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.
Fun Fact: New York City is older than Salem and all other cities listed in the poll except Jamestown and lost Roanoke colony... it is not even on the list.
Well, if you actually read what I wrote and what I was responding to, you'd see that at no point did I claim that Quebec City was more significant historically than Philadelphia or discuss historical achivements. The discussion was simply about preserved colonial architecture. And in terms of preserved "colonial" architecture, Quebec City has a very preserved older core(complete with city walls dating back to the 17th Century)--and because Quebec City was passed over in favor of other cities later in the 19th Century and 20th Century, it remained smaller and thus less was torn down from the 17th Century through early 19th Century. Which is why it's not a stretch to say it might have as much colonial architecture remaining(it looks like Europe basically) as any place in the US.
My point with my last line, was that the assumption that because Philadelphia has the most preserved colonial architecture in the US--that somehow equaled most in the entire world. In truth though, what remains of older architecture in Boston, Philadelphia, Charleston, or New Orleans is beautiful, though in comparison to the much of the rest of world, it's relatively new and fairly small in scale.
I am looking for the source, it may be English styled actually yet I think also remember that Philadelphia was the 2nd largest English speaking city in the world in the late 1700s and early 1800s - second to only London (which has many older styles as well but maybe not as much colonial architecture) and believe far larger than than Quebec. Must of the original structures are maintained as well. I cant speak to the Spanish styling and settlements in Central and SS America. I can say that the amount of structures preserved from this period is significantly larger than that of NOLA.
I do know that many tout Society Hill as the single largest neighborhood collection of colonial architecture. The whole are is loaded with this styling whereas Boston as an example has much more older stock but based on my experience not quite as much pure colonial architecture.
I assume your joking and you know about New Amsterdam. But that date 1664 maybe evidence of an attempt in the 1600s by the English to erase the Dutch identity after they conquered New Netherland.
For instance, the official Seal of the City of New York was first adopted in 1686 and for hundreds of years had the year 1664 on it. But now has seal has been updated to show the year 1625. It is hard to imagine why now but it was possible the British authorities back in 1686 were trying to erase New Amsterdam and the Dutch period as if it never existed.
I assume your joking and you know about New Amsterdam. But that date 1664 maybe evidence of an attempt in the 1600s by the English to erase the Dutch identity after they conquered New Netherland.
For instance, the official Seal of the City of New York was first adopted in 1686 and for hundreds of years had the year 1664 on it. But now has seal has been updated to show the year 1625. It is hard to imagine why now but it was possible the British authorities back in 1686 were trying to erase New Amsterdam and the Dutch period as if it never existed.
I'd be surprisd if that wasn't the reason - competition between empires is what helped them thrive. Once Britain got the former Dutch colonies, they were British through and through. And it's funny because history reflects this. Growing up in NJ, I don't recall learning much, if anything, about its Dutch past until probably high school, maybe college - in New York. For most of my early education period, I thought ALL original 13 colonies were always British. I wasn't taught any other way until later on. That British influence is strong
I assume your joking and you know about New Amsterdam.[/url]
Half joking.
Yes I know of New Amsterdam, but the point still stand that "New York" didn't exist until (according to Wikipedia) 1664.
I have seen the argument made that New Amsterdam was significant in that many places in New York have dutch-based names. However, I think you could also safely argue that New York's history doesn't really get kickstarted until it actually becomes "New York".
Yes I know of New Amsterdam, but the point still stand that "New York" didn't exist until (according to Wikipedia) 1664.
I have seen the argument made that New Amsterdam was significant in that many places in New York have dutch-based names. However, I think you could also safely argue that New York's history doesn't really get kickstarted until it actually becomes "New York".
Yes I know of New Amsterdam, but the point still stand that "New York" didn't exist until (according to Wikipedia) 1664.
I have seen the argument made that New Amsterdam was significant in that many places in New York have dutch-based names. However, I think you could also safely argue that New York's history doesn't really get kickstarted until it actually becomes "New York".
Its not just an argument over Dutch based names. New Amsterdam and New Netherland are the foundation of New York, New Jersey aka Middle colonies. Otherwise if their was no Dutch and other multi-ethnic and multi religious heritage, they would have been successfully incorporated into part of New England - and indeed an attempt was made by the British to do so.
The settlement of such towns as Flushing, Harlem, Albany, Kingston, Flatbush, Hempstead, Yonkers, New Rochelle, Brooklyn and Bushwick; all came before the conquest. The beginning of Broadway and Wall Street, the covenant chain with the Iroquois, the Flushing Remonstrance and religious freedom, even the tradition of Santa Claus, come from New Netherland.
Even the word "Yankee" probably comes from that Dutch heritage.
Philadelphia is STILL the most important American city in recent history. If it wasn't for some idiotic founding fathers' decisions to move commerce to New York and build a new capital in DC, Philly could've been a primate city, like London. So expect a lot of hate from Philadelphians toward New York and DC for getting the hype they don't deserve.
If it wasn't for some idiotic founding fathers' decisions to move commerce to New York and build a new capital in DC, Philly could've been a primate city, like London.
Keep in mind that when US got its independence from the British, NYC was already bigger than Philly even during the period when Philly was the capital. During the 2nd census, NYC was double the population of Philly, and the gap grew wider ever since.
Keep in mind that when US got its independence from the British, NYC was already bigger than Philly even during the period when Philly was the capital. During the 2nd census, NYC was double the population of Philly, and the gap grew wider ever since.
actually it was around 1820 that NYC passed Philly. Remember that in those periods, Southwark, Northern Liberties etc were listed as separate cities now basically part of center city.
At the time of the revolution Philadelphia was the 2nd largest English speaking city in the world actually
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.
New Amsterdam
