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.
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.
I don't think FL had anything to do with Atlanta's longstanding dominance of its region. Atlanta was important way beack before FL had much settlement or much of an economy at all.
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.
It's fascinating to read about what a powerhouse STL was back in the day. Unfortunately, bad decisions by forefathers, white flight and other factors lead to a decline. However, its kind of awesome being a part of the rejuvenation. St Louis has a huge urban revitalization community that is set on rebuilding the neighborhoods. The city looks night and day different than 10 years ago. I have neighbors from all over the country that love living in the city of STL.
There are two similar instances of a principal city of a region being superseded in population by another city though not completely losing its influence. One is San Francisco with the rise of San Jose as the capital of Silicon Valley. Also, Norfolk with the rise of its neighboring Virginia Beach.
"silicon valley" started taking shape in the 1950's (this is what wikipedia tells me). That means that SF was the dominant city of silicon valley (by virtue of largest population in the Bay, and proximity to it), all the way up until 1990, when SJ surpassed SF in population. So SF spent the first 40 years of silicon valley's existence as the undisputed largest city in the Bay Area. SJ has now had that distinction for the past 20 years...SJ doesn't really completely dominate silicon valley anyways (silicon valley stretches north from SJ towards SF), and despite it's larger population than SF, doesn't dominate the Bay Area either.
I'd say the city that really stole SF's thunder was LA. SF was the biggest city on the west coast until the 1920's, when LA's booming population sent it waaaaay up there. Suddenly SF went from being top dog to the 2nd player on the west coast, and it happened fast.
I'd say the city that really stole SF's thunder was LA. SF was the biggest city on the west coast until the 1920's, when LA's booming population sent it waaaaay up there. Suddenly SF went from being top dog to the 2nd player on the west coast, and it happened fast.
I'm in total agreement about LA and SF. I think this is probably the single most notable example in the US. I do think that San Francisco retains its dominance in Northern California. Being the dominant city is about more than population. It involves the idea of a city being the preferred "city destination" when all other things (distance, cost, hassle to get there) are relatively equal.
I also think Atlanta and St Louis are good examples of cities that have, respectively, risen to and fallen from regional dominance.
I really don't think Detroit is a good example since, in spite of its tragic decline, it remains the clearly dominant city in the state of Michigan and probably never was the most dominant city on a larger regional basis.
Tell that to Wyoming! 8 miles across the Colo/Wyo border and there ya are, with another 300 miles to spare.
I actually lived in Laramie for two years. Went to school there.
Considering the Union Pacific railroad was instrumental in Wyomings early growth, (just west of Cheyenne is really the only place where there is a very gradual slope up to the mountains) its no huge suprise that Cheyenne became Wyomings biggest town and capital. Even today Cheyenne is the least remote of anywhere in Wyoming. (only two hours to Denver the capital of the Rocky Mtn. region).
Actually would argue Silicon Valley, like the tech industry that made it so economically powerful, is essentially virtual and defines the modern era of economic dominance in nondescript, car-centric suburbia....there is no city or CBD for SV....it's a series of industrial suburbs like MtnView, Cupertino, etc w/major tech cos. and start-ups in low-lying anonymous suburban campuses....and most of elite who own/run these cos. live in leafy PaloAlto/Woodside/Atherton...and some yuppies live in SF and commute
Population, skylines, etc don't correlate well with economic relevance, esp in a globalized/Net/Blkberry economy
For ex., LA is amusing as it's ~18MM people (clearly lots of economic underachievers) but has so few valuable cos. HQd anywhere in region....LA economy is dwarfed by that of SV which has a mere <3MM people (SF's East Bay has millions of LA-like economic underachievers)
Most of world's most valuable cos. are HQd in distant suburbs, not in old cities or CBDs....Exxon in Irving, J&J in suburban NJ, IBM in suburban Westchester, etc etc
Concept of CBDs is an archaic pre-Net/Blkberry thing....perhaps nostalgic stuff for Luddites who ride trains to "work"
Waco was once one of the biggest cities in Texas until..........Dallas became this huge horrible monster and stole everything away!
Dallas overtook Fort Worth and Waco. It used use than left us to die! lol
Houston did the same thing to Galveston. Galveston used to be one of the four biggest cities in Texas.
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.
......Dallas became this huge horrible monster and stole everything away!
lol
8 miles across the Colo/Wyo border and there ya are, with another 300 miles to spare.
....there is no city or CBD for SV....it's a series of industrial suburbs like MtnView, Cupertino, etc w/major tech cos. and start-ups in low-lying anonymous suburban campuses....and most of elite who own/run these cos. live in leafy PaloAlto/Woodside/Atherton...and some yuppies live in SF and commute
