Dominant city usurpations

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Los Angeles/San Francisco

Not really...

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by DCReid

Not really...

San Francisco was more than 3 times the size of Los Angeles in 1900. What is there to disagree with?

[DCReid]

Philly overtaken by DC as part of the East Coast metroplex? Tulsa by OKC?

[The North One]

All the beautiful old cities of the south seem to have lost to the inland giants big time (New Orleans, Savannah, Galveston). I'm guessing this was because of hurricanes, but then you have Miami.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

San Francisco was more than 3 times the size of Los Angeles in 1900. What is there to disagree with?

Not to get involved in the dispute, but as to the size comparisons you have to recognize that San Francisco--city only--is pretty much built to its borders, 3 of 4 of which are water so it can't grow like LA with more room. The metros, which are more comparable, are not 3:1 though LA is certainly larger for a lot of reasons (starting with, frankly, better weather and including better transportation links to the East that don't have to cross mountains).

[SFBruin]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

San Francisco was more than 3 times the size of Los Angeles in 1900. What is there to disagree with?

I'm guessing that if you have your eye on tech or finance (or NBA basketball right now), then you could say that San Francisco is a greater city than LA.

I honestly kind of agree.

[SFBruin]

Wasn't Philly the largest city on the East Coast at some point before New York took over (and flew away from everybody)?

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by The North One

All the beautiful old cities of the south seem to have lost to the inland giants big time (New Orleans, Savannah, Galveston). I'm guessing this was because of hurricanes, but then you have Miami.

Atlanta aside, to which "inland giants" do you refer (that hves "usurped" older rivals)?

Recall that the oldest southern ports were primarily agricultural exporters (and slave importers) historically, and the growth and export of agricultural commodities is no longer a mainstay of the Southern economy. So those old port cities are almost like museums.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by SFBruin

I'm guessing that if you have your eye on tech or finance (or NBA basketball right now), then you could say that San Francisco is a greater city than LA.

I honestly kind of agree.

The two really don't compete in much other than status in the eyes mainly of Californians. SF was so dominant for a century its pride is sort of wounded that LA grew like a weed on the back of new industries like entertainment, aircraft manufacture and others, as well as waves of new residents looking for great weather, and bypassed it. But LA has a very different economy than SF.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Atlanta aside, to which "inland giants" do you refer (that hves "usurped" older rivals)?

Houston, Dallas, Charlotte.

I'd like to think that New Orleans had more going for it than agricultural exports.

[JManc]

Houston is not inland. Nor is New Orleans.

[SFBruin]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

The two really don't compete in much other than status in the eyes mainly of Californians. SF was so dominant for a century its pride is sort of wounded that LA grew like a weed on the back of new industries like entertainment, aircraft manufacture and others, as well as waves of new residents looking for great weather, and bypassed it. But LA has a very different economy than SF.

Yeah, LA and SF are honestly about as different as two cities 300 miles apart could be.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Not to get involved in the dispute, but as to the size comparisons you have to recognize that San Francisco--city only--is pretty much built to its borders, 3 of 4 of which are water so it can't grow like LA with more room. The metros, which are more comparable, are not 3:1 though LA is certainly larger for a lot of reasons (starting with, frankly, better weather and including better transportation links to the East that don't have to cross mountains).

LA's MSA is not that far off from being 3x SF's MSA.

[Centropolis]

there was a st. louis over new orleans usurpation, but it was sort of secondary. it was a thing though when new orleans was still the undisputed primate city of the "western" south and also laid claim to the entire mississippi river and its specific financial infrastructure. st. louis took over most of that at some point mid-century. new orleans continued to operate the international seaport infrastructure of this "system."

[The North One]

Originally Posted by JManc

Houston is not inland. Nor is New Orleans.

I never said New Orleans was inland, Houston is technically inland at least compared to Galveston.

[kcexpress69]

Originally Posted by Leveled

Citi suburbs shouldn’t be given the option to say no. They exist because of the city. They can pay their share.

Perhaps, but it was also St. Louis who chose to divorce itself from the rest of the county. Perhaps these cities weren't around back then, but still, if the county ultimately reunites with the city, then I'm sure it will largely be on the County's terms...even though St. Louis is the reason why it all exists in the first place!! I realize that there's quite a number of tiny municipalities in the older parts of the county that could allow St. Louis to annex them, but I doubt if places like Clayton, University City, Kirkwood, Ladue, Webster Groves or Crestwood would go quietly.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by The North One

Houston, Dallas, Charlotte.

I'd like to think that New Orleans had more going for it than agricultural exports.

New Orleans has the oil industry now but that's not what brought it into being and nurtured its growth until the 20th century. Once it was the port for exporting the crops of the Mississippi basin as Charleston and Savannah were for exporting plantation cotton.

Charlotte owes a lot of its growth to one man: The CEO of Nationsbank who managed to con Bank of America into selling to him (by promising their then-CEO he would become the next CEO of the combined bank which never happened). That one giant banking institution made it a banking center. But I'm not convinced Charlotte will last. It's not only a 1 industry town but practically a one company town in terms of national stature and that company could someday decide to move.

Houston, like New Orleans, has had the oil industry and petrochemicals, also mainly since the early 20th century.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by The North One

I never said New Orleans was inland, Houston is technically inland at least compared to Galveston.

Houston is no more "technically inland" than is New Orleans. In fact, large ocean-going oil tankers probably get closer to downtown Houston than to downtown New Orleans even though in the days of sail ships used to come upriver all the way to New Orleans itself.

[toddguy]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

What are examples of a country's (or state/region's) dominant city changing?

For example, in Nevada, Reno used to be the most important city for a while and then Las Vegas took that role over. In the US, arguably NYC usurped Philly at one point for most important city. In the Midwest, Chicago decrowned St. Louis.

And what are some future changes in city dominance people predict? Has Columbus already become the dominant city in Ohio? Will Melbourne outpace Sydney?

No I don't believe Columbus has become the dominant city in Ohio. It has come from being quite far below Cincinnati and Cleveland to more of being on the same level as them. Even with the Columbus area expected to grow to about 3 million by 2050, that is still below the 4 million or so in Northeastern Ohio, which Cleveland dominates.

[Tuckerman]

Originally Posted by SFBruin

Wasn't Philly the largest city on the East Coast at some point before New York took over (and flew away from everybody)?

Philly was slightly larger than NY in 1790 but lost that lead in 1800, never to regain it. Now the metro hovers around 5th. - to probably be surpassed by Atlanta and others in 2020 or soon after. Most Northern (midwest and northeast) metros have either stopped growing in population or are losing population.