HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2019, 1:20 PM
Crawford Crawford is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 19,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreadnought View Post
I don't know what article you read, but New York didn't become the most populous city until the opening of the Erie canal in the early 1800s. Philadelphia was the colonial-era largest city, and the second largest English-speaking city in the world (behind London, obviously.)
I don't think any city in the Colonies was even in the top 10, let alone second.

Philly had 40k people in 1800. Looking exclusively at England, it looks like eight cities were larger and Bath was around the same size:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...cal_population

It also looks like Edinburgh, Glasgow, Cardiff and Dublin were larger. Glasgow topped 40k around the Revolutionary War. Glasgow, for a time, was probably the second largest English speaking city.
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2019, 1:37 PM
uaarkson's Avatar
uaarkson uaarkson is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Back in Flint
Posts: 1,940
Philly was the largest English-speaking city in the colonial world.
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2019, 1:45 PM
ThePhun1 ThePhun1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Houston/Galveston
Posts: 1,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreadnought View Post
I don't know what article you read, but New York didn't become the most populous city until the opening of the Erie canal in the early 1800s. Philadelphia was the colonial-era largest city, and the second largest English-speaking city in the world (behind London, obviously.)
New York has been the largest city for every US Census going back to 1790. Unless you mean Philadelphia and it's adjecent municipalities that have been merged into the city. In such a case, you'd have to account for Brooklyn, an independent city until it was merged into the current municipal boundaries of NYC in 1898.
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2019, 1:58 PM
LA21st LA21st is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun Belt View Post
Did anybody say that?
Yes.
Dcreid.
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2019, 2:00 PM
LA21st LA21st is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtown,man View Post
Texas will never...ever be as expensive as California. For a lot of reasons.
Doesn't matter. There are other cities in this country that will be cheaper.
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2019, 2:20 PM
SFBruin SFBruin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 296
I remember reading in my US history textbook that, at the time of the American Revolution, Philadelphia was the largest city in the 13 colonies.

I don't know how accurate that was, or how good my memory is (probably the more deciding factor), but if that's the case, then NYC became the largest city sometime between 1775 and 1790.

In any case, I do recall that at one point, Philadelphia was believed to be the largest city.
__________________
I don't read. I apologize in advance.
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2019, 2:35 PM
LA21st LA21st is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,628
La wasnt a nimby metro until the 1980s or so.
Well above Texas cities current populations..
Maybe 14-15 million.


La with all it's traffic problems, still is in a different league with infrastructure compared
To those places.
No idea how Dallas and houston can hit 12 million and not be a hellish disaster.
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2019, 2:37 PM
dreadnought dreadnought is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by uaarkson View Post
Philly was the largest English-speaking city in the colonial world.
"Philadelphia is one of the oldest and most historically significant cities in the United States. During part of the 18th century, the city was the first capital and most populous city of the United States, and the second largest English speaking city in the world after London. At that time, it eclipsed Boston and New York City in political and social importance, with Benjamin Franklin taking a large role in Philadelphia's rise."
https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wiki...iladelphia.htm
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2019, 3:41 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 2,712
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
NY has been relatively stagnant, by metro, for 50 years.
Not really. The NY and LA MSAs have both grown by roughly the same percentage since 1980. But that occurred after NY's MSA shrank in the 1970s.

The LA CSA has probably grown much faster, but NY's CSA is boxed in by other urban areas so not exactly an apples to apples comparison.
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2019, 6:40 PM
austlar1 austlar1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Austin
Posts: 2,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc View Post
Houston was at 3.3 million in 1990 and is 7 million today while Dallas was 3.8 million in 1990 and is around 7.5 million today. I don't see Houston or DFW ever passing LA but I could see one or both of them surpassing Chicago within 30 years.

The only thing likely to slow growth (other than a major recession or depression) of the two biggest Texas metros is probably related to climate. DFW is 100% dependent on a huge reservoir system that is subject to drought. A truly major drought (one lasting for several years) could put a real damper on continued growth. Houston has it's own problems both with occasional drought and also with flooding. Rainfall in Texas tends to be "feast or famine". Houston is most vulnerable to the former and DFW to the latter.
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2019, 7:03 PM
SLO's Avatar
SLO SLO is offline
REAL Kiwi!
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: California
Posts: 9,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by austlar1 View Post
The only thing likely to slow growth (other than a major recession or depression) of the two biggest Texas metros is probably related to climate. DFW is 100% dependent on a huge reservoir system that is subject to drought. A truly major drought (one lasting for several years) could put a real damper on continued growth. Houston has it's own problems both with occasional drought and also with flooding. Rainfall in Texas tends to be "feast or famine". Houston is most vulnerable to the former and DFW to the latter.
I find that odd, only because they get so much more rain there than California, it may be they need even more storage capacity. Even in the famine side of the rainfall totals its still more than Ca gets in high years.
I'd love to see a national water distribution system.
__________________
“Some people, did something”
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2019, 7:10 PM
dc_denizen's Avatar
dc_denizen dc_denizen is online now
Selfie-stick vendor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: New York Suburbs
Posts: 6,623
What’s the square mileage of the populated part of la county?
__________________
Joined the bus on the 33rd seat
By the doo-doo room with the reek replete
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2019, 7:15 PM
montréaliste montréaliste is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Chambly, Quebec
Posts: 1,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLO View Post
I find that odd, only because they get so much more rain there than California, it may be they need even more storage capacity. Even in the famine side of the rainfall totals its still more than Ca gets in high years.
I'd love to see a national water distribution system.

