Dominant city usurpations

[Acajack]

What about metros where the largest city has changed? I am thinking of San Jose becoming the largest city in the SF Bay area.

In the Vancouver area, the suburban city of Surrey will likely overtake Vancouver city proper as the metro's largest "city" in the not-too-distant future.

[Tuckerman]

Originally Posted by Acajack

What about metros where the largest city has changed? I am thinking of San Jose becoming the largest city in the SF Bay area.

In the Vancouver area, the suburban city of Surrey will likely overtake Vancouver city proper as the metro's largest "city" in the not-too-distant future.

Of course these comparisons are always problematic because of the definition of metros and the definitions of "cities." E.g. less than 10% of the Atlanta metro population, defined by the US Census, lives in the city of Atlanta, whereas some "newer" cities, e.g.phoenix have grown enormously in land area and expanded so that their core becomes a significant part of their metro. It must be confusing to an overseas traveler who comes to Atlanta expecting to see a city of 4-5 hundred thousand (based on looking up the city population) and then see the reality. Of course the same could be said for Chicago. The sprawl of population that characterizes American cities is truly astonishing.

[Sun Belt]

Tallahassee and Miami.

Tallahassee has a longer history with a larger population in 1900, became the capital in the early 1800s while Miami was an uninhabited swamp and then Miami blew up into the largest metropolitan region of the southeast.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Tuckerman

Of course these comparisons are always problematic because of the definition of metros and the definitions of "cities." E.g. less than 10% of the Atlanta metro population, defined by the US Census, lives in the city of Atlanta, whereas some "newer" cities, e.g.phoenix have grown enormously in land area and expanded so that their core becomes a significant part of their metro. It must be confusing to an overseas traveler who comes to Atlanta expecting to see a city of 4-5 hundred thousand (based on looking up the city population) and then see the reality. Of course the same could be said for Chicago. The sprawl of population that characterizes American cities is truly astonishing.

Good points.

Of course there are also differences between the Bay area and Vancouver too.

San Jose's downtown may not be as exciting as San Francisco's, but it does exist and is a true big city downtown.

Surrey does not really have a big city downtown to speak of. And likely still won't when it passes Vancouver.

[Rooster slayer]

Not the top cities in Minnesota but I think the same thing happened with Rochester overtaking Duluth. It has been said, Duluth is where the rust belt started. Duluth was a pure boom town in the early 1900's. Rochester has really taken off with Mayo Clinic and some Tech jobs. Even though St Paul is the capital, Minneapolis has been and still is top dog.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

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

The topic is not which city outgrew another, but which city usurped another.

LA certainly outgrew SF several times over as far as size and absolutely is the largest and most visited, but usurp means to take away power and economically I just dont really see that, in fact if anything the Bay Area has wrested control back from LA and today is more economically relevant and influential than LA.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

The topic is not which city outgrew another, but which city usurped another.

LA certainly outgrew SF several times over as far as size and absolutely is the largest and most visited, but usurp means to take away power and economically I just dont really see that, in fact if anything the Bay Area has wrested control back from LA and today is more economically relevant and influential than LA.

You are literally the only person in this thread who is operating under this interpretation.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Tuckerman

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.

Philly was still larger in 1800 as well (Philly + Northern Liberties + Southwark). NY overtook Philly for good in 1810.

[Crawford]

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)?

Yes, Philly was probably the largest/most important city in the colonies soon after its founding (1682) up to 1800 or so. Boston was probably most important city in the fifty years prior.

[L41A]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Tallahassee and Miami.

Tallahassee has a longer history with a larger population in 1900, became the capital in the early 1800s while Miami was an uninhabited swamp and then Miami blew up into the largest metropolitan region of the southeast.

I love Tallahassee and have close kinship with it. A better comparison probably would be Jacksonville and Miami.

Although the capital of Florida, I wouldn't ever say Tallahassee was the dominant city per se. Tallahassee was chosen as the capital because it was centrally located between the population centers/dominant cities of that time in Florida (St. Augustine and Pensacola) and because of its topography. Still today, the metro population of Pensacola is larger than Tallahassee. And St. Augustine is in the much larger metro of Jacksonville.

Yes, the state legislature meets in Tallahassee to make laws, and state policy are established there; but many of state government departments are decentralized.

Yes, Tallahassee has a longer history than most places in Florida, minus Pensacola and St. Augustine. And its history is very interesting.

[Crawford]

One could also argue the following:

Rome replaced by Milan (by population, corporate might and wealth)

Berlin replaced by Frankfurt (by corporate might and financial industry)

St. Petersburg replaced by Moscow (by wealth and political might)

[Tuckerman]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Yes, Philly was probably the largest/most important city in the colonies soon after its founding (1682) up to 1800 or so. Boston was probably most important city in the fifty years prior.

