University city by population merely spared it the declines as the rest. I just don't see it as other then a Legacy City? Just my opinion. Chicago was the city that declined in manufacturing and endured Radical racial change w/declines. But its Core made a TREMENDOUS Comeback and Stature not waning as its population still overall may be.
This is too broad - The category should be broken down by:
LEGACY / ESTABLISHED WORLD CITIES: NYC, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Boston, Washington DC etc.
ESTABLISHED LARGE CITIES: Dallas, Houston, Miami, Atlanta, Minneapolis, Phoenix etc.
"UP AND COMING" TRENDY CITIES: Denver, Portland, Nashville, Austin, etc.
I'd say Denver, Portland, and Austin are passed the "up & coming" stage. Nashville I think fits the most there.
I also echo the comments that the OP doesn't know what a "legacy city" means. Legacy cities aren't exactly expensive either. His example of Miami being a "cheap rising city" says it all .
I'd say Denver, Portland, and Austin are passed the "up & coming" stage. Nashville I think fits the most there.
I also echo the comments that the OP doesn't know what a "legacy city" means. Legacy cities aren't exactly expensive either. His example of Miami being a "cheap rising city" says it all .
I Know what A Legacy City is, and that part about Miami was a typo, Miami is Hella Expensive
I Know what A Legacy City is, and that part about Miami was a typo, Miami is Hella Expensive
Dallas, Atlanta, and Houston aren't exactly cheap these days either. They're more affordable than NYC, Boston, LA, DC, SF, and even Seattle, but then again...who isn't?
reside in Tradicitonal Legacy Cities (NYC,Chicago,Boston etc) vs New Rising
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
)
Yes, I'll pay extra for all the above that "traditional legacy city" offers. Your city list includes my favorite places.
I think part of it is the accumulation of events over time - art, literature, music, the history of ideas. Those things build up and they leave their imprint in the culture and feel of a place. It is also about having little features that have old stories and lore about them. Some ruins help. It is why cities like Copenhagen or Amsterdam are more interesting than US postwar boom towns that are five times their size. Or in the US it is why a city like New Orleans is more interesting than Houston. A lot of the new rising places have a lot of dynamism and cultural ferment right now, and will eventually have the depth of places like New Orleans, but you can't build history, you have to wait for it.
The US only has a few truly old cities, places that are not only old but have been cities for a long time - Boston, New York, Philly, Baltimore, DC, Savannah, Charleston, New Orleans, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati and St Louis would be the ones I would put in that category. I have another set that I would call "newly minted old cities". They are old enough now that they can be considered old, but it is a recent development - Chicago, Cleveland, Milwaukee and San Francisco. There is a third group that is right in the middle of the transition between new and old - off the top of my head the cities I would put in that group would be LA, Minneapolis and Detroit. I'd emphasize that I am not basing this on the date of foundation but when they became "cities" as it was defined in the era when it happened. I may be forgetting a few but almost everything else in the country was a large town within living memory.
Last edited by Drewcifer; 05-22-2017 at 10:08 PM..
Chicago is an old city now, but as recently as 50 years ago Chicago wouldn't really have been considered one. It didn't become a place of magnitude until after the Civil War. In 1860 it was still just the 3rd largest city in the Midwest. St Louis and Cincinnati are the only truly old cities in the Midwest in my opinion. They have deeper roots than any of the others.
I'll put in in a personal perspective. When my mom was growing up in Andersonville in the '30s, the neighborhood was as old then as Schaumburg is today. And that is just in the lifetime of one person who is still alive.
Last edited by Drewcifer; 05-22-2017 at 10:28 PM..
This makes sense but I wouldn't put SF in this category. SF was one of the largest cities in the country as early as 1870. It is absolutely a legacy city. I also think that 1920 is too late if your threshold is only 100k -- the auto age was already in full swing and many of the large sunbelt cities had already crossed the 100k mark by then.
I would put the following cities in this intermediate tier, all of which crossed the 100k mark between 1890 and 1910 and most of which still have some pre-auto urban bones remaining:
West - LA, Seattle, Portland, Denver
Midwest -- KC, Indianapolis, Columbus
South -- Atlanta, Nashville, Memphis, Richmond
You could probably create more finely-grained categories (including within "legacy cities" that the OP listed) but all of the above fit somewhere on the spectrum between traditional legacy cities and new rising cities that I think you had in mind.
Remember until about 110 years ago Brooklyn and Queens were not part of NYC.
Most probably don't know this factoid because it's not true. Galveston wasn't even the largest city in TX in 1900, let alone the whole South.
Ok I stand corrected on population but importance I wlll stand as is. And there were 6,000 to 8,000 killed.
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.
.
