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.
all depends on how you look at it. Even as late as the pre-Civil War era, Washington gave its land west of the Potomac back to Virginia because it simply couldn't envision ever needing it (so, yes, the Pentagon, CIA, and FBI might have been inside Washington if things had worked out differently). until the Depression turned into the New Deal, Washington was very much a backwater. From the Civil War until the crash, Washington made the rail trip north to Manhattan and Wall Street where the real decisions were made (sounds a bit like today, doesn't it?) Washington and the federal government itself were not overly important.
until the 1930s, our federal government was small and the United States itself, while growing fantastically, was hardly a world power. Both depression and the war that was to follow built the political power of DC, but even in its aftermath, there was little great about the city other than its seat of government. Think of NYC's relationship with Albany, Chicago's with Springfield, both LA's and SF's relationship with Sacramento.
JFK at the time spoke of DC as a city of "northern charm and southern efficiency", a double slap in the face. There is no irony in the Kennedy Center being so named; the Kennedy Center was, in part, designed, to make Washington a real city.
The transformation really took place over the last 30 years with the role of the US as the leading world power, with the explosion of growth of the government in this complex, technological era, and the even greater growth of the private sector and the fortunes it produced as lobbying grew and the need to be located next to the federal power center became imperative. It would be hard to argue that today our national government isn't an alliance between our government and corporate America. Washington was, and is, awash with big bucks, fueling its incredible power.
so, yes, I think one could make an argument that Washington did live in the shadow of the Baltimore. It is a plausible stance, even though a counter argument could be safely made. And all shadows aside, even in the post-WWII years, Washingtonians who wanted to do "city life" took the short drive or rail trip north to Baltimore to do so. And if you were flying into the area at the time you were flying in to a place that was called Baltimore Washington. In that order. Just like flights to Minneapolis/St. Paul and Dallas/Ft. Worth.
The FBI (for the moment) is in DC. They're in the process of looking for a new location and it's most likely gonna be in either Virginia or here in Maryland.
i think a good argument that California could make such a nation as well.
I'd say we in the Bos-Wash National Alliance announce a declaration of war upon the People's Republic of California!
Reason: To obtain their agriculture and colonize their land and make their cities our own and re-shape or preserve them into any way we see fit!
With the Spirit of Washington, the Power of New York, the Intelligence of Boston, the Wisdom of Philadelphia, and the Courage of Baltimore, We the People of the Bos-Wash National Alliance shall prevail in the face of our most stubbornly wayward adversary and show them the Light of The City Upon The Hill!
Hazuhhhh!!!!
Surrender and Join us and embrace our Culture and Way of Life without protest California....Or die an overwhelmingly painful death by the righteous might of nearly 50 million enraged Bos-Washingtonians. Basically joining the South to the grave....Your choice
I'd say we in the Bos-Wash National Alliance announce a declaration of war upon the People's Republic of California!
Reason: To obtain their agriculture and colonize their land and make their cities our own and re-shape or preserve them into any way we see fit!
With the Spirit of Washington, the Power of New York, the Intelligence of Boston, the Wisdom of Philadelphia, and the Courage of Baltimore, We the People of the Bos-Wash National Alliance shall prevail in the face of our most stubbornly wayward adversary and show them the Light of The City Upon The Hill!
Hazuhhhh!!!!
Surrender and Join us and embrace our Culture and Way of Life without protest California....Or die an overwhelmingly painful death by the righteous might of nearly 50 million enraged Bos-Washingtonians. Basically joining the South to the grave....Your choice
good grief! you folks don't plan on attacking our middle west to steal our great lakes' water (far more valuable than middle eastern oil). Please don't tell me you consider Chicago's mayor, Rahm Emanuel, the real Sadam Husein, responsible for the 9-11 attacks, and hiding weapons of mass destruction under Wrigley Field (the Cubs are notorious for self-destruction) with an invasion of our Lake Michigan water intake facilities a mere shock and awe removed for becoming a reality. You're scaring the hell out of me; I am now bowashed in fear.
(off topic, i know, but you do realize that the Maryland panhandle gives your Beast of The East a rather substantial penis.)
Austin and San Antonio are about 80 miles from each other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by edsg25
What's left? Chicago-Milwaukee, Los Angeles-San Diego, each in that approximate 100 mile range. I can't think of any others? can you?
Downtown Sacramento and Downtown San Francisco are under 85 miles from each other. Sacramento is 70 miles from the closest Bay Area Rapid Transit Station. Also, one of the busiest commuter trains in the nation - The Capitol Corridor - are between the Sacramento Metro and the SF Bay Area Metro.
New York City is actually the oldest out of the 5 Boswash Cities.
In terms of age its NYC, Boston, then Philly.
Although Philly has the most buildings constructed before 1800, making it seem the oldest. NYC and Boston largely built on top of their colonial neighborhoods.
In terms of age, it's pretty nit-picky and doesn't represent a meaningful difference, especially NY-Boston.
New Amsterdam founded 1624.
Boston founded 1630.
Philadelphia founded 1682.
The relative founding date difference also does not account for settlement. Even though Philadelphia was founded 50-60 years later than Boston or NY, it's was settled pretty quickly, given the amount of "firsts" it had as a city (public library, public school, public hospital, etc.).
The relative founding date difference also does not account for settlement. Even though Philadelphia was founded 50-60 years later than Boston or NY, it's was settled pretty quickly, given the amount of "firsts" it had as a city (public library, public school, public hospital, etc.).
besides, Philadelphia and Boston are older American cities, based on their lineage in the English colonies that became our nation. that early growth in NYC was Dutch in nature and Philadelpia, the American city, easily out populated New York when New Netherlands became a part of the British empire.
Downtown Sacramento and Downtown San Francisco are under 85 miles from each other. Sacramento is 70 miles from the closest Bay Area Rapid Transit Station. Also, one of the busiest commuter trains in the nation - The Capitol Corridor - are between the Sacramento Metro and the SF Bay Area Metro.
I did mention this in my post, Chimerique. No knock on Sacto, but I didn't define it as a "major city" (although I realize that its population has grown a lot).
Same would be true of Austin. I see the growth in both of these cities to be so recent that I didn't place them in the same category of what I called big cities; I think they need some "staying power" to reach that status. I'll admit it was just my definition. for the record, I'd same the same thing about Columbus (even though it is the biggest city in the state, ahead of Cleveland and Cincinnati). Also Jacsonville, Nashville, and a number of others.
I tend to see Austin and Columbus as a more recent phenomenim where the city with the state capital and the flagship state university has experienced considerable growth; if the topography of lakes were different, Madison would be in the same category, but its growth has been more restrictive (which doesn't stop it from being a powerhouse, blockbuster medium sized city)
I realize that there is no argument here: it's all strictly my opinion and others have the right to see things vastly different.
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.
