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.
There is no reason why Baltimore or Richmond would be any bigger than they are now, since neither is influenced by the proximity to DC. Driving from Richmond to Baltimore would be pretty much like driving from Richmond to Raleigh-Durham, with maybe a city the size of Annapolis or Hagerstown on the Potomac -- probably Alexandria, Virginia. Whatever city had the National Capital would have a population a million or two larger, to accommodate federal workers.
Baltimore would be bigger than it is now, and perhaps Alexandria would have more of a unique identity as its own city, something on the order of Savannah or Charleston.
This is what I was thinking too.
I think you'd see increased size and influence mostly in Baltimore, but also noticeable differences in Philadelphia, Annapolis, and Alexandria. Richmond's cultural and economic influence may be larger as well since there wouldn't be nearly as much development and growth in NOVA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCityDreamer
Okay, what is so special about Richmond? How is it affected by the existence or nonexistence of Washington, D.C. 100 miles to the north?
I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that if you take the seat of federal government and the millions of people living and working in that city and suburbs out of the picture, Richmond may see even a small shift in development patterns over the centuries, do you? Yes, it's 100 miles, but the DC area is one of the most significant population and employment centers for the people of Virginia. If you completely eliminate that population and employment center, I think Virginia develops differently and more growth is centered around Richmond. Does it become like Atlanta or Charlotte? Probably not. But it would probably be larger and more influential than it is today.
I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that if you take the seat of federal government and the millions of people living and working in that city and suburbs out of the picture, Richmond may see even a small shift in development patterns over the centuries, do you? Yes, it's 100 miles, but the DC area is one of the most significant population and employment centers for the people of Virginia. If you completely eliminate that population and employment center, I think Virginia develops differently and more growth is centered around Richmond. Does it become like Atlanta or Charlotte? Probably not. But it would probably be larger and more influential than it is today.
How do you explain how Harrisburg never grew that big?
Did Philadelphia take away most of the population that would have otherwise settled in that area?
I'm from nebraska. I can assure you that Maryland isn't on my radar. But your hang-up on it and whether or not it's in the south is a little strange.
Obviously Maryland is in your radar because you choose to attack me for stating the obvious that Maryland is a Southern state in which it looks like you have a problem with accepting it.
No reason to think Baltimore would be bigger than it is now, imo. If anything, the opposite is true. Most of the growth in the Baltimore MSA over the past couple decades have been in Howard and Anne Arundel Counties, and if not for DC's existence, you can forget about that growth.
To answer the OP, Baltimore would be slightly smaller, and Maryland generally would be more economically stagnant and rural. Politically it would be centrist or center-left; in 2012, without Montgomery and Prince George's counties, basic math says Maryland would have voted for Obama, but by a much slimmer margin. Maryland would also have a somewhat smaller black population, since you lose the huge black population clustered in the southern/eastern DC suburbs. Probably more on the order of 20% black.
The total opposite of what you stated. Without DC, Maryland would be more conservative republican and the majority of the Black population would be around Baltimore, Annapolis, Frederick, and Salisbury.
I think you'd see increased size and influence mostly in Baltimore, but also noticeable differences in Philadelphia, Annapolis, and Alexandria. Richmond's cultural and economic influence may be larger as well since there wouldn't be nearly as much development and growth in NOVA.
I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that if you take the seat of federal government and the millions of people living and working in that city and suburbs out of the picture, Richmond may see even a small shift in development patterns over the centuries, do you? Yes, it's 100 miles, but the DC area is one of the most significant population and employment centers for the people of Virginia. If you completely eliminate that population and employment center, I think Virginia develops differently and more growth is centered around Richmond. Does it become like Atlanta or Charlotte? Probably not. But it would probably be larger and more influential than it is today.
I was thinking that the Hampton Roads region would be much larger since it is along the water.
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.
