Cities that "undershot"

[suburbanite]

I was thinking it wasn't so much the destruction of the city, moreseo that tensions didn't immediately dissipate after the war. If I was from Virginia and lived through the Civil War, I would probably feel more comfortable setting up my new business in Savannah or New Orleans, a bit farther removed from the mixing pot of North and South

[Obadno]

I think all cities undershot to a degree when it came to those turn of the century grand plans of monumental architecture and grand boulavards.

Such plans required things most populations would consider tyrannical today to pull off so Its not surprising.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by JManc

Can we really credit the Civil War for Virginia? Reconstruction ended in the 1870's and much of the development and economic boom in "older" cities in the north began around that time and took off over the next several decades. Plenty of time for Richmond and other VA cities to the same.

Reconstruction may have ended in 1877, but the lingering effects of the war lasted well into the 20th century.

[The North One]

It’s interesting how Vienna became a has-been. Still one of the greatest places to live though so I doubt residents care about the loss of prestige.

Also Austria has allowed google street view recently and it’s glorious to see Vienna through the streets, honestly the most beautiful city in the world.

[McBane]

No one's mentioned Cairo, IL?

You can make the case for Jerusalem. For all its holiness and importance, it only recently became a fairly large city (about a half million). Jerusalem very quickly took a back seat to Baghdad and Damascus among others in terms of population and importance (no university established, lost its capital status, etc.). At one point in the 19th century, the population dwindled to just a few thousand. It was also very poor and run down under Ottoman rule.

I believe Athens had a similar trajectory as Jerusalem: A major city in antiquity that came to be ruled by a declining empire (Ottoman) and fell into such decline and disrepair that by the 19th century, it was a poor provincial town of only a few thousand people.

Another interesting one - Charleston, SC. In 1790, as per Wikipedia, Charleston was the 4th biggest city in America, ahead of Baltimore and a bunch of cities that today are either neighborhoods (e.g., Northern Liberties in Philadelphia) or other cities that could be described as having "undershot" (e.g., Providence, RI). Charleston standing fell before the Civil War, so I don't think you can blame that.

[coyotetrickster]

Originally Posted by JManc

Can we really credit the Civil War for Virginia? Reconstruction ended in the 1870's and much of the development and economic boom in "older" cities in the north began around that time and took off over the next several decades. Plenty of time for Richmond and other VA cities to the same.

Following Reconstruction, Radical Republicans in the North actively legislated against Southern economic development. Railroads could ship raw materials from southern states, but no manufactured goods. The restrictions were gradually lifted through the early 1900s, but only for certain industries migrating south in search of cheap labor (shoes, textiles, furniture). The net effect was Northern cities experienced massive booms during the golden age of railroads. This expansion was supported by people (immigrants) and capital, neither of which were occurring in the South. Richmond's growth was definitely impacted by proximity to Washington and the presence of a better harbor (Baltimore) served by more rail lines.

[austlar1]

New Orleans immediately comes to mind. It was the largest and probably most important city in the southern US as recently as 1940. It was still a contender after the war, but Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, and Miami all emerged as dynamic southern giants over the next 60 years while New Orleans lost its importance as a regional banking and business center. The port containerized, which decimated the longshoreman workforce. Tourism became the primary business activity. The city lost much of its vitality and replaced it with a carnival like atmosphere that appeals to visitors but does little to restore New Orleans to its former position as the most important city in the South.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by The North One

It’s interesting how Vienna became a has-been. Still one of the greatest places to live though so I doubt residents care about the loss of prestige.

Also Austria has allowed google street view recently and it’s glorious to see Vienna through the streets, honestly the most beautiful city in the world.

Vienna is a very beautiful city and has a reasonable cost of living for such an active city. I hate cold weather so I don't really fantasize about living in other cold weather cities anymore... but Vienna is one of the places I'd consider.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by coyotetrickster

Following Reconstruction, Radical Republicans in the North actively legislated against Southern economic development. Railroads could ship raw materials from southern states, but no manufactured goods. The restrictions were gradually lifted through the early 1900s, but only for certain industries migrating south in search of cheap labor (shoes, textiles, furniture). The net effect was Northern cities experienced massive booms during the golden age of railroads. This expansion was supported by people (immigrants) and capital, neither of which were occurring in the South. Richmond's growth was definitely impacted by proximity to Washington and the presence of a better harbor (Baltimore) served by more rail lines.

That makes total sense. Their lack of development was forced upon them...probably to make sure the South would never rise again..

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by JManc

That makes total sense. Their lack of development was forced upon them...probably to make sure the South would never rise again..

Considering now that the south is larger in population and in industiral output than the north by a significant margin.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Considering now that the south is larger in population and in industiral output than the north by a significant margin.

Define south.

[Cirrus]

The south:
All the major pre-Civil War cities of the south have undershot since then. During the Revolution, Charleston SC was bigger than Boston. Savannah was big too. For whatever reason, when the 20th boom hit the south, it went to cities that hadn't been very important prior to then.

The north:
Of course all the rust belt cities to some extent or another. One that always comes to my mind is Lowell, MA. You feel like it should at least have been a Buffalo, but its take-off was aborted early.

The west:
Two that immediately come to mind are Pueblo CO and Cheyenne WY. Basically there was always going to be one big city on the Front Range, and those two plus Denver were in competition. Denver won, but the other two have the basic structures to be much much bigger places.

Also in the west, San Francisco merits mentioning. It would be the western Manhattan by now if locals had just let it happen.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Considering now that the south is larger in population than the north by a significant margin.

we're not quite at that inflection point yet (as of 2017 numbers), but it's coming very soon.

as defined by the census bureau:

the north (NE + MW): 124.7M

the south: 123.7M

source: https://www.census.gov/popclock/data...mponent=growth

[suburbanite]

Ya even with an extremely liberal definition of South, you'd be hard-pressed to get the population over 120 million, let alone 160 (51%)

[Crawford]

True, but the Census regional descriptors, at least when applied to cultural commonalities, are like a century outdated.

Half the Northeast Corridor is in "the South". Florida, the New Yorkiest state outside of NY, is "the South".

Originally Posted by McBane

No one's mentioned Cairo, IL?

Yep I was gonna say Cairo. Fascinating history.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by McBane

No one's mentioned Cairo, IL?

cairo was never going to happen. it’s position in the region was more than spoken for and the geography is problematic. it’s one of those legends that won’t die.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

True, but the Census regional descriptors, at least when applied to cultural commonalities, are like a century outdated.

Half the Northeast Corridor is in "the South". Florida, the New Yorkiest state outside of NY, is "the South".

New Jersey is the New Yorkiest state outside of NY.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Florida, the New Yorkiest state outside of NY, is "the South".

i just spent 5 days in the orlando area.

if florida is the "new yorkiest" state outside of new york, then new york must suck hard.


but seriously, nothing i experienced in orlando even vaguely reminded me of anything "new york".

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

but seriously, nothing i experienced in orlando even vaguely reminded me of anything "new york".

Then you probably didn't go to Kissimmee, which is pretty much all Puerto Ricans from the Boroughs. It's probably the second biggest PR concentration in the U.S. these days, after the Bronx.

Orlando, while not as "New Yorky" as South Florida, has a huge population with NY-area connections. Its demographic mix is very roughly the same, with blacks of West Indian descent, Puerto Ricans and South Americans and white ethnics from the "three Is" (Ireland, Italy and "Israel").