Are New World cities on average, actually older than Old World ones?

[Capsicum]

Traditionally, Europe, Africa and Asia are considered to be the "Old World" and the Americas, North and South are considered "New World" (sometimes Australia and New Zealand are included as well).

However, Europe aside, if you look at most of the other parts of the Old World, it actually appears to be the case that their really big cities are newer due to later industrialization and urbanization, even if their history of civilization is old. Abu Dhabi or Shenzhen, and many other Asian or Middle Eastern cities are much newer than Chicago, New York, Buenos Aires, and other large US, Latin American cities and even Australian or Canadian cities. And, as Africa too urbanizes, people there are also coming to live in very new, rapidly growing cities.

Since most of the developing world is still in the Old World and is catching up on urbanization, is it likely that the average citizen in the Old World currently lives in a city or town, or at least a part thereof where the housing stock, infrastructure etc. is "newer" than the average citizen of the New World?

If so, for how long has this been the case or will be the case I wonder.



http://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapp...rowing-cities/

[10023]

I don't consider Africa to be "the Old World" aside from the Maghreb and Egypt. And yes Australia and New Zealand are always considered the New World.

[kool maudit]

The "old world/new world" coinage was one created by European emigrants to those places that began as European colonies. So "old world" in the English idiomatic sense means Europe.

[Pedestrian]

I thought this was going to talk about the fact that many "New World" cities are built on the sites of pretty ancient Native American settlements.

Take Tucson, AZ, for example:

AD 450–1450

A complex agricultural society known as the Hohokam inhabit(ed) the area ranging from present-day Northern Mexico to Central Arizona. A substantial Hohokam community with extensive irrigated fields (was) located on land that (would) become the area between modern Downtown Tucson and "A" Mountain. You will find the remains of a Hohokam pit house within the reconstructed El Presidio del Tucson.

Why the Hohokam disappeared from the archeological record is unknown in detail, but undoubtedly it was somehow related to the inability to produce sufficient crops.

Many archeologists believe changes in weather patterns were primarily the cause of the collapse of the Hohokam culture. In the 12th & 13th century C.E., their homeland experienced long periods of drought combined with intermittent flooding that destroyed many of their irrigation canals.

https://southernarizonaguide.com/bri...on-a-timeline/

[10023]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

I thought this was going to talk about the fact that many "New World" cities are built on the sites of pretty ancient Native American settlements.

Take Tucson, AZ, for example:


https://southernarizonaguide.com/bri...on-a-timeline/

This is more true of Mexico, Central America and the Andes. There was very little real permanent settlement in what became the United States and it certainly wasn't continuously occupied.

[Crawford]

The "Old World" is Europe, not Africa, the Middle East or Asia.

And NYC or Buenos Aires are hardly representative of the Americas, just as Shenzhen or Abu Dhabi are hardly representative of Asia or The Middle East. You're comparing the most extreme outliers.

[muppet]

The Old World refers to the known planet at the time - Eurasia and Africa. The New World refers to the 3 new continents they discovered N America, S America and Australia/ NZ.

It's not about age, as mentioned before the Americas already had some of the world's largest cities (larger than those in Europe at the time) at the time they were 'discovered', and populations also larger than in Europe. It's just that those cities were destroyed, along with over 90% of the people with conquest.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by muppet

It's not about age, as mentioned before the Americas already had some of the world's largest cities (larger than those in Europe at the time) at the time they were 'discovered', and populations also larger than in Europe. It's just that those cities were destroyed, along with over 90% of the people with conquest.

I doubt this is true. What American cities were larger than those of Europe at the time?

Only the corridor from Mexico through Peru was decently populated, and the only major city, Tenochtitlan, was in deep decline. In contrast, Europe already had a number of 100k+ cities at the dawn of the settlement of Americas.

Paris, Genoa, Venice, Milan, Granada were all big cities, and this is immediately following the Black Death. Western Europe was already pretty thickly populated. Basically any current settlement along a river or sea had been well established by that time. And obviously Europe had already experienced a city with million+ residents in Rome.

[Crawford]

Just to illustrate the contrast, my father's side of the family is all from the Mosel valley in Germany (near French/Belgian border), where basically every community has been settled since Roman times. Trier had 100k residents 2000 years ago (about the same as today), and Koblenz was quite large too.

In contrast, the U.S. didn't have a city with 100k until 1820 (NYC). Sao Paulo was a small village, basically, until the late 19th century. Mexico City was largely destroyed by Smallpox and the Spaniards and was insignificant until late 19th century. So, yeah, Europe is old, and the Americas, comparatively, are quite new.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The "Old World" is Europe, not Africa, the Middle East or Asia.

