U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-17-2012, 05:26 PM
 
29,976 posts, read 27,507,395 times
Reputation: 18571

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bizurko View Post
Because they fight progress every step of the way imo.
How so?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-18-2012, 10:24 AM
 
Location: Raleigh, NC
1,447 posts, read 2,295,140 times
Reputation: 1361
Very interesting question. Looking back at old population figures I have sometimes wondered that myself. Charleston was a top five US city for a little while. I think most of the major reasons have already been touched upon in this thread. The economy of Charleston was largely dependant on the slave trade and when that ended so did much of Charleston's prosperity. Plus it was physically damaged in the Civil War and then again by a big earthquake in 1886. There was still a port, but since the south had not industrialized as much as the north, the port didn't have as much to import and export.

A lot of the same reasoning applies to Savannah.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2012, 01:55 PM
 
29,976 posts, read 27,507,395 times
Reputation: 18571
Quote:
Originally Posted by po-boy View Post
Very interesting question. Looking back at old population figures I have sometimes wondered that myself. Charleston was a top five US city for a little while. I think most of the major reasons have already been touched upon in this thread. The economy of Charleston was largely dependant on the slave trade and when that ended so did much of Charleston's prosperity. Plus it was physically damaged in the Civil War and then again by a big earthquake in 1886. There was still a port, but since the south had not industrialized as much as the north, the port didn't have as much to import and export.

A lot of the same reasoning applies to Savannah.
Good summarization.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2012, 02:13 PM
 
9,967 posts, read 14,650,756 times
Reputation: 9193
Atlanta surpassed Savannah in population back in the 1890s. The term "New South" was already being applied to Atlanta when it started to industrialize in the Post-Civil War period--along with attracting people from the Northeast. Savannah and Charleston were just more representative of the Old South---I think it was harder for anyone to break into the more stratified Southern societies of those cities unlike the more pro-growth nature of Atlanta.

So even today, Charleson and Savannah look more to the past in some ways, and Atlanta and other Piedmont cities like Charlotte are cities that are more focused on the future. Although if Charleston and Savannah had been larger cities during the 20th Century, there's a chance we would have lost much of the historic architecture and atmosphere of these cities and replaced with more generic modern architecture(and parking lots) in the mid 20th-Century. Some of the most beautiful historic cities in the world only remained that way because of a period of economic decline...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2012, 02:48 PM
 
29,976 posts, read 27,507,395 times
Reputation: 18571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deezus View Post
Savannah and Charleston were just more representative of the Old South---I think it was harder for anyone to break into the more stratified Southern societies of those cities unlike the more pro-growth nature of Atlanta.
I don't think that's necessarily true. Look at Boston and Philly as examples of that which probably had even more social stratification, but were also much more industrialized.

Quote:
Although if Charleston and Savannah had been larger cities during the 20th Century, there's a chance we would have lost much of the historic architecture and atmosphere of these cities and replaced with more generic modern architecture(and parking lots) in the mid 20th-Century. Some of the most beautiful historic cities in the world only remained that way because of a period of economic decline...
Another great point that I thought of and forgot to mention.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2012, 08:17 AM
 
2,755 posts, read 11,778,171 times
Reputation: 1464
Likely vulnerability to hurricanes had something to do with it. Notice that the big northeastern coastal cities are protected from hurricanes by the Outer Banks, the Delmarva peninsula, and Long Island. One big southern port city, Galveston, Texas, got mostly wiped off the map by a hurricane, leading to less vulnerable Houston overtaking it.

As someone else said, vulnerability to tropical illnesses like malaria, yellow fever, dengue, and others also led people inland (less stagnant water), and the rise of the railroad meant that inland cities on the railroad line were more able to get goods to market than the sea ports were.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2012, 09:10 AM
 
Location: Austin, Texas
3,093 posts, read 4,144,864 times
Reputation: 3117
Quote:
Originally Posted by tfox View Post
Likely vulnerability to hurricanes had something to do with it. Notice that the big northeastern coastal cities are protected from hurricanes by the Outer Banks, the Delmarva peninsula, and Long Island. One big southern port city, Galveston, Texas, got mostly wiped off the map by a hurricane, leading to less vulnerable Houston overtaking it.

As someone else said, vulnerability to tropical illnesses like malaria, yellow fever, dengue, and others also led people inland (less stagnant water), and the rise of the railroad meant that inland cities on the railroad line were more able to get goods to market than the sea ports were.
Galveston was actually the second fastest growing city behind NYC at one point. If it wasn't for the Hurricane of 1900, Houston would be a cute little suburb of Galveston right about now, lol.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2012, 09:40 AM
 
Location: Denver
14,157 posts, read 19,816,434 times
Reputation: 8811
Quote:
Originally Posted by UTHORNS96 View Post
Galveston was actually the second fastest growing city behind NYC at one point. If it wasn't for the Hurricane of 1900, Houston would be a cute little suburb of Galveston right about now, lol.
It would probably be more like DFW, with Galveston and Houston sharing the metro area.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2012, 10:05 AM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,509 posts, read 28,220,877 times
Reputation: 7599
Quote:
Originally Posted by UTHORNS96 View Post
Galveston was actually the second fastest growing city behind NYC at one point. If it wasn't for the Hurricane of 1900, Houston would be a cute little suburb of Galveston right about now, lol.
again that is false.

Galveston city proper had more people than Houston proper (which was what 40 acres and a mule at the time?) In reality. the area around Houston DEFINITELY HAD!!!!! DEFINITELY had more people than Galveston. I am not saying that Galveston may not have continued growing, but it was inevitable that Houston would have annexed the cities around it and grown larger than Galveston.

I am tired of hearing crap like Houston would have been a suburb of Galveston. HOuston was surrounded by cities incorporated even before Houston was incorporated. Galveston was around water.

Storm or not it was inevitable that Houston would outpace

When Galveston was a large town of 40K
Houston was 8K with another 60K around it. If metro populations were in effect back then, Houston, DFW and SA would have been larger than Galveston.

please read some history instead of saying things like Houston would be a burb of Galveston. Shipping alone would not have carried Galveston.

You can see that Houston started growing BEFORE the storm. It is annexation and oil that rapidly increased Houston's population, the port helped.

Quote:
Originally Posted by annie_himself View Post
It would probably be more like DFW, with Galveston and Houston sharing the metro area.
THAT i probably would see.

Or maybe Galveston would have been Houston's Long Beach
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2012, 10:11 AM
 
Location: Denver
14,157 posts, read 19,816,434 times
Reputation: 8811
If I could change history, Galveston, New Orleans, Mobile, Savannah, and Charleston would have been the Houston, Atlanta, Dallas, and Miami of the south.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top