Capital of the South? (state, place, America, Atlanta)

[Trae713]

Originally Posted by OmShahi

Another thing I would like to add is the fact that Atlanta and Dallas are land trapped cities.

They've both proved to be on the same par as Houston for southern cities, and all three make it hard for each other to out do another. But I really have to give credit where it's earned.

For two land trapped cities they're fairing a lot better than Houston, because a large portion of Houston's economy is based off of trade, and shipments from it's port. Which would give it a slight advantage over Atlanta and Dallas.

But Atlanta and Dallas have built a really strong economy, and they build a lot of creditability for being the largest economies sitting at a place completely surrounded by land. Chicago has Lake Michigan, and that regulates a lot of trade with Canada and the neighboring states, as well as the 3rd largest inland port in the world, behind Hong Kong's and Singapore's.
Dallas and Atlanta to grow as much as they have and at a faster rate than Houston without being a coastal city, is a very big thing for the south.

As much as I like Houston, I honestly think Dallas and Atlanta have done a lot more work building up their economies.

Houston was rich to start with, with oil reserves located in it's vicinity, and a coast, Dallas and Atlanta have completely built themselves up from scratch.

But presently, all three would be at the same level, the only difference is, one of them has a port, and sits near the coast.

First off, Houston and Dallas economies are much larger than Atlanta's (Houston being the largest). Second, I don't think they had to work that hard. Dallas and Atlanta were both built on rail transportation. Rail transportation fueled the US economy just as much, if not more, in those days than a normal seaport. Dallas was seen as the "last stop before heading out West", and Atlanta was always a large trading center (go look at old photos of Peachtree Street...like a mini-NYC).

All three cities were built from scratch really.

[DANNYY]

Originally Posted by Scarface713

First off, Houston and Dallas economies are much larger than Atlanta's (Houston being the largest). Second, I don't think they had to work that hard. Dallas and Atlanta were both built on rail transportation. Rail transportation fueled the US economy just as much, if not more, in those days than a normal seaport. Dallas was seen as the "last stop before heading out West", and Atlanta was always a large trading center (go look at old photos of Peachtree Street...like a mini-NYC).

All three cities were built from scratch really.

Ah I don't think you understood my post the way I thought people would, just shows more of my lack of enhanced grammar to make a clear cut point.

Anyways, the railroads like you said, are man made, the oil found near Houston, is not, the Coast near Houston is not man made either. The railroads were established to make a settlement and have people live near them for being transnational crossroads.

Yes, but present day to decipher this "capital of the south" what goes for more, a railroad or a port? Which of those two give a city more of an edge over another city, in present times?

[Trae713]

Originally Posted by OmShahi

Ah I don't think you understood my post the way I thought people would, just shows more of my lack of enhanced grammar to make a clear cut point.

Nah, your posts are structured fine.

Anyways, the railroads like you said, are man made, the oil found near Houston, is not, the Coast near Houston is not man made either. The railroads were established to make a settlement and have people live near them for being transnational crossroads.

When oil was found near Houston (really Beaumont), Dallas was already a larger city than it. I'm sure Atlanta was, too. Dallas and Atlanta were already settlements before the railroads. They just helped spur their growth. Just like when the Port of Houston was built/created in the early to mid-1900s. There is plenty of oil/natural gas found in North Texas, too. Maybe not as much as down in SE Texas, but Dallas definitely benefited from the oil/cotton boom back then.

Yes, but present day to decipher this "capital of the south" what goes for more, a railroad or a port? Which of those two give a city more of an edge over another city, in present times?

In present times, both are still needed. What good is the Port of Houston if you can't ship anything off anywhere? Houston is lucky enough to have a port as an extra bonus, though. It's why I think Houston will start pulling away, economically, with Dallas right behind.

[DANNYY]

Originally Posted by Scarface713

Nah, your posts are structured fine.

