New York in the 1600s

[JMKeynes]

Most buildings in NY from the 1600s either didn't survive fires or were razed for new development. Many remain in the outer boroughs.

The Wykoff House (1650)

https://www.brownstoner.com/architec...larendon-road/

Riker-Lent House (1654)

https://www.rikerhome.com/

John Bowne House (1661)

https://www.bownehouse.org/

Vander-Ende Oderdonk House (1661)

https://onderdonkhouse.org/

Billiou-Stillwell-Perrine House (1662)
https://www.historicrichmondtown.org/perinehouse

Cubberly-Britton House (1670)

https://untappedcities.com/2019/06/0...-island-nyc/2/


Old Quaker Meeting House (1694)

https://flushingfriends.org/history/40-2/


There are actually several more from the 1670s as well.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by Darkoshvilli

I wanna go back and show them Manhattan today. I bet it would terrify them.

While we can't go back to the good old days, the olden days, in today's era, the closest way to replicate the impact would be to fly in some tribe from the Sahara or Congo and take them there. I recall a video several years ago on Youtube where they took some folks from New Guinea there, and it was like a different planet for them. Almost alien in nature.

Just don't take them around Christmas time... it becomes a mad house, a literal mad house.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

It also played a role in Chicago beating St. Louis and becoming CHICAGO.

And St. Louis has never gotten over it


That canal was such a game changer in the 19th century, and set up the whole NYC - Chicago axis of power into the interior, a corridor later duplicated by the railroads, which really took Chicago to the next level after the civil war.

That's an interesting topic for exploration... the NYC-Chicago axis vs. a potential Philadelphia-Chicago axis or maybe a Philadelphia-St.Louis axis (with Chicago and New Orleans being satellite supply nodes for St. Louis)...

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

New York also has the best harbor by far. It was destined to be the major American city from the start.

Even in 1620, the Pilgrim’s desired destination was New York. They did not venture there, however, due to rough seas that they encountered.

This "best harbor by far" claim is an exaggeration.

Protected harbors were/are plentiful along the Atlantic seaboard. Other harbors possess better attributes than New York harbor does. Baltimore, Hampton Roads, Boston, Providence, Charleston, Portland, and Philadelphia all had fine harbors. Without a means to transport goods most efficiently to and from all of these fine harbors, they serve little purpose on a national economic scale. New York had a great harbor AND they took advantage of it, seeing the future of the country with their city as its undisputed capital... not just the future of their "Greene Country Towne".

Philadelphia Quaker Conservatism sat on its hands. The rest is history.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by pj3000

That's an interesting topic for exploration... the NYC-Chicago axis vs. a potential Philadelphia-Chicago axis or maybe a Philadelphia-St.Louis axis (with Chicago and New Orleans being satellite supply nodes for St. Louis)...

I think the most defensible counterfactual is a Dallas/Houston situation with Chicago/St. Louis.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

I think the most defensible counterfactual is a Dallas/Houston situation with Chicago/St. Louis.

Interested in learning more, I don't quite get the connection, I guess.

As Steely mentioned... the NYC-Chicago axis being created by the Erie Canal -- opening up the vast resources of the Great Lakes and moving supply to the young, expanding industrial centers of the north. Solidifying NYC and Chicago as the two nodes, and the North as the dominant region of the young nation.

Pennsylvania bought the multi-state contested Erie Triangle specifically for access to the Lakes in 1792. But the powers of Philadelphia delayed building the full Pennsylvania Canal system until well after New York had already jumped on it and completed the Erie Canal by the 1820s.

I mean shit, not only would Philadelphia have the early water route to the Great Lakes, but also to the Ohio/Mississippi River systems. That could well have placed the two main nodes at Philadelphia and St. Louis, with Chicago upriver and New Orleans downriver from the interior hub of St. Louis. Just imagine the potential that Philadelphia never realized.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Interested in learning more, I don't quite get the connection, I guess.

As Steely mentioned... the NYC-Chicago axis being created by the Erie Canal -- opening up the vast resources of the Great Lakes and moving supply to the young, expanding industrial centers of the north. Solidifying NYC and Chicago as the two nodes, and the North as the dominant region of the young nation.

Pennsylvania bought the multi-state contested Erie Triangle specifically for access to the Lakes in 1792. But the powers of Philadelphia delayed building the full Pennsylvania Canal system until well after New York had already jumped on it and completed the Erie Canal by the 1820s.

