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.
If New York NEVER existed then I think Boston would be the Premier city in the US. Well, perhaps it would just be a massive metropolis between D.C and Boston with Boston being the hub. Trans-Atlantic trade went through Boston as much as it did New York way way way back then. Of course there was more parity among the Northeast Powers back then. But if New York was never there I think Boston would have been that "alpha" city.
Obviously, if New York just vanished. IE, Sunday night 19 Million New Yorkers went to sleep and Monday morning they were all gone. Of course the top city in the US would be Los Angeles. It's easily the most influencial and wealthy American city not named New York. I think the gap between LA and Chicago would remain the same but the Bay Area, DC and Boston would overtake Houston in importance as NYC's absence means the more historically powerful cities pick up the slack. At least that's how I see it.
Los Angeles is not set up to handle such an influx. Chicago would take most of the industry if New York just disappeared.
If New York never existed either Boston or Philadelphia would be number one.
Not set up to handle an influx of what? And in which ways is it less set up to handle this influx than Chicago or Philly (even more ridiculous, Boston?)
Not set up to handle an influx of what? And in which ways is it less set up to handle this influx than Chicago or Philly (even more ridiculous, Boston?)
Industry.
And even though there is so much more I could say, I'll quote myself since the two lines were too much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by plates
If New York never existed either Boston or Philadelphia would be number one.
I've always thought of New York and Los Angeles as the gateways of America and Chicago as the hub of America. Without New York, we'd be down to only one mega-city gateway (L.A.) and Chicago would remain the hub. L.A. would probably scoop up some of NY's gateway thunder and Chicago would be the new financial metropolis.
No, the premier city would stay in the most populous and developed part of the country. Now if Mexico was looking for a new capital then LA would have a shot.
But the Los Angeles area is the 2nd most populated area. The LA area is more populated than Chicagoland. So you kind of contridicted yourself with that statement.
Last edited by gwillyfromphilly; 07-22-2012 at 06:43 PM..
Ok I voted for Chicago but that has nothing to do with the fact that I am born and raised (and currently living) in Chicago. Chicago is called the "Second City". I voted strictly on the concept of what I think of as a "city", and we only have 2 of those in the USA - NYC and Chicago. L.A., S.F., Houston, etc. aren't there yet, I'd consider them mid-sized cities not full scale cities. Now I am speaking of the cities themselves strictly not the entire metropolitan areas.
Chicago is the next closest to the city experience of NYC, but it lacks a lot of things as many of the posts reflect. I am personally moving to the Bay area. I can only imagine living in 3 places in the USA; NYC, Chicago, or California. To me California as a state is a package deal and if NYC didn't exist Chicago would be the biggest "city" experience but California as a state would actually be the new crown jewel of the USA.
I'm confused. How are LA, SF and Houston "midsized cities"? Okay okay, maybe if you just count city proper sure, you can argue SF is Midsized. But LA and Houston? LA is BIGGER than Chicago, so I'm not sure how it's not at Chicago's level yet. Maybe I misunderstood your post.
And even though there is so much more I could say, I'll quote myself since the two lines were too much.
Hate to break it to you but the LA area is a huge industrial hub. one of the biggest in the world, and certainly heads and shoulders above Boston and Philly.
Hate to break it to you but the LA area is a huge industrial hub. one of the biggest in the world, and certainly heads and shoulders above Boston and Philly.
Wow, I guess two times and bolded words were not enough to reach you so here is the third and final time.
I also never said that Los Angeles wasn't. You are either taking what I am saying one step further or completely ignoring what I explained.
I hate to break it to you, but if New York City never existed then Philadelphia would have become much larger than they are now to fill that gap. America was settled East to West not East and Los Angeles.
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.
