Would Cleveland, OH been New York if ... (comparison, Boston, Chicago)
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.
No, nothing will ever be like NYC, no matter who stayed in what city.
If anything, Cleveland would rival Chicago or Toronto. I firmly believe the Rockefeller's would have somehow influenced the city to use it's lake shore like Chicago and Toronto, the proper way. Chicago and Toronto are amazing cities and I think Cleveland could have been them. But that's not to say Cleveland isn't a great city because it is.
And all the changes going on and all the projects are positive things. We can dissect it and try to point out the negatives, but at least the city is trying to make changes and all in all there's a lot of positive going on with the projects and such.
No. Cleveland could have become the San Francisco, Atlanta or even Chicago of America but never new york. New york was already a major city of culture and wealth before Cleveland was even born. New York City is just too powerful of a city to be taken down. The only city that could have challenged New York City were Philadelphia, Boston or Baltimore due to their similar history and power.
It would be interesting to see what would have happened if philadelhphia or boston became the new york city of america. Would there be 2 new york city sized areas?
As I have heard repeatedly, NY was already a fixture of wealth and power before Rockefeller went there. Though, his influence in NY can't be understated. Though I definitely don't believe CLE would be a NY, since NY's biggest asset was people, CLE already had all the businesses and industry it could want.
I really think it could have challenged Chicago/Detroit/Boston rather than become NY.
I still think it will in the future.. great lakes as a natural resource.. urban oriented generation in a region of 4.5 million.. give it another 10 years and its going to be an entirely different place.
It may have become a rival to Chicago, but not New York.
Not from just one guy despite all his wealth.
Part of Chicago's prosperity came from its location as a transit point between the Great Lakes system and the Mississippi River system (via the Chicago river). Rockefeller could have maybe spent his entire fortune to make a large infrastructure project to connect Lake Erie down to the Ohio River or something, but that's quite a stretch.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,047,835 times
Reputation: 11862
To reduce the difference between Cleveland and New York to whether the Rockefeller's moved their money there is pretty ludcrous. I'm sorry for it sounds just like the ramblings of an old coot, as certain as he may be in his own mind of the veracity of his claim.
There are a many reasons why NYC is NYC today. And most of them having nothing to do with Rockefeller.
Location: Cleveland bound with MPLS in the rear-view
5,509 posts, read 11,875,397 times
Reputation: 2501
New York is "New York" largely because of the canals, locks and dams that were built to connect Middle America to the ocean.....through New York. It was the trans-shipment point for G&S AND people for a LONG time, during an era of unprescedented population and economic growth in this country.
Unless Cleveland ALSO had all of this, it could never have been New York. Toronto, Detroit (pre-war) or Chicago, maybe.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,047,835 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by west336
New York is "New York" largely because of the canals, locks and dams that were built to connect Middle America to the ocean.....through New York. It was the trans-shipment point for G&S AND people for a LONG time, during an era of unprescedented population and economic growth in this country.
Unless Cleveland ALSO had all of this, it could never have been New York. Toronto, Detroit (pre-war) or Chicago, maybe.
Well New York was already a major, bustling metropolis well before any of those Great Lakes cities were even founded. It was already the commercial hub of the East coast when it overtook Philly, I believe. And through the 19th and 20th centuries it's ranks were swelled by millions of immigrants who stopped at Ellis Island and didn't feel the need to go any further because this was IT for them.
People might love to speculate about 'how if history were different' NYC would get a run for it's money. Sorry folks, NY was destined to be no. 1. The only possible competitor was Philly but NYC companies were too aggressive in drawing trade and wealth to it, so I guess Philly fell by the wayside.
The Erie canal (1825) cemented NYC's lock as the premiere east coast city. In the days before railroads, the canal was the easiest way to ship cargo from the coast to the hinterland and vice versa. This gave NYC an insurmountable advantage over Philly, Boston, Baltimore, etc.
In a bit of symmetry, the Illinois and Michigan Canal (1848) connected the Mississippi river watershed and the Great Lakes and helped make Chicago the preeminent city of the Midwest. With the two canals, cargo could travel from up the Mississippi to the Great Lakes to NYC. Once the canal was established, it made business sense for the railroads to follow, resulting in Chicago's rise as the railroad hub of the Midwest, eclipsing river cities like St. Louis and Cincinnati. Back then, the railroads were like the internet, and Chicago was the Silicon Valley of 1800s. All the grain and corn from Midwestern farms went through Chicago. The cattle industry went through the Chicago stock yards. Sears and Montgomery Wards, the Amazons of that era, picked Chicago for its transportation advantages, as did numerous other manufacturers. Population and wealth followed.
In short, by the time Rockefeller had built his fortune, Chicago had long cemented its hold as the transportation epicenter of the heartland. Rockefeller would have had to undo several decades of history for Cleveland to usurp Chicago.
Last edited by oakparkdude; 06-06-2012 at 08:47 AM..
No, nothing will ever be like NYC, no matter who stayed in what city.
If anything, Cleveland would rival Chicago or Toronto. I firmly believe the Rockefeller's would have somehow influenced the city to use it's lake shore like Chicago and Toronto, the proper way. Chicago and Toronto are amazing cities and I think Cleveland could have been them. But that's not to say Cleveland isn't a great city because it is.
And all the changes going on and all the projects are positive things. We can dissect it and try to point out the negatives, but at least the city is trying to make changes and all in all there's a lot of positive going on with the projects and such.
If any city (specifically midwestern city) has/had the potential to compete with Chicago, Toronto, NYC, etc. (and it did once before), it's Detroit.
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.
