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.
Location: Uniquely Individual Villages of the Megalopolis
646 posts, read 813,939 times
Reputation: 36
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by tenken627
No, I agree with you that having balance within a region or country between cities of different importance is better than having a primate city that feeds off an entire area.
I also agree that spatial and geographical features dictate much of how a region's (or country's) cities correlate to each other. While there are exceptions, most countries with large, broad open land and mild climate do not tend to have a primate city. India, China, and the US have most of their population spread out across vast regions and therefore were able to give rise to many different cities of relatively equal stature. >>
India's development as with the early US had a lot of interference from colonialism in how they would begin their industrialized networks. Primacy in the Eastern US directly reflects that former colonial presence as does much of India since most of its cities were inland before being redrawn to suit the former colonial powers' coastal/seaport trade routes how they wished to effectively develop their empires in their own interests. Much of India's poverty today is said to be, as in the case of many African countries moreso, due to the reorientation though India has rapidly industrialized on its own since independence. Poverty overall is being reduced somewhat.
Countries in Europe and some parts of Asia tend to be very small in size, and are limited in livability, and access due to natural terrain or extreme climate. This has caused primate cities to easily access most of the population from it's city-center, and therefore did not have the need for any other base of operations. Germany and Italy are exceptions, but both countries were not unified into a whole until the late 1800's, long after many of their principle cities passed through their growth stages. >>
Such cities as Amsterdam, Brussells, Stockholm, Lisbon, having small domestic markets have a larger need to be world connected, of course.
Italy and Germany had a system of city-states and duchies, etc that were the kingdom and the city in one, the Italian city states were rivals that expanded overseas in mercantilism, Genoa, Venice, Florence, etc. Germany remained many similar princedoms, etc but much expansive economic wealth was created in those two scenarios because though rivals they charged each other tolls to pass thru and trade with each other. Interstate commerce? has its roots here, one source of great revenue w/n the US that helped distribute wealth across the earlier states and as it added and expanded creating new states from territories.
Within the U.S., the Rocky and Appalachian Mountains represent a significant barrier between the East and West Coasts from the interior. There always will be more people populating coastal areas, but I believe that these two mountain ranges have made it more so historically. The South on the other hand is not as unhindered by terrain and is very spread out. Different cities of smaller, but equal stature in the region works very well for the South. There may be a dominant node that stands out a little more, but not in the way Chicago is with the Midwest.
I'm glad you're able to see all this in spatial terms rather than absolute physical limitations.
Yes I agree, unlike in California where there are physical boundaries it still expands inland but runs into other physical barriers, that can reinforce SF and LA but other nodes in the general region are dynamic when skipping over mtns and deserts those getting their own influx. The Southeast and South to TExas is as you allude I'd say are a possible continuaton of the NE and MW hence why so many New Yorkers live in Fla or Atlanta, DC not much obstruction.
But what I had meant about the South before was as you say it works better but I was trying to say that may be the case for now, but it's not static. There's the push/pull effect. Continued influx of people, goods, services, etc to other smaller nodes as well as the existing larger ones are pushing the bigger ones (although on relative equal positions) higher, and adding new ones to take their former place.
At current rates we could see ultimately a string of Alpha cities there or beta first also on equal footing while more gamma are stimulated and so on and son on. Less beta and gamma creation around the rest of the country except what is similarly happening in the West as the South, would ultimately reflect the total orientaton of the country to its Southern most regions.
On the other hand, at the same time, it appears there is a return in most other areas and including Europe to a city-state system in some regards. This has already been cited by a number of experts. Those currently at alpha levels would obviously become more dictatorial within their own environs. But imo the US system will, as opposed to other countries, have a diminishing effect internally. jmo.
Last edited by StuyTownRefugee; 11-15-2007 at 08:10 AM..
Location: Uniquely Individual Villages of the Megalopolis
646 posts, read 813,939 times
Reputation: 36
Originally Posted by tenken627 No, I agree with you that having balance within a region or country between cities of different importance is better than having a primate city that feeds off an entire area.
I also agree that spatial and geographical features dictate much of how a region's (or country's) cities correlate to each other. While there are exceptions, most countries with large, broad open land and mild climate do not tend to have a primate city. India, China, and the US have most of their population spread out across vast regions and therefore were able to give rise to many different cities of relatively equal stature. >>
StuyTown: India's development as with the early US had a lot of interference from colonialism in how they would begin their industrialized networks. Primacy in the Eastern US directly reflects that former colonial presence as does much of India since most of its cities were inland before being redrawn to suit the former colonial powers' coastal/seaport trade routes how they wished to effectively develop their empires in their own interests. Much of India's poverty today is said to be, as in the case of many African countries moreso, due to the reorientation though India has rapidly industrialized on its own since independence. Poverty overall is being reduced somewhat.
tenken627 Countries in Europe and some parts of Asia tend to be very small in size, and are limited in livability, and access due to natural terrain or extreme climate. This has caused primate cities to easily access most of the population from it's city-center, and therefore did not have the need for any other base of operations. Germany and Italy are exceptions, but both countries were not unified into a whole until the late 1800's, long after many of their principle cities passed through their growth stages. >>
StuyTown: Such cities as Amsterdam, Brussells, Stockholm, Lisbon, having small domestic markets have a larger need to be world connected, of course.
