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.
I already consider New Orleans and many of this list to be alpha though in many ways NO was cheated in several times of its history including the Civil War and by Hurricane Katrina.
Overall I'd have to say Charleston SC. At one point it was the wealthiest city in America and far larger than NYC or Philadelphia.
(emphasis added)
In population?
I don't recall any decennial Census of the United States prior to the Civil War that had any city other than New York or Philadelphia ranked at the top. (And according to this list of Census returns, Charleston's highest showing was on the first one, in 1790, when it was third behind New York and Philadelphia.)
At the time the American colonists declared their independence, Philadelphia was the second-largest city in the English-speaking world after London.
Last edited by MarketStEl; 08-13-2018 at 03:37 AM..
I don't recall any decennial Census of the United States prior to the Civil War that had any city other than New York or Philadelphia ranked at the top. (And according to this list of Census returns, Charleston's highest showing was on the first one, in 1790, when it was third behind New York and Philadelphia.)
At the time the American colonists declared their independence, Philadelphia was the second-largest city in the English-speaking world after London.
Following myself up to correct one statement above and note a fact that applies here.
The correction: In that 1790 Census, Charleston ranked fourth, not third; Boston was the No. 3 city.
The fact: Of course, the same Constitution that mandated the census also called for it to count only three-fifths of the enslaved population, so depending on the percentage of Charleston residents who were not enslaved, the figure for that city in every Census up until 1870 could theoretically be as much as 40 percent greater. Of course, the difference wouldn't have been that great, for not everyone in Charleston was a slave, but a 20 to 25, or maybe even 30, percent discrepancy wouldn't be out of the question (I find it quite possible that a majority of the city's population consisted of slaves. That added population, however, would not have been enough to cause the city to surpass New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore or Boston in population (not to mention that Baltimore had its own enslaved residents - and so did New York until sometime in the 1820s, as New York State did not move to gradually abolish slavery until near the end of the American Revolution).
I can't imagine one of the fastest growing cities in Texas and the Nation for a few decades. Was robbed of anything, but its own lack of planning for a future where its size says should be a more credited city.
Being a Capital of a state really give s no city greatness. Our largest cities are not state Capitals and most state Capitals ..... remained small to mid-sized cities. Maybe Texas being -- a Whole 'nother Country. Is different in Austin owes its new-found growth to being a state Capital? I can think of many that remained small to mid-sized cities in each state.
No but it guarantees constant federal funding and by default there are tens of thousands of well-paying government jobs in the city. Look at any prosperous/healthy state and its capital and you will see that the city generally has a good to great economy in large part to all of the government jobs.
Quote:
Houston got a kick-start more after Galveston was pretty much destroyed by the 1900 hurricane. Many moved inland to Houston and it got more investment, then the Oil boom hit and Houston grew more into a Port city too. Houston then just needed the Air-conditioning era and the Great migration south to begin ..... driven by Corporate America relocations to it and the sunbelt in general Even NASA nearby certainly helped thru the 1960s with Big oil and still growing port, gave IT ALL NECESSARY?
It did but Houston was not much smaller than Galveston before the 1900 hurricane and the area which we now call the Inner Loop was already larger than the Galveston area before the hurricane. Plus, that 1900 hurricane damaged a lot of Houston too. Yeah businesses definitely moved inland after the storm, but Houston overtaking Galveston was already going to happen. At best, Galveston would have been Houston's Fort Worth.
Quote:
No city stole that.... sorry. Its choosing to not plan more and guide the development fort a true Top city should have gained more renown. Most was its own choice. But it certainly is not being left behind in population growth to blame any other city.
I can't decipher this.
Quote:
The College town scene helped Austin more then being a state Capital by far. But certainly did not hurt it at all.
In the evolution of cities .... clearly some made same better to more aggressive choices. that pushed them ahead of others they were in competition with. Just sometimes a more aggressive city government in previous eras .... had some cities evolve to be more major.
Very little Houston can say stole from them. You have to have it or as aggressively sought it too? To claimed stole from under them too. Houston certainly had things Dallas and Austin did not. Especially, its major port. Yet they found other means to their advantage to use despite a location asset alone merely needing taken advantage of.
Dallas for sure found other advantages. It's location is good for logistics/distribution, but literally every other industry in DFW can be done anywhere else. That's quite amazing for those Dallas leaders to build the city from nothing because it would have been another Oklahoma City and Kansas City could be the current DFW.
Austin's advantage was that it was a capital of a state flush with oil/energy money with Texas' largest public university. This meant that the university in the center of town had a lot of investment flow into it. Thus, the tech industry eventually sprang out from it.
It's a great city with current greatness like high tech capital and real dynamic city with 2nd best transportation system in the country despite low ridership
The only thing Birmingham was cheated out of was a air mail route stop between NY, Bos, etc and Miami. Pretty much it.
In the mid 20's an postal official was suppose to visit Birmingham to inspect the facilities at the airport. Atlanta's mayor Hartsfield got wind of this and persuaded the postal official to visit Atlanta first. ATL City officials treated him like a celebrity etc The postal official never made it to Birmingham, Atlanta got the route stop and the rest is history. Delta relocated from Louisiana to Atlanta due it being a air mail hub.
Everything else that held this area back was self inflicted aka too depended on one industry, bad city leadership, or outside forces aka being in a politically rural dominated state etc.
None of these cities was ever destined for "greatness." Another thread, that makes no sense. Just because someone picks random cities and adds them to a poll, doesn't mean the thread is worthy of serious consideration. This list of cities, consists of cities, that have never been thought of as "great" cities, nor, will they be (at least, in my lifetime).
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.
