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.
LA would absorb the bulk of NYC's film and televion industry, no doubt. L.A. easily has the infrastructure to support it, and it's a hugely popular setting for films/shows itself. Talk shows and whatnot would move to Los Angeles--they'd want to be where the stars are. L.A. would become the music capital, a title it shares with NYC and Nashville in real life.
I'm going with a sleeper candidate in Charleston, SC. It has a big port on a peninsula, flat surroundings, and would have probably taken over New York City's role from the 1600s onward. It has a similar geography to Manhattan. Swamps, beaches, rivers, and even the street grid is similar.
Last edited by Hamtonfordbury; 08-02-2013 at 07:02 PM..
I'm going with a sleeper candidate in Charleston, SC. It has a big port on a peninsula, flat surroundings, and would have probably taken over New York City's role from the 1600s onward. It has a similar geography to Manhattan. Swamps, beaches, rivers, and even the street grid is similar.
LA would absorb the bulk of NYC's film and televion industry, no doubt. L.A. easily has the infrastructure to support it, and it's a hugely popular setting for films/shows itself. Talk shows and whatnot would move to Los Angeles--they'd want to be where the stars are. L.A. would become the music capital, a title it shares with NYC and Nashville in real life.
This makes the most sense.
I think most national news programs that need to be in the eastern time zone would probably originate from DC.
For more entertainment oriented shows on the east coast that arent moved to LA, Im thinking Miami or Atlanta.
The birth and growth of the US shows that there are large cities on the east coast and only one became dominant. If NYC had not, it is almost certain that either Boston or Philadelphia would have become that dominant city. Whether Boston or Philly became as dominant a city as NYC no one can say. Whether LA or SF would have become the dominant city on the west coast in the 20th century is even less certain. The idea that we can go backwards from what we have now and claim LA would be even bigger than it is much less plausible than either Boston or Philly would be a very large, dominant city.
I think most national news programs that need to be in the eastern time zone would probably originate from DC.
For more entertainment oriented shows on the east coast that arent moved to LA, Im thinking Miami or Atlanta.
CNN primarily broadcasts from its CNN Center in Atlanta, the Time Warner Center in New York City, and studios in Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles. The CNN headquarters is in Atlanta which would then become the country's largest news network minus NYC's ABC,CBS,MSNBC, FOX, Time Warner etc.. Most of the broadcasting is done out of Atlanta along with the Weather Channel which is also based there. The largest major TV network out of DC would be CSPAN which mainly focuses on national political issues but doesn't cover as much variety as CNN.
CNN primarily broadcasts from its CNN Center in Atlanta, the Time Warner Center in New York City, and studios in Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles. The CNN headquarters is in Atlanta which would then become the country's largest news network minus NYC's ABC,CBS,MSNBC, FOX, Time Warner etc.. Most of the broadcasting is done out of Atlanta along with the Weather Channel which is also based there. The largest major TV network out of DC would be CSPAN which mainly focuses on national political issues but doesn't cover as much variety as CNN.
Discovery Communications is in DC with like 25-30 cable channels as well as PBS, BET, National Geographic and the Travel Channel. All separate entities.
The birth and growth of the US shows that there are large cities on the east coast and only one became dominant. If NYC had not, it is almost certain that either Boston or Philadelphia would have become that dominant city. Whether Boston or Philly became as dominant a city as NYC no one can say. Whether LA or SF would have become the dominant city on the west coast in the 20th century is even less certain. The idea that we can go backwards from what we have now and claim LA would be even bigger than it is much less plausible than either Boston or Philly would be a very large, dominant city.
If NYC never existed in history it would be Philly not Boston. Philly was always larger than Boston. Now if NYC just disappeared today Chicago would become the nation's largest stock market trading city while LA would become the largest in population and fashion center. LA already has the largest and busiest seaport while Chicago is the nation's largest rail and trucking freight hub. That's if NYC disappeared today not historically. Historically, if NYC never did then it would be Philly today.
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.
