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.
Charleston and Savannah are two colonial era cities, akin to Boston and Philadelphia in that their histories either preceded the founding of America or played a crucial role as a major urban and commercial centers directly afterwards.
One has to think that if Charleston and Savannah had continued to blossom into major cities of multi-million person metropolises that they would share a kinship of sorts with Boston and Philadelphia.
So here's a subjective based thread for people to answer 100% with their opinions, no facts are needed for this one, this is not that type of thread.
If Charleston and Savannah had continued to blossom into major metropolises, would they be akin to the Southern versions of a Boston and Philadelphia? Explain why or why not.
Oh yeah. I’m not really understanding why people are choosing NO. If both were major cities they can’t help but to be the South’s versions of Boston/Philly. People seem to think Bostonians are uptight but we all know Philly is kind of self deprecating. There are still strong similarities between Philly and Boston (both important colonial cities up to today). Charleston and Savannah kind of have that same dynamic of one city being perceived as uptight and polished and the other one being a little less polished and rowdier than their peer to the north. Regarding Savannah, there would be way more neighborhoods like the historic district and you’d see many more squares (which translates well in our day). Savannah actually favored rowhomes and there would certainly be more if it had been a major city (rowhomes made sense with Savannah’s square centric layout) and Charleston has some interesting housing. All I know is that the historic district can fit seamlessly in Philadelphia (minus the Spanish moss). If Savannah was a big city, I do think it would be mostly low-mid rise. Anyway, yes they would be the South’s version of Boston and Philly.
Oh yeah. I’m not really understanding why people are choosing NO. If both were major cities they can’t help but to be the South’s versions of Boston/Philly. People seem to think Bostonians are uptight but we all know Philly is kind of self deprecating. There are still strong similarities between Philly and Boston (both important colonial cities up to today). Charleston and Savannah kind of have that same dynamic of one city being perceived as uptight and polished and the other one being a little less polished and rowdier than their peer to the north. Regarding Savannah, there would be way more neighborhoods like the historic district and you’d see many more squares (which translates well in our day). Savannah actually favored rowhomes and there would certainly be more if it had been a major city (rowhomes made sense with Savannah’s square centric layout) and Charleston has some interesting housing. All I know is that the historic district can fit seamlessly in Philadelphia (minus the Spanish moss). If Savannah was a big city, I do think it would be mostly low-mid rise. Anyway, yes they would be the South’s version of Boston and Philly.
I still say no although at first I admit I read too much into it.
I say no because Savannah and Charlotte would spread much like other citoes in the South.
People forget that there is more to Savannah than the historic District.
As you get further outside of the district the neighborhoods are tranformed by the era.The yards get bigger and bigger as do the house change with the times.
Still well planned but not as walk-able the further you go out.
There is no reason to think that Savannah would have expanded its layout any much more than it did.
Whos to say Savannah would not have boomed around the same time Atlanta did?In such case the that would have been around the early 90's at best.
Well during the tie automobiles were causing Atlantans to sprawl far from the city core to the Northern suburbs but in Savannah case,westward.
Oh yeah. I’m not really understanding why people are choosing NO. If both were major cities they can’t help but to be the South’s versions of Boston/Philly. People seem to think Bostonians are uptight but we all know Philly is kind of self deprecating. There are still strong similarities between Philly and Boston (both important colonial cities up to today). Charleston and Savannah kind of have that same dynamic of one city being perceived as uptight and polished and the other one being a little less polished and rowdier than their peer to the north. Regarding Savannah, there would be way more neighborhoods like the historic district and you’d see many more squares (which translates well in our day). Savannah actually favored rowhomes and there would certainly be more if it had been a major city (rowhomes made sense with Savannah’s square centric layout) and Charleston has some interesting housing. All I know is that the historic district can fit seamlessly in Philadelphia (minus the Spanish moss). If Savannah was a big city, I do think it would be mostly low-mid rise. Anyway, yes they would be the South’s version of Boston and Philly.
Whether you believe it was the old Souths agrarian aristocratic ways or inhospitable climate or other factors, I think the answer to the question is yes. Had Savannah taken off as an industrial and trade center in the 1800s, you would see miles and miles of this instead of a few blocks in Savannah.
[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]
[/IMG]
[/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]
[/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]
Last edited by Galounger; 06-17-2016 at 01:14 AM..
Whether you believe it was the old Souths agrarian aristocratic ways or inhospitable climate or other factors, I think the answer to the question is yes. Had Savannah taken off as an industrial and trade center in the 1800s, you would see miles and miles of this instead of a few blocks in Savannah.
[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG]http://[/IMG]
[IMG]http://[/IMG]
That would depend on when the development took off or if there was a lull like Atlanta.Without the lull,perhaps so.
So I guess the answer is maybe.?
That would depend on when the development took off or if there was a lull like Atlanta.Without the lull,perhaps so.
So I guess the answer is maybe.?
It would have made sense that Savannah's growth should have taken off in the early 1800s same as New Orleans if not for certain circumstances. Let's not forget that Savannah is much older than Atlanta. It had been planed out and begun building as a future grand city back when nobody was even thinking about building a city where Atlanta presently sits. And till this day it is still one of America's very top ports in terms of business. That was an even more important asset back in the pre automobile days had it's leaders cared to really capitalize off that with something other than raw cotton.
I still say no although at first I admit I read too much into it.
I say no because Savannah and Charlotte would spread much like other citoes in the South.
People forget that there is more to Savannah than the historic District.