Italy and Germany had a system of city-states and duchies, etc that were the kingdom and the city in one, the Italian city states were rivals that expanded overseas in mercantilism, Genoa, Venice, Florence, etc. Germany remained many similar princedoms, etc but much expansive economic wealth was created in those two scenarios because though rivals they charged each other tolls to pass thru and trade with each other. Interstate commerce? has its roots here, one source of great revenue w/n the US that helped distribute wealth across the earlier states and as it added and expanded creating new states from territories.
tenken627 Within the U.S., the Rocky and Appalachian Mountains represent a significant barrier between the East and West Coasts from the interior. There always will be more people populating coastal areas, but I believe that these two mountain ranges have made it more so historically. The South on the other hand is not as unhindered by terrain and is very spread out. Different cities of smaller, but equal stature in the region works very well for the South. There may be a dominant node that stands out a little more, but not in the way Chicago is with the Midwest.
StuyTown: I'm glad you're able to see all this in spatial terms rather than absolute physical limitations.
Yes I agree, unlike in California where there are physical boundaries it still expands inland but runs into other physical barriers, that can reinforce SF and LA but other nodes in the general region are dynamic when skipping over mtns and deserts those getting their own influx. The Southeast and South to TExas is as you allude I'd say are a possible continuaton of the NE and MW hence why so many New Yorkers live in Fla or Atlanta, DC not much obstruction.
But what I had meant about the South before was as you say it works better but I was trying to say that may be the case for now, but it's not static. There's the push/pull effect. Continued influx of people, goods, services, etc to other smaller nodes as well as the existing larger ones are pushing the bigger ones (although on relative equal positions) higher, and adding new ones to take their former place.
At current rates we could see ultimately a string of Alpha cities there or beta first also on equal footing while more gamma are stimulated and so on and son on. Less beta and gamma creation around the rest of the country except what is similarly happening in the West as the South, would ultimately reflect the total orientaton of the country to its Southern most regions.
On the other hand, at the same time, it appears there is a return in most other areas and including Europe to a city-state system in some regards. This has already been cited by a number of experts. Those currently at alpha levels would obviously become more dictatorial within their own environs. But imo the US system with its economic gains from interstate commerce, as opposed to other countries, have a diminishing effect internally. jmo. But then the EU is now benefiting more with similar arrangments.
Last edited by StuyTownRefugee; 11-15-2007 at 06:45 PM..
Location: Uniquely Individual Villages of the Megalopolis
646 posts, read 813,939 times
Reputation: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by M TYPE X
I'm talking about elite influence. In terms of common man culture, the South dominates and has done so ever since the Midwest fell from grace.
It's hard to follow here, but if you were talking to me, I'd have to include at least Houston if not others in your 'elite influence' configuration. Houston because of Energy and many corporations to round it out with a south pole or complete the y axis. Houston (if not some others in that zone) is quite important on Wall Street and makes big impact on the NASDAQ with its corporations and what they are involved in.
It's hard to follow here, but if you were talking to me, I'd have to include at least Houston if not others in your 'elite influence' configuration. Houston because of Energy and many corporations to round it out with a south pole or complete the y axis. Houston (if not some others in that zone) is quite important on Wall Street and makes big impact on the NASDAQ with its corporations and what they are involved in.
Other than stock portfolios, I think 'they' would wish that Chicago, Dallas, and Houston disappear, like Detroit.
It's hard to follow here, but if you were talking to me, I'd have to include at least Houston if not others in your 'elite influence' configuration. Houston because of Energy and many corporations to round it out with a south pole or complete the y axis. Houston (if not some others in that zone) is quite important on Wall Street and makes big impact on the NASDAQ with its corporations and what they are involved in.
Other than their stock portfolios, I think 'they' would wish that Chicago, Dallas, and Houston disappear, like Detroit.
Denver and Minneapolis are decent places, not out of favor, but not part of the 'in' crowd either.
Other than stock portfolios, I think 'they' would wish that Chicago, Dallas, and Houston disappear, like Detroit.
Don't forget about the West. They want California to disappear. They want all the power and population in the East Coast Megalopolis.
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.
