East coast most influential cities.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

philly's skyline has been making some fantastic strides so far this century. it's definitely in the big leagues now.

2 of the 4 tallest buildings built in the US outside of NYC & chicago since 2000 have been built in philly, and they have radically redefined the city's skyline!
...

I watched the film "Philadelphia" again the other day and was reminded how much the skyline has grown.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by jd3189

I find it still interesting and amazing that outside the Bos-Wash area, the most notable city on the East Coast coastally is Miami.
...
Although Savannah and Charleston do exist, they aren't as populated and notable at the coast as Miami. I wonder why the lower East Coast has developed in such way like that.

Originally Posted by SpawnOfVulcan

Other than the Civil War, I'd say a lack of glaciation during the most recent ice age meant a lack of deep river channels, leading to higher amounts of sediment deposits along the coast, making it very marshy, low-lying, and prone to frequent inundation. Populations don't tend to explode in conditions like that.

This and specifically things like hurricanes or even just tropical storms were a much bigger deal before the modern era, and even things like pirates or invading forces before the establishment of a strong US Navy. Miami didn't become Miami as we know it until last century. Galveston was nearly wiped off the map, for crying out loud. Places like New Orleans exist because of major rivers. There will be a major city somewhere near the Mississippi Delta for as long as civilization exists.

The problems of weather and hydrology don't stop people from locating on coasts, but they did used to effectively make solving the problems of a large population center uneconomical or sometimes even technologically impossible.

Originally Posted by JManc

The east coast is more than just (northeastern) cities directly on the coast but the greater area consisting of states along the eastern seaboard. Even Vermont gets lumped in and it has no coast. There's nothing physically east about Chicago. Atlanta, yes.

You can sail an ocean-going ship from Chicago to the Atlantic. You can't do that from Atlanta. But otherwise, yes, I agree with you.

Reputationally, I think Philadelphia suffers from being too close to New York. It just gets lost by being so close. Similarly, Baltimore gets lost in the shadows of Washington, although to a lesser extent. Both would probably be better known if they were further from their neighbor. Although, especially in the minds of East Asians, Harvard and MIT really do account for a huge part of Boston being more recognized. Philly has some great schools, but none with the star-power of Harvard or MIT.

Places like Chicago definitely benefit from being regionally peerless powerhouses - Philly just doesn't have that advantage.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by jd3189

I find it still interesting and amazing that outside the Bos-Wash area, the most notable city on the East Coast coastally is Miami.
...
Although Savannah and Charleston do exist, they aren't as populated and notable at the coast as Miami. I wonder why the lower East Coast has developed in such way like that.

Originally Posted by SpawnOfVulcan

Other than the Civil War, I'd say a lack of glaciation during the most recent ice age meant a lack of deep river channels, leading to higher amounts of sediment deposits along the coast, making it very marshy, low-lying, and prone to frequent inundation. Populations don't tend to explode in conditions like that.

This and specifically things like hurricanes or even just tropical storms were a much bigger deal before the modern era, and even things like pirates or invading forces before the establishment of a strong US Navy. Miami didn't become Miami as we know it until last century. Galveston was nearly wiped off the map, for crying out loud. Places like New Orleans exist because of major rivers. There will be a major city somewhere near the Mississippi Delta for as long as civilization exists.

The problems of weather and hydrology don't stop people from locating on coasts, but they did used to effectively make solving the problems of a large population center uneconomical or sometimes even technologically impossible.

Originally Posted by JManc

The east coast is more than just (northeastern) cities directly on the coast but the greater area consisting of states along the eastern seaboard. Even Vermont gets lumped in and it has no coast. There's nothing physically east about Chicago. Atlanta, yes.

You can sail an ocean-going ship from Chicago to the Atlantic. You can't do that from Atlanta. But otherwise, yes, I agree with you.

Reputationally, I think Philadelphia suffers from being too close to New York. It just gets lost by being so close. Similarly, Baltimore gets lost in the shadows of Washington, although to a lesser extent. Both would probably be better known if they were further from their neighbor. Although, especially in the minds of East Asians, Harvard and MIT really do account for a huge part of Boston being more recognized. Philly has some great schools, but none with the star-power of Harvard or MIT.