2018 Population Estimates of US Cities

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Yes, but a big difference between Plano and Libertyville is that while Plano's existing original downtown commercial street is only one block long, there are blocks worth of former industrial area that can be redeveloped surrounding it (of which some already have been). Libertyville's three block long existing original downtown commercial core is immediately abutted by existing single family homes that will likely never be redeveloped. Plano has more upside in the long-run, because it can be redeveloped structurally (the built form nearby is conducive to redevelopment) and because there are market forces necessary for redevelopment (Plano has population growth, while Libertyville is just holding steady).

Libertyville is a weird example to compare to Plano, but yes--it's a much nicer place for the refined, and it's growing wealthier

We have no interest in becoming like Plano. Being a shitty auto-sprawlburb is for the masses. Having a nice, walkable downtown adjacent to a rail station (which just got a 7 figure renovation) that will whisk you to one of the largest employment centers in the continent, plus fine restaurants with excellent chefs, great weekly summer festivals, etc in an authentic, walkable environment is what people in Libertyville care about. Let the masses move to Plano--in fact, we kind of like it that way.

You see, northern developed cities will never compete with the sunbelt for people, and that's fine. You guys weigh success as number of people (because that's where your cities look "good"), but we weigh success by our built environment that you will never be able to replicate (because that's where we look "good"). So this is just a waste of time.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

This is what propelled NYC into its predominant status. Even without the Erie Canal, their are other fundamentals that would still make New York City a major city. What size major city is debatable, but it would have been major nonetheless.

I'm not sure what our disagreement is about. I didn't say that NYC would never have been a major city at all. I said that it wouldn't have been a top tier city. In other words, NYC would not have been a mega city if it didn't develop when it did, because the way it became a mega city was critically dependent on the technology of the era. It's analogous to how cities like Las Vegas or Phoenix would not be large population centers without air conditioning.

If the British had beat the Americans in creating a canal system to connect the Great Lakes to the Atlantic, we all might be living in a world where we treat Montreal as the North American analogy to London and Paris.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by mhays

A suburban main street doesn't serve the population of the whole suburb. If it had major office tenants it would get people from the whole metro. But as a shopping street, it probably serves people mostly from a far smaller radius than the 300,000.

Dude. It's Plano. It's a relatively newer suburb so there's no history to speak of (Grapevine, McKinney, etc.) to form a little town center over the years around so people from around the Metroplex aren't going to spend the afternoon in 'downtown Plano' antiquing. They go there for work (there's a lot of corporate HQ's there in relation to its size) if they don't live there and that's about it. Downtown Dallas is 20 miles away so why hangout in Plano if you don't have to other than by a hammer at the local Lowe's

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

If the British had beat the Americans in creating a canal system to connect the Great Lakes to the Atlantic, we all might be living in a world where we treat Montreal as the North American analogy to London and Paris.

the canadians didn't "beat" the americans to it, but canada's own developments to connect the great lakes to the atlantic were concurrent with the erie canal.

the lachine canal opened in 1925 (the same year as the erie canal) and allowed for navigation around the lachine rapids on the st. lawrence, making navigation from montreal to lake ontario possible. and then a scant 4 years later the 1st welland canal (which bypassed niagra falls) opened in 1829, allowing for navigation from lake ontario into the upper lakes.

so montreal had navigation into the great lakes only 4 short years after NYC did with the erie canal. those 4 years are but a blip in historical terms.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

the canadians didn't "beat" the americans to it, but canada's own developments to connect the great lakes to the atlantic were concurrent with the erie canal.

the lachine canal opened in 1925 (the same year as the erie canal) and allowed for navigation around the lachine rapids on the st. lawrence, making navigation from montreal to lake ontario possible. and then a scant 4 years later the 1st welland canal (which bypassed niagra falls) opened in 1829, allowing for navigation from lake ontario into the upper lakes.

so montreal had navigation into the great lakes only 4 short years after NYC did with the erie canal. those 4 years are but a blip in historical terms.

My memory is a little vague on this but I don't think the Canadian locks system were big/deep enough for large ships until the St. Lawrence Seaway was completed in the 20th century. The SLS made the Erie Canal obsolete.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

My memory is a little vague on this but I don't think the Canadian locks system were big/deep enough for large ships until the St. Lawrence Seaway was completed in the 20th century. The SLS made the Erie Canal obsolete.

the locks on the canadian canals of the time were similar in size to the original locks of the erie canal.

large ships were not going between NYC and the great lakes in the 19th century either. all shipping on the erie canal was done with smaller canal barges.

large ocean going ships could not enter the great lakes until the opening of the st. lawrence seaway in 1959.

