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.
Is the assumption that Atlanta and Nashville disappear tomorrow and everything around them still exists? If so, we can assume all of the riches of each city's suburbs are in play. It would be interesting to think whether they would survive as they are, whether a new city center would develop somewhere, or whether they would slowly bleed out. We can look at a real-life example in Michigan. The city of Detroit is disappearing. There's still wealth in the suburbs, but the region is falling behind without a healthy Detroit.
Or is the assumption that Atlanta and Nashville never existed to begin with? And therefore all of the arguments that "well Atlanta's airport and most F500s are outside city limits" would be invalidated because there would be no reason for the suburbs to have those amenities were it not for proximity to Atlanta. And therefore Cobb, Fulton, etc would be mostly farmland or forest today.
You can't do a study and say what happens if you remove the central city and just leave the suburbs. The latter do not exist without the former. First came the central city and then developed suburbia. Please tell me where on earth you find a collection of suburbs without a core that's a hard notion to even make believe about.
That said i'd say Atlanta and it's suburbs (since it's a bullcrap arguement to pretend) make or break Georgia. Whereas TN has a more stable spreadout network of other healthy metro areas.
You can't do a study and say what happens if you remove the central city and just leave the suburbs. The latter do not exist without the former. First came the central city and then developed suburbia. Please tell me where on earth you find a collection of suburbs without a core that's a hard notion to even make believe about.
That said i'd say Atlanta and it's suburbs (since it's a bullcrap arguement to pretend) make or break Georgia. Whereas TN has a more stable spreadout network of other healthy metro areas.
If Atlanta never existed Savannah would take Atlanta's place. Either way, because of Atlanta's location some city would have to be a major one in North Georgia. Decatur would be like Atlanta.
How/why? Atlanta is what it is today due to a combination of geography and progressive civic and business leadership over the years.
While what you said is true it is interesting to take a look back, historically, and see where cities were in the early 1900s. In the link below, notice in 1900 that Memphis was larger than Atlanta and Birmingham was roughly the same size in 1920. Memphis and Nashville soared past Atlanta during the 1960s while Louisville remained the "big city" from 1900 through 1950. Geographically, the comparison of economic and progressive leadership is more comparable between Birmingham and Atlanta, given their locations and historical relevance. Had Atlanta not made many of the progressive decisions they did a long time ago, it could be the same size as Memphis or Birmingham today (no shade) (others may see this as a curse given the way Atlanta has developed since that time). Both Nashville and Atlanta's growth have largely benefited by their locations and collection/crossroads of major interstate highways and progressive leadership.
Is the assumption that Atlanta and Nashville disappear tomorrow and everything around them still exists? If so, we can assume all of the riches of each city's suburbs are in play. It would be interesting to think whether they would survive as they are, whether a new city center would develop somewhere, or whether they would slowly bleed out. We can look at a real-life example in Michigan. The city of Detroit is disappearing. There's still wealth in the suburbs, but the region is falling behind without a healthy Detroit.
Or is the assumption that Atlanta and Nashville never existed to begin with? And therefore all of the arguments that "well Atlanta's airport and most F500s are outside city limits" would be invalidated because there would be no reason for the suburbs to have those amenities were it not for proximity to Atlanta. And therefore Cobb, Fulton, etc would be mostly farmland or forest today.
This is precisely why I refuse to participate in threads such as this ...
While what you said is true it is interesting to take a look back, historically, and see where cities were in the early 1900s. In the link below, notice in 1900 that Memphis was larger than Atlanta and Birmingham was roughly the same size in 1920. Memphis and Nashville soared past Atlanta during the 1960s while Louisville remained the "big city" from 1900 through 1950. Geographically, the comparison of economic and progressive leadership is more comparable between Birmingham and Atlanta, given their locations and historical relevance. Had Atlanta not made many of the progressive decisions they did a long time ago, it could be the same size as Memphis or Birmingham today (no shade) (others may see this as a curse given the way Atlanta has developed since that time). Both Nashville and Atlanta's growth have largely benefited by their locations and collection/crossroads of major interstate highways and progressive leadership.