So much water here in Quebec. A million lakes. 90% of our electric power is hydro.
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2019, 7:51 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by LA21st View Post
La wasnt a nimby metro until the 1980s or so.
Well above Texas cities current populations..
Maybe 14-15 million.


La with all it's traffic problems, still is in a different league with infrastructure compared
To those places.
No idea how Dallas and houston can hit 12 million and not be a hellish disaster.
Agreed, especially DFW. Check out the scale of the Metroplex vis-a-vis Greater LA and its much tighter grid. DFW's lack of a regular grid system (both cross-metro and within subdivisions) in conjunction with the "dense, yet sparse" suburban patterns put it along a theoretical trajectory with far more challenges than LA, assuming the unchecked growth continues at its current pace.

Dallas
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.7883...0236526,11.02z

Los Angeles
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9885....1132828,11.2z

DFW actually makes Houston look relatively compact:

Houston
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7575764,-95.3686209,11z
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2019, 8:08 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_denizen View Post
What’s the square mileage of the populated part of la county?
Here:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Lo...4d-118.2436596

I'd guess about 1,500 square miles.
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2019, 9:46 PM
ThePhun1 ThePhun1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Houston/Galveston
Posts: 1,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFBruin View Post
I remember reading in my US history textbook that, at the time of the American Revolution, Philadelphia was the largest city in the 13 colonies.

I don't know how accurate that was, or how good my memory is (probably the more deciding factor), but if that's the case, then NYC became the largest city sometime between 1775 and 1790.

In any case, I do recall that at one point, Philadelphia was believed to be the largest city.
Philly was number 2 in 1790 and was the center of so much in the colonies for so long, so that makes sense.
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2019, 9:48 PM
ThePhun1 ThePhun1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Houston/Galveston
Posts: 1,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by LA21st View Post
La wasnt a nimby metro until the 1980s or so.
Well above Texas cities current populations..
Maybe 14-15 million.


La with all it's traffic problems, still is in a different league with infrastructure compared
To those places.
No idea how Dallas and houston can hit 12 million and not be a hellish disaster.
The city grid of LA is amazing. By comparison, Houston's street grid (if you can call it that) is a Hellish nightmare. Don't get lost and don't turn around a block hoping to circle back around. You'll likely get lost if you do.
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2019, 9:58 PM
austlar1 austlar1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Austin
Posts: 2,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quixote View Post
Agreed, especially DFW. Check out the scale of the Metroplex vis-a-vis Greater LA and its much tighter grid. DFW's lack of a regular grid system (both cross-metro and within subdivisions) in conjunction with the "dense, yet sparse" suburban patterns put it along a theoretical trajectory with far more challenges than LA, assuming the unchecked growth continues at its current pace.

Dallas
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.7883...0236526,11.02z

Los Angeles
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9885....1132828,11.2z

DFW actually makes Houston look relatively compact:

Houston
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7575764,-95.3686209,11z
At a macro level, DFW already is quite the disaster, but fortunately for most residents, they don't live in the DFW area at the macro level. The same could be said for LA area residents, although I think probably a greater percentage of LA residents commute longer distances to and from work or school than do their Metroplex (I really hate that name) counterparts. Both metros have several nodes of employment and business activity, but in the DFW area, with it's much lower housing prices and greater housing mobility, people tend to live a bit closer to where they work. DFW can add several million more residents without too much disruption. Hopefully their nascent rail transit (DART and commuter rail) options will continue to improve over time. Houston might find that a bit more difficult since in many ways it is much more economically centralized, and there are still too few transit options. It is worth pointing out that people aren't moving to DFW or Houston because either metro is an urban paradise. They are moving for jobs, affordable housing, and economic opportunities.

Last edited by austlar1; Oct 19, 2019 at 10:39 PM.
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2019, 10:40 PM
N90 N90 is offline
Voice of the Modern World
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 716
NYC MSA 19,979,477
LA MSA 13,291,486

Ummmm... kinda a long way to go, right?

Last edited by N90; Oct 19, 2019 at 11:23 PM.
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2019, 11:26 PM
LA21st LA21st is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,628
For whatever reason, they don't count the Riverside and San Bernardino counties ,which would make it 18 million or so for LA.
Not sure why, they're basically extensions of LA County and Orange County. Much of SB shares the freakin' LA county street grid.

The Inland Empire is the "affordable" region of the LA area. The Inland Empire associates with LA. There wouldn't be 4 million people there without Orange and LA county nearby.

As far as CSA goes, LA can surpass NYC metro in our lifetimes, barring natural disasters. It's a lot more realistic than DFW or Houston passing LA, that's for sure.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Closed Thread

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:40 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.