[JManc]

The New York State (Barge) Canal System made the Erie Canal system obsolete of which the latter was mostly long gone when my parents were little. There's little evidence of it left.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by JManc

The New York State (Barge) Canal System made the Erie Canal system obsolete of which the latter was mostly long gone when my parents were little. There's little evidence of it left.

The Eire canal system still operates today and has seen increased usage in recent years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erie_Canal

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Obadno

The Eire canal system still operates today and has seen increased usage in recent years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erie_Canal

Yes and no. There were parts of the Erie Canal left intact but huge stretches were filled in with the Barge Canal dredged not that far from where the Erie Canal was. A lot of the locks themselves are probably from the Erie Canal era...they are pretty old... and are registered historical landmarks.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by JManc

Yes and no. There were parts of the Erie Canal left intact but huge stretches were filled in with the Barge Canal dredged not that far from where the Erie Canal was. A lot of the locks themselves are probably from the Erie Canal era...they are pretty old... and are registered historical landmarks.

Oh well forgive me but I would consider an updated nearby Canal to still be the "erie canal" as it took over that function.

The point is NYC still does and always would be a critical commercial link between the interior and the wider world.

Would it have become the Financial and cultural hub of the WORLD we know today...eh too hard to tell lots of factors play into such things but a major city no doubt.

[JManc]

The Barge canal a successor to the Erie canal and they share a common history and are run by the same bureaucracy. It's akin to the Interstate Highway system and the older US Highway.

As for NYC, due to it's location, something would have to been there from the start. Perhaps less finance and Park Ave if later development and more industry. More like a Houston Ship Channel on steroids and/or a huge Newport News ship yard. or a huge military base on Staten Island or Brooklyn/ Queens.

[jd3189]

I thought NYC's success as a major global city also had to do with its history, similar to Philly, but more direct ( which is why I believe Philly is not as great as it could have been).



New York was always a trading post that was more tolerant of different cultures than other colonial and early cities at the time. The Dutch who originally founded it were major traders who came from different Christian denominations in a time when Europe was still fighting over that.


The Erie Canal may have made New York nationally important in terms of inland trade, but the idea that groups beyond the pilgrims of New England or the Jamestown settlers were a part of its beginning as well as the waves of Italians, Jews, Germans, Chinese, African Americans, and other groups in the 19th and 20th centuries are a major reason for NYC's importance.


Don't know if that's was debated but I believe it was probably the reason why NYC became more successful than the other Northeastern cities.

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I'm not sure what our disagreement is about. I didn't say that NYC would never have been a major city at all. I said that it wouldn't have been a top tier city. In other words, NYC would not have been a mega city if it didn't develop when it did, because the way it became a mega city was critically dependent on the technology of the era. It's analogous to how cities like Las Vegas or Phoenix would not be large population centers without air conditioning.

If the British had beat the Americans in creating a canal system to connect the Great Lakes to the Atlantic, we all might be living in a world where we treat Montreal as the North American analogy to London and Paris.

But they didn't, Blanche. But they didn't.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by jd3189

I thought NYC's success as a major global city also had to do with its history, similar to Philly, but more direct ( which is why I believe Philly is not as great as it could have been).



New York was always a trading post that was more tolerant of different cultures than other colonial and early cities at the time. The Dutch who originally founded it were major traders who came from different Christian denominations in a time when Europe was still fighting over that.


The Erie Canal may have made New York nationally important in terms of inland trade, but the idea that groups beyond the pilgrims of New England or the Jamestown settlers were a part of its beginning as well as the waves of Italians, Jews, Germans, Chinese, African Americans, and other groups in the 19th and 20th centuries are a major reason for NYC's importance.


Don't know if that's was debated but I believe it was probably the reason why NYC became more successful than the other Northeastern cities.

All the Northeastern cities started relatively organically, The only potential alternatives I can imagine replacing NYC would be Boston, Philly or Baltiomore.

The only city in the east that is a bit arbitrary is DC, in a Universe where say Philly was the Capitol then DC would be just Baltimore suburbs today

Or hell even much of DC would be a reprarian reserve and bird sanctuary lol

Cities exist on transportation hubs, the best of which are rivers or ports, followed by natural crossroads for trade and centers of agricultural regions. Roads and Railroads connect those natural areas of development. More advanced industry, finance, and services are all responses to the size and needs of the population that grows in said transportation hubs.

Thats how it works. The only things that really buck that trend are government efforts (weather forts, research stations or Capitols) Religious sites and vacation spots (Think ski Towns).

The Midwest major cities are located on the Mississippi river system or Great lakes, East Coast and West Coast cities exist on natural ports, interior west cities exist on natural routes/passes through the mountains Reno-Sacramento are on either sides of the path through the Sierra Nevada, Salt Lake and Denver exist on either sides of the rocky passes, also a religious center etc Phoenix and Tucson exist on the old southern route to California during winter).

