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 01-19-2012, 10:23 AM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,509 posts, read 28,201,873 times
Reputation: 7599

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by annie_himself View Post
If I could change history, Galveston, New Orleans, Mobile, Savannah, and Charleston would have been the Houston, Atlanta, Dallas, and Miami of the south.
NOLA will be the Amsterdam of the south when you guys start having Coffee Shops
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-19-2012, 10:44 AM
 
Location: Denver
14,154 posts, read 19,796,618 times
Reputation: 8810
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
NOLA will be the Amsterdam of the south when you guys start having Coffee Shops
You can come visit me, I know thats all you want...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2012, 11:26 AM
 
Location: Austin, Texas
3,093 posts, read 4,141,511 times
Reputation: 3117
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
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.

THAT i probably would see.

Or maybe Galveston would have been Houston's Long Beach

Lol, is it that serious? Houstonians always flip out when I say that. Who cares, the storm happened and Houston is bigger.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2012, 11:33 AM
 
Location: Denver
14,154 posts, read 19,796,618 times
Reputation: 8810
Quote:
Originally Posted by UTHORNS96 View Post
Lol, is it that serious? Houstonians always flip out when I say that. Who cares, the storm happened and Houston is bigger.
I can understand the frustration. Even if the storm didn't happen Houston wold have been much bigger still.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2012, 04:43 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,509 posts, read 28,201,873 times
Reputation: 7599
Quote:
Originally Posted by annie_himself View Post
You can come visit me, I know thats all you want...
pfffft, I don't smoke
Quote:
Originally Posted by UTHORNS96 View Post
Lol, is it that serious? Houstonians always flip out when I say that. Who cares, the storm happened and Houston is bigger.
Then if you have heard it before, are you just being daft repeating it over and over again?

You have been told that you were incorrect more than once, how many more times do you need correcting before you to stop repeating erroneous info?

And then he gets upset that he has been corrected while admitting he has been corrected before

how about this: STOP MAKING STUPID STATEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO BE WRONG AND MAYBE PEOPLE WILL STOP CORRECTING YOU ON IT.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2012, 05:02 PM
 
Location: NOVA
316 posts, read 558,975 times
Reputation: 339
People in Savannah and Charleston tend to like slow to no progression. I'm not talking about those people, but they generally tend to be satisfied with what they have and the city itself. They do not want to be a Atlanta, DC, Miami, Houston, or Dallas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2012, 05:42 PM
 
29,955 posts, read 27,459,781 times
Reputation: 18547
Quote:
Originally Posted by cordtwo View Post
People in Savannah and Charleston tend to like slow to no progression. I'm not talking about those people, but they generally tend to be satisfied with what they have and the city itself. They do not want to be a Atlanta, DC, Miami, Houston, or Dallas.
They just prefer more sustainable growth which won't drastically alter the character of their cities; even then, those metros are among the fastest-growing in their size categories. But that really has little to do with why they aren't major cities right now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2012, 05:54 PM
 
Location: NOVA
316 posts, read 558,975 times
Reputation: 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutiny77 View Post
They just prefer more sustainable growth which won't drastically alter the character of their cities; even then, those metros are among the fastest-growing in their size categories. But that really has little to do with why they aren't major cities right now.

Actually it does considering that they are two of the oldest cities in the US. Sustainable growth is exactly the problem. New York and Boston are coastal cities and they did not take the same approach.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2012, 06:04 PM
 
29,955 posts, read 27,459,781 times
Reputation: 18547
Quote:
Originally Posted by cordtwo View Post
Actually it does considering that they are two of the oldest cities in the US. Sustainable growth is exactly the problem. New York and Boston are coastal cities and they did not take the same approach.
NYC and Boston were much more industrialized earlier in their histories and did not have their cities and economies devastated by the Civil War. Those are the main reasons why Charleston and Savannah are not major cities, which we've mentioned several times here. It has absolutely nothing to do with the mindsets of present-day citizens; it's all due to historical reasons.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2012, 09:02 PM
 
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,683 posts, read 45,464,371 times
Reputation: 11862
Maybe it's a good thing Charleston and Savannah didn't become big cities. I like the small town charm they have.
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