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: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,068,476 times
Reputation: 11862
Advertisements
Charleston was once one of the biggest nations in the US, as you will know, especially during the Colonial era. Due to a number of reasons it dropped off the 'top 10 biggest cities' list fairly early, but I'm sure some of you like to speculate as to what it would have been like had it been one of the major cities in the South and the US.
Would it be like a 'Boston of the South', full of colonial charm, possibly a cosmopolitan, comparatively liberal, progressive center in the South? What would it's population and metro population be? I wonder if it would stand out among southern cities, as New Orleans has done, and how it would have influenced the South as a whole.
IMHO (and it being 5am and I did not sleep much last night
During the Colonial times.......... with just 13 colonies... each city along the east coast could be considered one of the 'biggest', New York, Boston etc.
As westward expansion occurred and with many other cities added to the 'biggest' contender, St Louis, Chicago etc. some earlier 'biggest' cities dropped off or simply blended in the mix of the rapidly growing United States.
With regard to a 'Boston of the South'.... if you search here.. you will see previous posts commenting on that exact comparison.
And I think it does 'stand out' among Southern cities, as you said New Orleans has done. If not for Mardi Gras, would you hear much of New Orleans ?
And lastly.......... I think most everyone would comment in response......... Charleston is fine the way it is. No speculation to what 'might' have been.
Now back to catch some shut eye before my son wakes up
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trimac20
Charleston was once one of the biggest nations in the US, as you will know, especially during the Colonial era. Due to a number of reasons it dropped off the 'top 10 biggest cities' list fairly early, but I'm sure some of you like to speculate as to what it would have been like had it been one of the major cities in the South and the US.
Would it be like a 'Boston of the South', full of colonial charm, possibly a cosmopolitan, comparatively liberal, progressive center in the South? What would it's population and metro population be? I wonder if it would stand out among southern cities, as New Orleans has done, and how it would have influenced the South as a whole.
It always has been and always will be. Sure, it COULD have been bigger but it would lack the culture.
Think about it, you can't expand up 61 without tearing down plantations. You can't expand up 17 without displacing the basket weavers. You can't really build up Downtown without destroying the historical charm that fuels our economy (we don't hate tourists near as much as we pretend to here).
The question isn't could we have been Boston in the south. It's why would we want to? We're Charleston.
No one ever said "I'm going back to Boston, back where I belong" for a good reason.
Charleston was once one of the biggest nations in the US, as you will know, especially during the Colonial era. Due to a number of reasons it dropped off the 'top 10 biggest cities' list fairly early, but I'm sure some of you like to speculate as to what it would have been like had it been one of the major cities in the South and the US.
Would it be like a 'Boston of the South', full of colonial charm, possibly a cosmopolitan, comparatively liberal, progressive center in the South? What would it's population and metro population be? I wonder if it would stand out among southern cities, as New Orleans has done, and how it would have influenced the South as a whole.
It would have evolved into something like Atlanta most likely; basically our 'Boston of the South'.
I am so thankful it hasn't.. Southerners like the old small time charm. Once you make it a big city, liberal and progressive.. it ruins the whole thing.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,068,476 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maryjane55us
It would have evolved into something like Atlanta most likely; basically our 'Boston of the South'.
I am so thankful it hasn't.. Southerners like the old small time charm. Once you make it a big city, liberal and progressive.. it ruins the whole thing.
Do you think a bigger Charleston would've made the SE more liberal?
Do you think a bigger Charleston would've made the SE more liberal?
No. Look how big Atlanta is now, but Georgia, nor the southeast in general, is a magnet for liberalism. Even with the huge influx of people into Florida from the Northeast US, it's still not a liberal state and it hasn't transformed the South
There's actually multiple reasons that Charleston did not continue to grow after antebellum years. One, of course, was the war and the impact of that upon Charleston. Remember, we had martial law here long after the war ended and that really only was stopped due to the earthquake in the 1880s. Add to this the destruction of the cotton industry from the boll weevil and it was truly the end of the agrarian economy of Charleston.
Also, Charleston was on the first cities in America to actively engage in historical preservation. Thus, Charleston has a long and rich history of keeping the skyline low, the historical buildings intact, and the live oaks we prize so much protected.
Finally, the biggest contributor was our port. We have a natural harbor but the addition of sea walls and the jetty actually had the reserve effect that was intended. Instead of keeping the harbor naturally deep, it actually caused a build up of sediment into our harbor. It wasn't until the harbor was dredged (and must continue to be dredged) that Charleston returned as a port city. Of course, by that time, the other more industrial cities of the North had already grown, leaving us to our small size.
Personally, I think it was a blessing in disguise. Charleston has the charm of a small town due to some of these early decisions. If I were looking for something that had 'everything' with respect to shopping, industry, etc, then I would likely pick a larger metropolitan area. However, it is the small size of Charleston that attracts me and apparently, many others.
I like it the way it is. But if it did continue to grow as Boston and New York did, I'd doubt the old and historic part would have survived. It would be just as any other big American city.
Now it has a special European/Southern atmosphere. A small city that has everything a large city has on a smaller scale.
And a quaility of living that is hard to surpass.
If Charleston was more industrial and had the opportunities that Boston had you would see a very different city today. If you could wiped off all the development in both peninsulas back to wilderness they would be no different from each other. However, you could fit Back Bay and downtown Boston on Charleston's peninsula. It would be interesting to see what a larger Charleston would look like even bigger than New Orleans. Hypothetically, a very different Charleston metro pop. 5,897,726 city 789,163 with loads of highrises in the skyline along with becoming one of the nation's worse congested urban areas. I don't think the locals living there right now would be too happy about that. It also makes me wonder how much more of the old Boston would exist today if it hadn't been for newer development (highrises, midrises).
Both cities scaled at 2,000 ft. Obviously, Boston is more developed today since history was a game changer for both.
Boston
Charleston
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.
I don't think the locals living there right now would be too happy about that. It also makes me wonder how much more of the old Boston would exist today if it hadn't been for newer development (highrises, midrises). 