Human habitation is a story of transportation more than anything.

[mrnyc]

with the prime bay of ny and the archipelago and the setting in the middle of the america's population center there is no way nyc would not have become a major city at any point in time.

to the extent it is? i dk, but it would have been a boston or philly at the very least.

i think people are also ignoring that it just as easily could have been even more than it is today, perhaps without all the local issues, like tri-state squabbles, tammany hall era corruption, bx is burning nadir era, etc..

[Steely Dan]

by virtue of having one of the largest deep water ports on the eastern seaboard that connects to a major river that is navigable deep inland, NYC was always going to be a thing.

natural advantages that special are almost never farted away.

but becoming THE nexus hub of THE nation of the 20th century, well yeah, that was never a forgone conclusion.

that took the machinations of man to bring about.

Originally Posted by austlar1

But they didn't, Blanche. But they didn't.

But they did, Blanche. But they did.

as i stated earlier, the canadians built canals to connect montreal to the great lakes at the exact same time as the erie canal.

the erie canal certainly greatly added to NYC's explosive 19th century growth, but it's not the only reason that NYC became NYC and montreal became montreal.

both cities had canals to connect to the great lakes at roughly the same time.

Originally Posted by Obadno

The Midwest major cities are located on the Mississippi river system or Great lakes.

not columbus or indy.

but they both got started as state capitals, so they dovetail into your point about government somewhat arbitrarily designating that a certain place will become a thing.

however, state capital-hood doesn't automatically mean that a city will grow into anything all that terribly special either, as witnessed by the many small state capitals that dot our nation.

[austlar1]

Quote "But they did, Blanche. But they did.

as i stated earlier, the canadians built canals to connect montreal to the great lakes at the exact same time as the erie canal.

the erie canal certainly greatly added to NYC's explosive 19th century growth, but it's not the only reason that NYC became NYC and montreal became montreal.

both cities had canals to connect to the great lakes at roughly the same time."


I'm probasbly splitting hairs but, according to this(pulled from https://opentextbc.ca/preconfederati...the-canal-era/), the Erie Canal was up and running first and clearly had a greater impact overall than did the Canadian contender:

"The Lachine Canal served the towns and ports of Lake Ontario. The expanding frontier of farms along Lake Erie, however, had to deal with the Niagara River and the famous cataract there. American investors first found a way to evade Niagara Falls by building the Erie Canal, completed in 1825 — the same year as the Lachine Canal. They followed up with the Oswego Canal four years later, and the American system then connected Lake Ontario and Lake Erie to the ice-free port of New York.

Meanwhile, Canadian investors did not stand still. The Welland Canal opened in 1829, linking Lakes Erie and Ontario, although it was plagued by problems with both route and financing. But as the 1830s opened the Canadians could claim to have kept pace with the Americans during what might be called the “canal race.”

Accoring to Wiki, the Oswego Canal, which completed the Erie Canal system was open for business in 1828 rather than 1829, so that would put the Erie ahead by just a wee bit. https://www.google.com/search?source...99.-ApLVzwZEbs

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by austlar1

I'm probasbly splitting hairs but, according to this(pulled from https://opentextbc.ca/preconfederati...the-canal-era/), the Erie Canal was up and running first and clearly had a greater impact overall than did the Canadian contender:

of course the erie canal had much greater impact overall, but there was A LOT more at work here than just being 1st. we're talking about 4 years here, which is an eye blink in historical terms.

let's run a little thought experiment. let's reverse things and pretend that the lachine and welland canals actually opened 4 years prior to the erie canal. does anyone really think that one minor difference in the timeline would result in a 20,000,000 metro montreal and a 4,000,000 metro NYC today?

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by austlar1

But they didn't, Blanche. But they didn't.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

[jd3189]

Originally Posted by Obadno

All the Northeastern cities started relatively organically, The only potential alternatives I can imagine replacing NYC would be Boston, Philly or Baltimore.

Yeah, either one of those alternatives could have been dominant. Boston and Baltimore have seaports and Philly was just as large if not larger than NYC at one point. But none of them became dominant. Much could be attributed to chance but much more has to do with how each of these cities started.

Cities exist on transportation hubs, the best of which are rivers or ports, followed by natural crossroads for trade and centers of agricultural regions. Roads and Railroads connect those natural areas of development. More advanced industry, finance, and services are all responses to the size and needs of the population that grows in said transportation hubs.

I agree that transportation plays an early role, but what allows certain cities to endure in importance is most likely cultural significance and dominance. At least that’s the reason NYC is what it is today, as well as LA, and even Chicago at one point. You can built a city at any natural port, crossroads, or river, but what allows some to continue to grow and be dominant despite other more practical options.