I mean shit, not only would Philadelphia have the early water route to the Great Lakes, but also to the Ohio/Mississippi River systems. That could well have placed the two main nodes at Philadelphia and St. Louis, with Chicago upriver and New Orleans downriver from the interior hub of St. Louis. Just imagine the potential that Philadelphia never realized.

yep. my implication meaning that knowing what i know about the history of chicago its hard not to imagine some kind of solid play there even with a stronger mid-atlantic driven system. i think a balance of power situation with st. louis and chicago being a binary system like dallas and houston in the southern plains/gulf might of occured.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

yep. my implication meaning that knowing what i know about the history of chicago its hard not to imagine some kind of solid play there even with a stronger mid-atlantic driven system. i think a balance of power situation with st. louis and chicago being a binary system like dallas and houston in the southern plains/gulf.

Oh ok, yeah got the connection now.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by pj3000

I mean shit, not only would Philadelphia have the early water route to the Great Lakes, but also to the Ohio/Mississippi River systems. That could well have placed the two main nodes at Philadelphia and St. Louis, with Chicago upriver and New Orleans downriver from the interior hub of St. Louis. Just imagine the potential that Philadelphia never realized.

I think a city on the lakes would have always eclipsed St. Louis... Actually, two lakes cities did eclipse StL by some distance (Chicago & Detroit), and a third just slightly edged it out (Cleveland). Chicago is the only one of those cities that had the luck of direct routes to both the Great Lakes and the Mississippi. It was probably St. Louis's fate to lose its status as queen of the interior in the early 20th century in most versions of history.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

It was probably St. Louis's fate to lose its status as queen of the interior in the early 20th century in most versions of history.

st. louis (officially) lost the crown in the 1870s, not the early 20th. in reality, it was probably even a touch earlier in the 1860s when the real change of the guard occurred.

the first 3 big breakout cities of the midwest were cincy, then st. louis, and then chicago, in that order. chicago was chasing both of them early on, but then the civil war happened and chicago went to the freaking moon.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I think a city on the lakes would have always eclipsed St. Louis... Actually, two lakes cities did eclipse StL by some distance (Chicago & Detroit), and a third just slightly edged it out (Cleveland). Chicago is the only one of those cities that had the luck of direct routes to both the Great Lakes and the Mississippi. It was probably St. Louis's fate to lose its status as queen of the interior in the early 20th century in most versions of history.

Yeah, I think you’re correct. Makes sense. Though I don’t really know enough about St. Louis’ (nor Chicago’s) history to really understand all the dynamics at play.

Just an interesting thought wandering to muse what if Philly moved first and became the NYC of the country… would that have altered the entire development through the Ohio Valley as well as throughout the Lakes? Would that alternate history change the fates of Pittsburgh, Erie, Cincinnati, Louisville, Evansville, St. Louis dramatically?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

st. louis lost the crown in the 1870s, not the early 20th.

the first 3 big breakout cities of the midwest were cincy, then st. louis, and then chicago, in that order. chicago was chasing both of them early on, but then the civil war happened and chicago went to the freaking moon.

Yeah, I misspoke. I knew Chicago overtook it in the 19th century. I was just making the point that the lakes favored the development of a bigger city with or without a direct route to the Mississippi River.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I was just making the point that the lakes favored the development of a bigger city with or without a direct route to the Mississippi River.

that, and the civil war spooked a lot of investment dollars to stay more northerly. st. louis and cincy were too close to "the shit".

[montréaliste]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

that, and the civil war spooked a lot of investment dollars to stay more northerly. st. louis and cincy were too close to "the shit".

Never thought about it that way. Inner resting.

[jbermingham123]

Idk about the civil war hypothesis... its not that its not true, but perhaps its more complicated. The thing is, basically all human settlements scale regularly early in their history and then fall off the smooth curve at some point. Look at the data points in that graph:

-For STL, the 1870 number continues the smooth exponential curve .. it seems unnaffected by events of the 1860's, and doesnt break until the 1880 census. Whatever destabilized STL's growth took effect after 1870 and before 1880.

-For Cincy, the curve is smooth at 1850 but breaks at 1860, so whatever destabilized cincy's growth happened after 1850 but before 1860.