And NYC or Buenos Aires are hardly representative of the Americas, just as Shenzhen or Abu Dhabi are hardly representative of Asia or The Middle East. You're comparing the most extreme outliers.

No, the "Old World" is essentially the world that pre-Columbus explorers knew about (eastern hemisphere)

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

No, the "Old World" is essentially the world that pre-Columbus explorers knew about (eastern hemisphere)

That seems arbitrary and nonsensical. Pre-Columbus explorers "knew about" the Americas too. Europeans were exploring North America 500 years before Columbus. And there's evidence that Chinese predated even the Vikings.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by Crawford

That seems arbitrary and nonsensical. Pre-Columbus explorers "knew about" the Americas too. Europeans were exploring North America 500 years before Columbus. And there's evidence that Chinese predated even the Vikings.

Literally just Google the words old world, you are wrong. I don't understand how you can argue the basic facts when they are so readily verifiable in this day and age. Whether or not you like the term doesn't matter. The term has always meant what it means and your personal opinion of that is irrelevant and, frankly, uninteresting.

First sentence of Wikipedia entry for "Old World":

The term "Old World" is used in the west to refer to Africa, Europe, and Asia (Afro-Eurasia, or the eastern hemisphere), regarded collectively as the part of the world known to its population before contact with the Americas and Oceania (the western hemisphere).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_World

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Literally just Google the words old world, you are wrong. I don't understand how you can argue the basic facts when they are so readily verifiable in this day and age. Whether or not you like the term doesn't matter. The term has always meant what it means and
First sentence of Wikipedia entry for "Old World":

Wikipedia isn't a fact-checker, and there is no definitive definition of "Old World".

But in the context of the Americas, it's obviously Europe. The Americans weren't settled by Saudis or Nepalese.

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

your personal opinion of that is irrelevant and, frankly, uninteresting.

Yet apparently not so "irrelevent and uninteresting" as to not respond with an absurd Wikipedia reference, no less.

[JManc]

I'm confused. Are we talking about when these cities in their present form were established and then built up? Shenzhen has been inhabited since antiquity. You can't compare China to anywhere else except maybe the Syria, Iran or Iraq.

And what is now Abu Dhabi has had some form of human settlement in that region going back 4-5,000 years probably not much different than how Chicago, New York and Buenos Aires had some sort of pre-Columbian activity for a thousand or so years as well.

[Parkway]

I think the debate really comes down to: did the European city in question get the ever-loving hell bombed out of it during WWII? Buildings in Philadelphia and Boston are probably older, on average than buildings in Antwerp, Dresden, and Berlin.

[10023]

Originally Posted by muppet

The Old World refers to the known planet at the time - Eurasia and Africa. The New World refers to the 3 new continents they discovered N America, S America and Australia/ NZ.

It's not about age, as mentioned before the Americas already had some of the world's largest cities (larger than those in Europe at the time) at the time they were 'discovered', and populations also larger than in Europe. It's just that those cities were destroyed, along with over 90% of the people with conquest.

Revisionist anti-"ethnocentric" history.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Parkway

I think the debate really comes down to: did the European city in question get the ever-loving hell bombed out of it during WWII? Buildings in Philadelphia and Boston are probably older, on average than buildings in Antwerp, Dresden, and Berlin.

OK, but, again these are outliers. Yeah, the biggest German cities aren't historic because they were bombed to hell. But basically all the sub-200k cities have historic fabric, as is true in most of Europe.

And Philly and Boston are New World outliers and not that old. You find Roman ruins and excavations throughout the cities of Western Europe. Even in "new" cities like in Germany, you don't have to look hard to find pre-Christian and Roman ruins.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

I thought this was going to talk about the fact that many "New World" cities are built on the sites of pretty ancient Native American settlements.

This is exactly what I thought, usually with modern day main roads being built on ancient pathways connecting them.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Wikipedia isn't a fact-checker, and there is no definitive definition of "Old World".

But in the context of the Americas, it's obviously Europe. The Americans weren't settled by Saudis or Nepalese.

Yet apparently not so "irrelevent and uninteresting" as to not respond with an absurd Wikipedia reference, no less.

So Wikipedia is now "absurd" and inferior to Crawford's personal opinion on a topic? That's far out, dude!

[dubu]

id rather live in a new world city. Most old world cities are too crowded.