As you get further outside of the district the neighborhoods are tranformed by the era.The yards get bigger and bigger as do the house change with the times.
Still well planned but not as walk-able the further you go out.
There is no reason to think that Savannah would have expanded its layout any much more than it did.
Whos to say Savannah would not have boomed around the same time Atlanta did?In such case the that would have been around the early 90's at best.
Well during the tie automobiles were causing Atlantans to sprawl far from the city core to the Northern suburbs but in Savannah case,westward.
Well it depends; if Charleston and Savannah had experienced sustained growth in the years following the Civil War, you'd basically see their downtown areas with much larger footprints and more inner-ring streetcar suburban neighborhoods from the early 20th century. Had there been a lull in growth from the end of the Civil War to the WW2 era and those cities experienced post-war booms like Atlanta and Charlotte, then you'd essentially be seeing their historic cores remain around the same size and they would be surrounded by a lot more sprawl.
1. Charleston and Savannah aren't quite as unique as they seem today. Richmond has around a dozen "Old Urban" neighborhoods which have rowhouse or rowhouse-like structures. Portsmouth, Virginia has one surviving right near Downtown (Olde Towne). Other Virginia cities, like Norfolk, had them but basically lost them due to urban renewal. What makes Charleston and Savannah so distinct is because they became comparable backwaters by the 20th century, there really wasn't a strong economic incentive to demolish the old downtown areas.
2. I agree with others that malaria played a large role in not being attractive. If you moved into the South from Europe, it was almost a given you would get malaria, which at best would mean months of time being weak and nearly bedridden waiting for it to pass. And of course you could just die. This wasn't quite as much of an issue for native-born southerners, because most got the disease in their childhood, and the southern birth rate was high enough to make up for the children lost to it. Because of this, the South wasn't only not very attractive to outsiders as a potential destination. It also wasn't really economically sensible as an employer to try and attract European settlers to come and work for you. Africans, in contrast (both free and slave) were completely immune to some strains of malaria, thus making them the most economically effective labor force. Hence why slavery of Africans took off in the South, but wilted away in the North.
3. Calling all 19th century immigration "Industrial Era" isn't really correct. The U.S. didn't get any immigration to speak of from independence until around 1830. Indeed, the U.S. actually lost more people most years due to emigration to Canada than it gained from Europe. The 1830s were a transitional decade, with mass immigration starting with the Irish in the 1840s.
4. It's important to remember there were differences in terms of culture between the different folkways which settled the U.S. To give extreme examples, the Yankees, who were descendants of the Puritans, self-consciously formed new settlements as communities. In contrast, southerners tended to want to keep to themselves in isolated farmsteads when yeoman, or stay on plantations if they were substantive landowners.
1. Charleston and Savannah aren't quite as unique as they seem today. Richmond has around a dozen "Old Urban" neighborhoods which have rowhouse or rowhouse-like structures. Portsmouth, Virginia has one surviving right near Downtown (Olde Towne). Other Virginia cities, like Norfolk, had them but basically lost them due to urban renewal. What makes Charleston and Savannah so distinct is because they became comparable backwaters by the 20th century, there really wasn't a strong economic incentive to demolish the old downtown areas.
That was certainly part of it, but in Charleston in particular, historic preservation has really always been part of the city's ethos. The city's motto, adopted in 1783, is "She guards her customs, buildings and laws." It was in 1902 when the roots of the local preservation movement began to take hold (and surprisingly, it wasn't due to the threat of demolition of historic buildings), culminating in an organization focused on such in 1920.
I still say no although at first I admit I read too much into it.
I say no because Savannah and Charlotte would spread much like other citoes in the South.
People forget that there is more to Savannah than the historic District.
As you get further outside of the district the neighborhoods are tranformed by the era.The yards get bigger and bigger as do the house change with the times.
Still well planned but not as walk-able the further you go out.
There is no reason to think that Savannah would have expanded its layout any much more than it did.
Whos to say Savannah would not have boomed around the same time Atlanta did?In such case the that would have been around the early 90's at best.
Well during the tie automobiles were causing Atlantans to sprawl far from the city core to the Northern suburbs but in Savannah case,westward.
My thoughts are more in line with Galounger’s thinking. Oglethorpe had big plans for Savannah to be something more than what it was today. Savannah’s grid layout was meant to be repeated as the city grew so there’s no reason to not think that the historic district would not have gone on for miles had the city seen steady growth back then through several time periods (as Galounger brought out). Had Savannah saw a great influx of people early on….we’d certainly have a major metro sitting on GA’s coast (maybe….I was told that malaria messed up a lot). Anyway, Oglethorpe’s plan should have been re-implemented in ATL or something instead of going to waste. Anyway, a lot of people would say think Philly of the South had Oglethorpe’s plan spanned many miles.
My thoughts are more in line with Galounger’s thinking. Oglethorpe had big plans for Savannah to be something more than what it was today. Savannah’s grid layout was meant to be repeated as the city grew so there’s no reason to not think that the historic district would not have gone on for miles had the city seen steady growth back then through several time periods (as Galounger brought out). Had Savannah saw a great influx of people early on….we’d certainly have a major metro sitting on GA’s coast (maybe….I was told that malaria messed up a lot). Anyway, Oglethorpe’s plan should have been re-implemented in ATL or something instead of going to waste. Anyway, a lot of people would say think Philly of the South had Oglethorpe’s plan spanned many miles.
Maybe so but I guess we can only speculate what could have been
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.
[/IMG]
[/IMG]
[/IMG]
