Why does New Orleans have such a weird layout?

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by ardecila

This may have been true at one point, but New Orleans' "ruling elite" is far, far less insular than it was in the 1950s era when Oil & Gas began to decamp for Texas. I don't see how you could maintain that insularity forever, not when your children are traveling far and wide to get educated and marrying folks from around the country.

As far as Carnival goes, the old guard of Comus and Momus have never been less relevant than they are now, and Carnival has never been more inclusive. Everybody and their mother-in-law has a krewe, for every possible subculture. Rex is still going strong, but nobody really cares.

It's not that the closed institutions of New Orleans high society are more open, but now they are far from being the only game in town for the wealthy.

Many among the upper classes in New Orleans send their children away to boarding schools and to Ivy League schools. They also have a habit of marrying folks from other areas, especially the northeast. Frequently these spouses are drawn to New Orleans and become part of the fabric of local society. I don't think that upper class New Orleans has ever been truly insular. Upper class New Orleans does have a history of being self absorbed and and uninterested in the way things are done in other parts of the country. The proof is in the pudding. The New Orleans economy dissipated over time. Local business leaders for the most part just did not try to emulate their peers in other cities. The result is that New Orleans no longer holds sway over the mid-South the way it once did. It is kind of a hollowed out city. The CBD is not a vibrant business center any longer. It was once the premier business center in the southern US, more important than Atlanta, Dallas, or Houston in the first half of the 20th Century.

[austlar1]

I just came across this article from 2007. It is rather long, but it seems to be a good analysis of the social and political paralysis that beset New Orleans in the post WW2 era. I think it is worth reading. http://www.tulanelink.com/tulanelink...utopsy_box.htm

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by Xing

At Louis isn't as French as New Orleans, but did its original heritage have any influence on its design? Can you see what your talking about in St Louis as well?

I think so, yes. Notice how St Louis' street grid always shifts to face the river? Every neighborhood is at a different angle, probably because of the French influence. Compare that to the Kansas City grid, which in the British/American tradition is just straight north-south all the time, regardless of the course of the river.

Also, while it's not everywhere and definitely isn't as prevalent as Louisiana or Quebec, some of the farmland near St Louis looks like it has that telltale long & skinny layout.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by austlar1

Many among the upper classes in New Orleans send their children away to boarding schools and to Ivy League schools. They also have a habit of marrying folks from other areas, especially the northeast. Frequently these spouses are drawn to New Orleans and become part of the fabric of local society. I don't think that upper class New Orleans has ever been truly insular. Upper class New Orleans does have a history of being self absorbed and and uninterested in the way things are done in other parts of the country. The proof is in the pudding. The New Orleans economy dissipated over time. Local business leaders for the most part just did not try to emulate their peers in other cities. The result is that New Orleans no longer holds sway over the mid-South the way it once did. It is kind of a hollowed out city. The CBD is not a vibrant business center any longer. It was once the premier business center in the southern US, more important than Atlanta, Dallas, or Houston in the first half of the 20th Century.

Here's a funny thought: At the end of the 19th century, New Orleans and Galveston were the premiere cities on the Gulf Coast. Miami, granted on the Atlantic Coast, was almost literally a toddler in age, Atlanta was still recovering from being torched (though I will say it was more than twice the size of Galveston) and as a bonus Las Vegas had not even been incorporated yet. Imagine a difference even only 60 years made.

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

Here's a funny thought: At the end of the 19th century, New Orleans and Galveston were the premiere cities on the Gulf Coast. Miami, granted on the Atlantic Coast, was almost literally a toddler in age, Atlanta was still recovering from being torched (though I will say it was more than twice the size of Galveston) and as a bonus Las Vegas had not even been incorporated yet. Imagine a difference even only 60 years made.

Galveston and New Orleans were NEVER in the same league. In the last two decades of the 19th Century, New Orleans had a population about 10 times the size of Galveston- 216K in 1880 New Orleans and 242K in 1890 New Orleans, while Galveston had 22K in 1880 and 29K in 1890. By 1890, San Antonio and Dallas were both larger cities than Galveston. By 1900, Houston at 44K surpassed Dallas at 42K in size and was decidedly larger than Galveston which had only 37K. San Antonio was the largest city in Texas in 1900 with a population of 53K. This was still relatively small compared with the 1900 New Orleans population of 287K. New Orleans reigned supreme in the region for most of the period between 1800 and 1950. Competition only began to emerge in the early part of the 20th Century.

[scalziand]

Originally Posted by destroycreate

If you look at the metro boundaries above, the city cuts off really quickly, almost at straight lines. Growth patterns appear to be very geometric and angular. What is the explanation for this?

Aside from the french platting system mentioned, the reason that only thin strips of land along the riverbanks are developed is because of the natural levees on the river. The levees raise that area above the surrounding swamps.

[austlar1]

The platting also gave Louisiana landholders along the river access to the river. Don't forget that this was an era of few roads, and most things were moved by water up and down the river. As New Orleans expanded, streets tended to conform to the plats running away from the river. This type of platting can be found throughout the state adjacent to most of the major waterways. This is most visible today when flying over the region.

