On Feb 1, 7:00=A0pm, Arthur Pennant wrote:
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Population density is the problem. What rational reason=
is there to want a
> > city with such a high population density if it can avoided?
>
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Population densities are forced upon a city by topograp=
hical limitations. The
> > higher the population density the more economical public transportation=
.
>
> Historically, all cities were small, because they had to be walled.
> But the United States has never had walled cities, so your criticism
> is valid. =A0Boston was restricted because it was initially on a
> penninsula, ditto for San Francisco. =A0Incidentally, neither of these
> cities has 1 million within the city proper. =A0Manhattan does have more
> than one million people, as do three of NY's other boroughs. =A0As I
> understand it, the reason for the growth of NYC, to surpass the other
> burroughs was the Erie Canal.
>
> I can see two natural candidates: Charleston, Galveston, and Mobile.
> Charleston would probably require a different history of the south,
> either an independent Confederacy, an earlier squashing of slavery, or
> a more successful Reconstruction. =A0In the first case, Charleston might
> be the financial center of the CSA, and have a position similar to New
> York or Rotterdam. =A0In the latter case, it might be the financial
> center of a more successful south. =A0Of course, I'm of the school that
> says white supremacy kept the south economically backwards for most of
> its history, which I know a few southerners disagree with.
>
> Galveston requires that you either wave away the Galveston Hurricane,
> or have some incentive to rebuild the city. =A0I'm not sure how you'd do
> that, but if you did, you'd likely have the center of population in
> what became Houston instead centered on Galveston Island. =A0If the city
> proper later annexed some of the mainland, you'd see a situation
> similar to NYC or Boston.
>
> Mobile seems like your best bet. =A0One way is through the same route I
> described for Charleston. =A0The other is trade on the Mississippi
> River. =A0Though New Orleans is on the Mississippi's mouth, it's mostly
> built on low, swampy ground. =A0Which gives an incentive for density,
> but doesn't make for a solid foundation for a city, as we saw with
> Katrina. =A0We might have an earlier Katrina with a larger New Orleans,
> and the city could suffer the same fate as Galveston OTL. =A0Mobile, on
> the other hand would be a great candidate, if you could somehow
> connect it with the Mississippi river via an equivalent of the Erie
> Canal. =A0The Tennessee-Tombigee Waterway wasn't completed until 1985.
> If you can somehow get that earlier, or connect the Tombigee River
> with the Mississippi directly, and do it in the 19th century (the
> earlier the better), it overtakes New Orleans in importance. =A0The
> problem is that I think part of the reason for the Erie Canal is that
> the St. Lawrence emptied into Canada. =A0With or without the
> Confederacy, both New Orleans and Mobile remain in the same country.
> Perhaps if the government of Alabama were able to undertake the
> project on its own. =A0This option wouldn't require a Confederacy or
> handwaving a hurricane, just a far-sighted politician.
>
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Reverse it. What does it take to have Boston become a n=
ormal spread out city?
>
> I suppose your best bet would be to put the capital of Massachusetts
> in Salem. =A0At the time of the revolution, Salem was one of the five
> largest cities in the US. =A0If Boston later overtakes Salem
> commercially, and the Back Bay is filled in before then. you might
> have a situation like in Chicago, where Boston, though an important
> city, develops later, you see a Boston that looks more like its own
> suburbs.
>
> On the other hand, I'd be curious if anybody knows why Portland has
> such a tight population density, having less in the way of natural
> barriers than Boston, New York, or San Francisco. =A0True, there's
> mountains, but that hasn't stopped LA.
>
> To another poster: Miami-Palm Beach isn't a candidate because though
> it's narrow, it's very long, and there's no real city center. =A0Tampa-
> St. Petersburg is a possibility, though like Miami and New Orleans
> it's built on low ground.
Portland had a rail system early. I took it regularly in the 1950s to
reach a suburb. The burbs have spread out more since then and I think
there is extensive downtown rail. The mountains to the west hem in
Portland, downtown, and the Willamette River makes another barrier to
the east. Many bridges, but still many people prefer to live in the
downtown area in very expensive abodes. I saw a "House Hunters" where
a "family" of two were selling their old house for $800k and looking
for another in the same area for $1m. The houses they were looking at
would be less than $500k in central Florida today, probably much less.
http://ride.trimet.org/?tool=3Dsearch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland,_Oregon |