As an older river city that was more dependent on the old economy (slave labor, cotton), it's not surprising that Memphis was larger than Atlanta at the turn of the 20th century; it took a little while for more industrial cities to overtake such cities. However, once you start getting to the 1940's-50's or so, around and shortly after the time of WW2, it would be more accurate to use metropolitan area figures as opposed to municipal populations since this is when suburban growth began to be subsidized by the federal government en masse. Nashville consolidated with its county in the early 60's and Memphis went on an annexation spree in the 50's and 60's which accounts for its municipal growth; while Atlanta annexed Buckhead in the early 50's which tripled the size of the city and added about 100K residents, it still didn't match up to the Nashville-Davidson County consolidation and Memphis' annexations. Also, Louisville wasn't the South's "big city" in the first half of the 20th century; Baltimore, DC, and New Orleans were all bigger than Louisville during that time.
Today, I think Atlanta would have still been a little bigger than present-day Memphis or Birmingham had it only had a fraction of the progressive leadership that made it the big city it currently is, and this is mainly due to the city's strategic location as the crossroads of the Southeast--maybe around 2.5-3 million in the metro at most.
As an older river city that was more dependent on the old economy (slave labor, cotton), it's not surprising that Memphis was larger than Atlanta at the turn of the 20th century; it took a little while for more industrial cities to overtake such cities. However, once you start getting to the 1940's-50's or so, around and shortly after the time of WW2, it would be more accurate to use metropolitan area figures as opposed to municipal populations since this is when suburban growth began to be subsidized by the federal government en masse. Nashville consolidated with its county in the early 60's and Memphis went on an annexation spree in the 50's and 60's which accounts for its municipal growth; while Atlanta annexed Buckhead in the early 50's which tripled the size of the city and added about 100K residents, it still didn't match up to the Nashville-Davidson County consolidation and Memphis' annexations. Also, Louisville wasn't the South's "big city" in the first half of the 20th century; Baltimore, DC, and New Orleans were all bigger than Louisville during that time.
Today, I think Atlanta would have still been a little bigger than present-day Memphis or Birmingham had it only had a fraction of the progressive leadership that made it the big city it currently is, and this is mainly due to the city's strategic location as the crossroads of the Southeast--maybe around 2.5-3 million in the metro at most.
Louisville was the largest between the cities/region we were discussing, not in the entire South. Louisville served as a very large component between trade and transportation linking the Midwest with the South. You are correct that municipal populations are not an accurate representation of the a city's prominence or importance. I think the Civil War catastrophically affected many of the Southern cities, especially Atlanta. In 1864, General Sherman destroyed critical rail infrastructure in Atlanta and several structures and homes. It amazes me how so many people are quick to judge Atlanta as sprawl city while many urban structures were destroyed. While not quite on par with Savannah, which was largely untouched, Atlanta and Nashville were nearly wiped clean before they ever got the chance to truly develop into urban centers in the traditional sense. I believe Atlanta would have been much larger today as a result in both historic structures, urban grid, and definitely population.
Louisville was the largest between the cities/region we were discussing, not in the entire South. Louisville served as a very large component between trade and transportation linking the Midwest with the South. You are correct that municipal populations are not an accurate representation of the a city's prominence or importance. I think the Civil War catastrophically affected many of the Southern cities, especially Atlanta. In 1864, General Sherman destroyed critical rail infrastructure in Atlanta and several structures and homes. It amazes me how so many people are quick to judge Atlanta as sprawl city while many urban structures were destroyed. While not quite on par with Savannah, which was largely untouched, Atlanta and Nashville were nearly wiped clean before they ever got the chance to truly develop into urban centers in the traditional sense. I believe Atlanta would have been much larger today as a result in both historic structures, urban grid, and definitely population.
Honestly Atlanta wasn't all that big when Sherman came through and torched it; the city had just under 10K residents in 1860 and about 22K in 1870 and it bounced back pretty quickly afterwards. Atlanta's old downtown, the Fairlie-Poplar district, is classically urban and other parts of downtown (e.g., Sweet Auburn) have classic urban infrastructure in place as well; however, the city just boomed during the post-war era and that's why it sprawls as much as it does.
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.
