The Rise and Fall of Dominant Cities (cost, cons, neighborhood)

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by moorlander

St. Louis was the 3rd largest city in america 100 years ago. There is much information out there on how Chicago eclipsed St. Louis because of their forsite in the late 1800's to make deals with the railroads where as in St. Louis the the politicians were recieving under the table bribes from the steamboat companies.

I also had a good read recently about Atlanta vs Birmingham. Back in the post world war 2 time there was much discussion as to which city would be the capital of the South. Atlanta took the big gamble with the airport and that turned out pretty well for them.

While this maybe true, I think Chicago and Atlanta were simply better geographically situated than St. Louis and Birmingham respectively.

Chicago was simply on the western receiving end of the Great Lakes, closer to New York and the eastern seaboard. And a canal needed to be dug across the low barely existant drainage divide between the Des Plaines and Chicago river. Which required infrastructure and immigrant labor (mostly from Ireland, some from Germany). St. Louis was a little far south and west to be the halfway point between the agricultural heartland and the established east coast cities.

Birmingham had more natural resources to make steel, but Atlanta was more centrally located, closer to the east coast and on the way to Florida.

While civic forefathers may have had more foresight than others, maybe partially true, it is more mythology bordering on propoganda to promote boosterism and civic pride.

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by Guardian of The Gulf

I agree from a contemporary standpoint Tallahassee is an odd location for a capital. It is almost as far as possible from the most populated part of the state, infact it's much closer to Atlanta, GA than it is to Miami, FL. But what are you gonna do

100 years ago, most of Floridas population was in the north. Central and southern Florida was a malaria infestested, lightly settled, wide open frontier. Thats why its oddly placed. Many other states though do have their capital very centrally located.

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by oakparkdude

How about Jamestown. Used to be the capital of Colonial Virginia. Now its abandoned aside from tourists and archaeologists.

Williamsburg was the capital of Colonial Virginia. Jamestown was indeed the first settlement on the coast, and is very close to Williamsburg, that you can get a 3-day pass to visit both, they are so close together.

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by Whitney92

Cities in the southwest of the U.S def did that too! Phoenix totally just ate up surrounding cities and then rose to be like the fifth largest city in the country.

So...I don't know if its cheating, but it's def not the way cities developed in the past...

Actually cities DID do that in the past quite a lot! Thats EXACTLY what Chicago did! They just did that a lot earlier.

New York City also annexed all of Brooklyn too.

[oakparkdude]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

Williamsburg was the capital of Colonial Virginia. Jamestown was indeed the first settlement on the coast, and is very close to Williamsburg, that you can get a 3-day pass to visit both, they are so close together.

Jamestown was the capital before Williamsburg from 1616 until 1699.

[eon-krate32]

Originally Posted by grindin

Jacksonville, Indianapolis, Nashville, and Louisville did the same thing. As well as Chesapeake, VA and Suffolk, VA.

Actually Jacksonville only annexed open land in Duval County as to not have to deal with the few smaller burbs that were there (most of them are on the beaches anyways). I think that's a smart move IMO.

[eon-krate32]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

100 years ago, most of Floridas population was in the north. Central and southern Florida was a malaria infestested, lightly settled, wide open frontier. Thats why its oddly placed. Many other states though do have their capital very centrally located.

Tell that to Wyoming! 8 miles across the Colo/Wyo border and there ya are, with another 300 miles to spare.

[Chicago60614]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

Actually cities DID do that in the past quite a lot! Thats EXACTLY what Chicago did! They just did that a lot earlier.

New York City also annexed all of Brooklyn too.

That's right. Although back then there were usually other reasons for being annexed than there are today. It is for whatever reason more difficult in some northern states to annex than it is elsewhere. This is why you very rarely see any older city in the north eating up their suburbs. Cities like Omaha are in states where the core city has the right to annex if it makes sense. Look at Omaha and you'll see the city is huge, and there aren't very many suburbs. Then look at Des Moines in Iowa where it's much more difficult to annex, and you'll see a smaller central city, yet hundreds of thousands of people living in over a dozen suburbs.

Back 100 years ago though it was too difficult for smaller towns to get access to new electrical system, sewage, drinking water, etc. Normally a city would pop up around Chicago, and then when Chicago grew near enough to that town to have infrastructure close by - the town would request to be annexed into Chicago so they could take advantage of all the services, etc.

Once technology and time progressed, many of those smaller cities managed to set up systems themselves, and within a short period of time no one was asking to be annexed by Chicago anymore. Hence the city was stuck and the suburbs stayed put hemming it in during the 1940's-1950's.

[Ben Around]

Originally Posted by eon-krate32

Tell that to Wyoming! 8 miles across the Colo/Wyo border and there ya are, with another 300 miles to spare.

Same deal with MN. St. Paul is only 20 miles west of the border with WI. In fact, St. Paul's MSA now includes a few counties in WI.

NY's capital, Albany, is pretty close to its eastern border too (as is RI's )

[Ben Around]

Originally Posted by Chicago60614

That's right. Although back then there were usually other reasons for being annexed than there are today. It is for whatever reason more difficult in some northern states to annex than it is elsewhere. This is why you very rarely see any older city in the north eating up their suburbs. Cities like Omaha are in states where the core city has the right to annex if it makes sense. Look at Omaha and you'll see the city is huge, and there aren't very many suburbs. Then look at Des Moines in Iowa where it's much more difficult to annex, and you'll see a smaller central city, yet hundreds of thousands of people living in over a dozen suburbs.

Back 100 years ago though it was too difficult for smaller towns to get access to new electrical system, sewage, drinking water, etc. Normally a city would pop up around Chicago, and then when Chicago grew near enough to that city to have infrastructure close by - the city would always ask to be annexed into Chicago so they could take advantage of all the services, etc.

Once technology and time progressed, many of those smaller cities managed to set up systems themselves, and within a short period of time no one was asking to be annexed by Chicago anymore. Hence the city was stuck and the suburbs stayed put hemming it in during the 1940's-1950's.

Another exception is Milwaukee. They annexed a township or two back in the 50s/60s.