[dchan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

^The Dutch didn't view New York or North America as being that important. The Dutch thought southeast Asia was far more important, which is why they didn't put much effort to defending their territory here against the British.

That's because it wasn't the actual Dutch government who settled in New Amsterdam, but rather the privatized Dutch West Indies Company who was given a charter by the Dutch government to settle in the colony. By the time the English crown granted the colony to the Duke of York and made a claim to it, the Dutch West Indies Company was hemorrhaging money every year on the colony and wasn't that interested in spending any more significant money in defending the territory anymore.

By the time of the handover to the English crown, the colony didn't even have a functioning fort to defend itself. In addition, the final governor appointed by the Dutch West Indies Company, Peter Stuyvesant, was fairly unpopular for a number of reasons, which made the handover much easier. Ironically enough, Stuyvesant somehow became a folk figure of sorts whose name became attached to future neighborhoods, developments, and even a highly-regarded high school despite his attempt at tyrannical reign in the colony (his more radical policies generally weren't supported by the Dutch West Indies Company board of governors).

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by jbermingham123

-For Cincy, the curve is smooth at 1850 but breaks at 1860, so whatever destabilized cincy's growth happened after 1850 but before 1860.

That could've been Civil War related, as the event culminating in the war took place in that decade.

[JMKeynes]

NY, Boston, Philly, and Charleston are the only major American cities that had any real presence in the 1600s or the 1700s for that matter.

As late as 1800, Cincinatti had less than 1,000 residents.

In 1833, Chicago was first incorporated and have 300 residents.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by jbermingham123

Idk about the civil war hypothesis... its not that its not true, but perhaps its more complicated.

oh, of course the story is far more complicated than merely saying "it was the civil war". the civil war ("the shit" of the war itself, and the conflict leading up to it, and that lingered after it) did have an effect on scaring some investment dollars away from more southerly locales in the midwest, money that instead got invested in more northerly places like chicago that were seen as more thoroughly and safely "yankee" by the northeast establishment.

but yeah, that is just but one mere piece of the puzzle, nowhere close to the whole story of how chicago captured lightning in a bottle and soared with stratospheric growth in the 2nd half of the 19th century, quickly overtaking, and then overwhelming, all would-be rivals for the crown of the midwest.

Originally Posted by jbermingham123

-For STL, the 1870 number continues the smooth exponential curve .. it seems unnaffected by events of the 1860's, and doesnt break until the 1880 census. Whatever destabilized STL's growth took effect after 1870 and before 1880.

that 1870 population figure for st. louis is an interesting one. it sure makes a funny kink in st. louis' otherwise very smooth growth curve in the 19th century.

it has long been speculated by some historians that the 1870 census result for st. louis was intentionally inflated. at the time, st. louis and chicago were engaged in an epic city-rivalry battle to see who would grow to become the capital city of the interior. st. louis had the head start, and therefor an early lead, but like a dark horse making a mad dash down the final stretch, chicago came charging out of nowhere. st. louis certainly noticed the upstart city that was swiftly gaining on it, and (again, as is speculated by some) in a vain attempt to try to stay ahead of its stalking rival that was nipping at its heels, st. louis purposefully waited until chicago released its 1870 census result (298,977), and then released its own embellished result that kept the city ever so slightly in the lead (310,864), however temporary those bragging rights were. by 1880, st. louis could no longer fudge the numbers enough to pretend that it was still ahead of sky-rocketing chicago. the race was clearly over.

[Buckeye Native 001]

I always thought Cincinnati's decline was due to being bypassed by railroads (hills and valleys made it difficult to lay track). No idea if that was a contributing factor in the 1850s or thereabouts? Obviously the Ohio River being part of the Mason-Dixon Line didn't help matters either.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

I always thought Cincinnati's decline was due to being bypassed by railroads (hills and valleys made it difficult to lay track). No idea if that was a contributing factor in the 1850s or thereabouts? Obviously the Ohio River being part of the Mason-Dixon Line didn't help matters either.

I think in general it has more to do with train outpacing river transport by the end of the 1800's and then even more so once trucks came around.

Bulk transport by water is still common which is why the old river cities are still some of the largest American metros and major industrial and financial hubs.

Water transportation is seeing a small renaissance with new concepts of shipping consumer goods by river barge/train into the American interior (common in northern Europe) rather than just trucking as things like gas, insurance and congestion eats at the competiveness of it.