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.
In part New York grew so big because it became the primary destination for the flood of European immigrants from Ireland and Italy and Eastern Europeans (and many European Jews) in the late 19th Century and early 20th Century. Lots of cities and parts of the US grew with this influx, but in part so many entered the US at Ellis Island and so many stayed right there in the Five Boroughs at that point...
So, yeah, with no New York existing, Philadelphia and to some extent Boston(and to a lesser extent Baltimore) would've ended up with more immigrants. Though Philadelphia is the centrally located harbor town that would've probably increased the most. Chicago got a lot of immigrants in this period as well, though it's hard to say that sans New York they would've attracted that much more immigrants than they already did. Part of New York's reason for growth was that it was the primary entry point for immigration at that point. If Philadelphia became that place, you could see a possible alternate history scenario where the Philadelphia suburbs and Delaware Valley got built up even more--and places were as dense as Brooklyn or Queens further out...
Los Angeles would probably be the same as it developed already even without New York, since so much of it's growth was in a separate period from the real boom years of New York. Whether or not Philadelphia would be larger than Los Angeles, who knows--but Los Angeles grew largely on the basis of first, Midwestern and Southern transplants and later the masses of Hispanic and Asian immigrants that came post-1965 immigration reform...
Whether or not Philadelphia would be larger than Los Angeles, who knows--but Los Angeles grew largely on the basis of first, Midwestern and Southern transplants and later the masses of Hispanic and Asian immigrants that came post-1965 immigration reform...
Remember that Los Angeles didn't officially surpass Philadelphia in population until 1960. That was also the same time when Philadelphia started to decline in population.
Remember that Los Angeles didn't officially surpass Philadelphia in population until 1960. That was also the same time when Philadelphia started to decline in population.
Yeah I'm pretty sure Philly would easily be pushing 5 million right now if it weren't for the decline.
If it's a giant disaster that wipes away NYC that has nothing to do with its coastal location, then probably DC or the government's fallback of Denver.
If it's something like NYC having been wiped away early on or somehow never settled, then it'd be whatever city was settled at the mouth of a major port to the Atlantic with a relatively easy path to building a canal to the great interior through the Great Lakes (which would be situated in what is now NYC).
If that path is somehow not available, then it would have probably gone to whatever city was able to secure the equivalent connection first (Philadelphia and Baltimore both made the effort after NYC started rapidly surging and taking away business when the Erie Canal finished; DC, I believe, also gave it a shot). None of these were as straightforward as the Erie Canal, but would have still given any city a big leg up (NYC's got a huge one since transportation of goods after the building of the Erie dropped by about 95% which is HUGE).
Chicago, will be the largest economic center. Their would be more building bigger population, just more everything. LA would still be second.
I originally agreed witht this, however after 2nd though, if NYC never existed, it would definitely still be an East coast city because of the relation to being the first stop when coming from Europe during the late 1800s/early 1900s. If those ships weren't pulling into New York's Bay, it would still be another Northeast Coast Bay... Most likely I'm thinking it would have been Boston.
If New York became uninhabitable tomorrow, its key industries would be divided up among the rest, with Los Angeles emerging as the #1 city. Considering that in it will likely join NYC and Tokyo as the only $1 trillion economies in the world by the end of the decade, even without the presence of a huge financial industry, and its cultural influence (which would grow stronger with the loss of NYC) is topped by only 3-4 cities in the world, L.A. is the logical choice in this absurd scenario.
I am shocked Philadelphia or Boston has so little votes. 20 million people would most likely still be in the northeast and Philly or Boston was competing with NYC at one time.
That's because this is a "what are the greatest cites after New York." thread as opposed to truly a "what city would have been New York if it didn't exist?". It has to be looked at in a historical context otherwise someone could just as easily choose Detroit or Cleveland over Chicago or LA. I mean, why not those two cities?
In my opinion it would be Philly only because Boston has a shallow water port. If Boston had been more geologically blessed, then I think Boston would have been número uno.
If New York became uninhabitable tomorrow, its key industries would be divided up among the rest, with Los Angeles emerging as the #1 city. Considering that in it will likely join NYC and Tokyo as the only $1 trillion economies in the world by the end of the decade, even without the presence of a huge financial industry, and its cultural influence (which would grow stronger with the loss of NYC) is topped by only 3-4 cities in the world, L.A. is the logical choice in this absurd scenario.
If NYC became uninhabitable tomorrow, the entire US would probably be reeling for a long while, and my guess would be that DC would start splurging on itself in order to ward off whatever happened to NYC.
When LA begins to build a financial center then people will take your "humble" opinion seriously
Without a strong financial center, LA economy is totally controlled by big boys like Tokyo, London, Chicago, Hong Kong...,etc. (given the case NY is not in the picture).
If New York became uninhabitable tomorrow, its key industries would be divided up among the rest, with Los Angeles emerging as the #1 city. Considering that in it will likely join NYC and Tokyo as the only $1 trillion economies in the world by the end of the decade, even without the presence of a huge financial industry, and its cultural influence (which would grow stronger with the loss of NYC) is topped by only 3-4 cities in the world, L.A. is the logical choice in this absurd scenario.
When LA begins to build a financial center then people will take your "humble" opinion seriously
Without a strong financial center, LA economy is totally controlled by big boys like Tokyo, London, Chicago, Hong Kong...,etc. (given the case NY is not in the picture).
I don't know what's more embarrassing...the dozens of sock puppet votes for Chicago, or you lumping it with Tokyo, London and Hong Kong. Controlling the world...pfft.
Very little of what I wrote could be called opinion either. L.A.'s economy is over 40% larger than Chicago's, and it has been growing at a faster rate for a good three years now. Yup, beleaguered L.A. is outpacing Chicago in GDP growth percentage-wise, quietly growing fast the national rate these days. Look for the Southland to join the $1 trillion club by the end of the decade, while CHI struggles to top $600 billion.
L.A. is also more culturally influential, it's a more international city, it is a more visited city.
Without NY, Chicago becomes the Frankfurt of the United States. An important financial center, a regional power, but #1?! Nah.
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.