When oil was found near Houston (really Beaumont), Dallas was already a larger city than it. I'm sure Atlanta was, too. Dallas and Atlanta were already settlements before the railroads. They just helped spur their growth. Just like when the Port of Houston was built/created in the early to mid-1900s. There is plenty of oil/natural gas found in North Texas, too. Maybe not as much as down in SE Texas, but Dallas definitely benefited from the oil/cotton boom back then.

In present times, both are still needed. What good is the Port of Houston if you can't ship anything off anywhere? Houston is lucky enough to have a port as an extra bonus, though. It's why I think Houston will start pulling away, economically, with Dallas right behind.

The port certainly has proved itself on national and international standards altogether.

List of world's busiest ports by cargo tonnage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's without the help/influence of the Port of Galveston and Port of Texas City.

[hdwell]

Originally Posted by Scarface713

Lake Charles and Shreveport is where the SW begins? No sir.

Not by a long shot are those two cities in the Southwest. They do look to be Southeastern if you look at a map of the USA; however, the area should be considered South Central. Being located west of the Miss. River does produce a disconnect from the far SE; whether you're with me or not is immaterial. I'm not trying to create the disconnect, that is just how it is. Disconnect meaning we don't hear anything much about the SE cities or know much about them. We are making more of a connection now than ever has been in my life.

Ok, I'm off topic, just thought I would clarify that. I have lived in the region most all my life so I know what I have heard and not heard.

One thing I think that started all the "Southwest thing" was the oil and gas industry in which Texas, Lousiaiana, and Oklahoma have shared companies and service industries all these years. Arkansas as well. Yes Mississippi and Alabama connect this way as well; however T, L, and O were some of the major states in oil and gas production and still are.

[waronxmas]

Originally Posted by Scarface713

First off, Houston and Dallas economies are much larger than Atlanta's (Houston being the largest). Second, I don't think they had to work that hard. Dallas and Atlanta were both built on rail transportation. Rail transportation fueled the US economy just as much, if not more, in those days than a normal seaport. Dallas was seen as the "last stop before heading out West", and Atlanta was always a large trading center (go look at old photos of Peachtree Street...like a mini-NYC).

It's funny you bring that up as it is one of the reasons why Atlanta got the moniker "The New York of the South". Contrary to what people think, that nickname came into popular use in the early 20th century and was due to scenes like in the picture below and because Atlanta decided to annex thorough a Borough/Ward system in the same fashion as NYC did in 1899. That's it:

Downtown Atlanta 1907:

[Dusty Rhodes]

Well, we use U.S Dollars, of course.

[blkgiraffe]

Regardless of who is the Capital of the South; Houston will always have one over the others (except Miami). It's built on the coast and has a port. I think those things are very important in becoming a internationally known and important city.

That's the one thing that really holds Chicago back for reaching its full potential, and usually taking a backseat to NYC and LA as far as popularity and recognition.

[DANNYY]

Originally Posted by jluke65780

Regardless of who is the Capital of the South; Houston will always have one over the others (except Miami). It's built on the coast and has a port. I think those things are very important in becoming a internationally known and important city.

That's the one thing that really holds Chicago back for reaching its full potential, and usually taking a backseat to NYC and LA as far as popularity and recognition.

That's the truth, and not just for Chicago, but all the Midwestern cities, like Detroit, Cleveland, Cincinnati. All of them are land trapped cities. Having a large inland port on the Great Lakes that go through the St. Lawrence river really puts the Midwest at a large inconvenience. Same can be said for Toronto, and Montreal.

[Akhenaton06]

Originally Posted by adavi215

I definitely referenced that when I said northern part of SC (of course you knew that as a SC native). The Triad/Charlotte intersection is interesting. Especially around Salisbury, Statesville, Thomasville, and Lexington. These areas could go either way.

For more day to day things, they could definitely go to the Triad. But for the things that I mentioned specifically, the entire Triad is influenced by Charlotte, and in some respects is influenced by the Triangle also.