Philly did edge out NY in 1800 by a slim margin. A nice graphic on this is found at https://www.peakbagger.com/pbgeog/histmetropop.aspx.

Viewing this graph gives lots of insight on the question of "usurpation." It will be interesting to see the graph after 2020 results.

In any case I have always regretted a bit (as an Atlantan) that the beautiful city of Savannah never became the big city in the south. Would have been nice to have that historical core. We have Sherman to thank for present day Atlanta (incidentally my relatives fought with Sherman! Something I rarely mention here.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

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.

Compared to Galveston, it is. It's why Galveston withered on the vine after 1900 and Houston now has an NFL team. Galveston is directly exposed the Gulf where as Houston does via the bay. In 1900, they were equals. Business moved 50 miles inland so in that regard, North One is correct, I thought he was referring to cities on the east coast.

[BG918]

Originally Posted by L41A

I love Tallahassee and have close kinship with it. A better comparison probably would be Jacksonville and Miami.

Although the capital of Florida, I wouldn't ever say Tallahassee was the dominant city per se. Tallahassee was chosen as the capital because it was centrally located between the population centers/dominant cities of that time in Florida (St. Augustine and Pensacola) and because of its topography. Still today, the metro population of Pensacola is larger than Tallahassee. And St. Augustine is in the much larger metro of Jacksonville.

Yes, the state legislature meets in Tallahassee to make laws, and state policy are established there; but many of state government departments are decentralized.

Yes, Tallahassee has a longer history than most places in Florida, minus Pensacola and St. Augustine. And its history is very interesting.

I find it interesting that Tallahassee is both the state capital of one of the largest population states and has a large state university within the city limits but only has a metro population of just under 200,000.

[BG918]

Originally Posted by Tuckerman

Philly did edge out NY in 1800 by a slim margin. A nice graphic on this is found at https://www.peakbagger.com/pbgeog/histmetropop.aspx.

Viewing this graph gives lots of insight on the question of "usurpation." It will be interesting to see the graph after 2020 results.

Cool graph. St Louis stands out as a Top 10 metro until the 1980's and could fall out of the Top 20 altogether after the next census.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Tuckerman

Philly did edge out NY in 1800 by a slim margin. A nice graphic on this is found at https://www.peakbagger.com/pbgeog/histmetropop.aspx.

Viewing this graph gives lots of insight on the question of "usurpation." It will be interesting to see the graph after 2020 results.

In any case I have always regretted a bit (as an Atlantan) that the beautiful city of Savannah never became the big city in the south. Would have been nice to have that historical core. We have Sherman to thank for present day Atlanta (incidentally my relatives fought with Sherman! Something I rarely mention here.

This is one of my favorite graphs, ever. Three things that I find interesting: almost no place has come back after losing 2 or more places (SF and DC look like the only exceptions), the top 5 positions are extremely stable compared to all other positions (and their stability is inverse to the position), and Baltimore was once the third city.

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

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.

Not to disagree (because I do agree mostly with regards to the coastal status of NO and Houston), but large ocean going tankers sail past downtown NO all day long on their way to the upstream refineries, and large ocean going container and bulk commodity vessels use the Port of New Orleans on a daily basis. Large cruise ships also call at the port where they embark and disembark passengers at a downtown cruise terminal adjacent to the convention center.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

You are literally the only person in this thread who is operating under this interpretation.

That doesnt make me wrong tho.

usurp verb
\yu̇-ˈsərp also -ˈzərp \
usurped; usurping; usurps
Definition of usurp
transitive verb

1a : to seize and hold (office, place, functions, powers, etc.) in possession by force or without right
usurp a throne

b : to take or make use of without right
usurped the rights to her life story

2 : to take the place of by or as if by force : SUPPLANT
must not let stock responses based on inherited prejudice usurp careful judgment

intransitive verb
: to seize or exercise authority or possession wrongfully

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

The topic is not which city outgrew another, but which city usurped another.

LA certainly outgrew SF several times over as far as size and absolutely is the largest and most visited, but usurp means to take away power and economically I just dont really see that, in fact if anything the Bay Area has wrested control back from LA and today is more economically relevant and influential than LA.

I don't know about that. LA's dominance over the entertainment industry (tv/film/music/social media output) has never been stronger. Amazon, Netflix, and Apple (among others) are expanding rapidly here. I could care less about tempoary tax breaks for filming in certain states, they don't mean anything. The internet has helped LA, not hurt it. Many thought it would be the other way around, ten years ago or so.
Entertaiment influences the world, and one of America's greatest exports, if not the greatest. LA's drawing power has hooked the biggest names in sports lately, and I don't see that slowing down in any time soon. Almost all the big NBA players live in LA in the offseason. It matters.

That said, the Bay Area is doing great, obviously. California is lucky to have two great cities.

[the urban politician]

Chicago usurped NY in hot dogs and pizza and never looked back