[rellott]

^^^ All very true! The French platting system alongside with the geography drove the initial development of NOLA up until the 1950's when suburbia ran wild across the country and added a bit of an American flair to the city. Thennnnn desegregation, the rise of Houston's oil and gas industry, and the loss of NOLA's tax base with the prominent class leaving city limits for the other side of Lake Pontchartrain (white flight).

[MolsonExport]

Geographical (river + topography) + Historical (colonial French surveying/parceling system), basically. I thought this was common knowledge.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by austlar1

The platting also gave Louisiana landholders along the river access to the river.

That was the whole point. It's not "also." It's the main reason.

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by destroycreate

If you look at the metro boundaries above, the city cuts off really quickly, almost at straight lines. Growth patterns appear to be very geometric and angular. What is the explanation for this?

First, what is so weird about a grid layout? Countless cities have grids that are originally established and then are expanded/built onto as a city grows/annexes land. In the case of New Orleans history, a geometric pattern is common in French colonies. This started in the French Quarter and expanded across N-S bayous and canals that connected Lake Pontchartrain to the Mississippi and were utilized for transportation between the two and early flood control. Many of the dividing lines on the map below are due to the presence of canals.



Second, greater New Orleans is largely built on reclaimed land -- basically landfilling of swamps. Canals and levees cut the landscape into straight line boundaries. In order to fill a swamp area, a bordering canal was generally cut or dredged, and a levee was constructed to protect the newly dry land from flooding, thus creating a clearly demarcated line where development stops. As the city grew, this process continued with the filling of the new swamp, and so on.


There is a bit of over analysis going on here with reference to the French platting. While that is more relevant to the more agriculturally-focused areas of the Westbank in particular, it is not what happened in New Orleans proper. It was a planned grid system from the very beginning, with cross streets designed and built at the same time as streets running perpendicular the the river. This notion of "French platting" as the determinant of New Orleans' layout is misinformation. The below is what expanded across canals in suburban grid Faubourgs:



And 80 years after that:

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

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

Founded by the French, but built mostly by Americans. Chicago, Milwaukee, and other Midwestern cities were first settled by the French, but that heritage has been totally erased by 100's of years of raw American efficiency. Interestingly enough, several older, earlier developing, French cities in Wisconsin have French platting funny business like NOLA. Green Bay, for example, is all kinds of fucked up whenever you get anywhere near water in the older parts of town.

Check out this old plat map of central Green Bay I found:


uwgb.edu

It's kinda disguised by the street grid now from overhead, but you can tell everything is oriented towards the water whenever you are downtown.

Except this is NOT how New Orleans was laid out...

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by austlar1

Galveston and New Orleans were NEVER in the same league. In the last two decades of the 19th Century, New Orleans had a population about 10 times the size of Galveston- 216K in 1880 New Orleans and 242K in 1890 New Orleans, while Galveston had 22K in 1880 and 29K in 1890. By 1890, San Antonio and Dallas were both larger cities than Galveston. By 1900, Houston at 44K surpassed Dallas at 42K in size and was decidedly larger than Galveston which had only 37K. San Antonio was the largest city in Texas in 1900 with a population of 53K. This was still relatively small compared with the 1900 New Orleans population of 287K. New Orleans reigned supreme in the region for most of the period between 1800 and 1950. Competition only began to emerge in the early part of the 20th Century.

Galveston wasn't as large but the reputation was better than anywhere on the Gulf Coast except New Orleans.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by austlar1

The platting also gave Louisiana landholders along the river access to the river. Don't forget that this was an era of few roads, and most things were moved by water up and down the river. As New Orleans expanded, streets tended to conform to the plats running away from the river. This type of platting can be found throughout the state adjacent to most of the major waterways. This is most visible today when flying over the region.

I think this is very true. As others have noted, New Orleans is actually a series of "truer" grids that continually adjust to the natural river levy. It isn't just the French who would have platted this way in a swampy land such as Louisiana, but I actually think also a natural response to the landscape. New England settlers used a similar approach of long, skinny farm lots along a main street (in their case, it was usually the highest topographic ridge line in town).

I've actually always been struck by how much Louisiana is like the Netherlands. Take the town of Golden Meadow for example (never been there myself, just found it once on an aerial photo). Compare this land platting pattern to the Rural Netherlands. Or to this image of medieval Amsterdam before the addition of all the other concentric canals (image from Wikipedia).

Obviously the Mississippi is a MUCH bigger river than the Amstel, and the need to stay mostly on one side certainly affected New Orleans' layout. That little hamlet of Golden Meadow might be a better analogy to that image of old Amsterdam growing up along the river. Of course the Dutch took the reclamation of the swamp for productive farming and urban development MUCH further than we Americans have, or probably ever should for that matter. Imagine Golden Meadow with no swamps around it, but looking instead like that image of the Dutch countryside.

[texcolo]

I've taken US 90, the 'Chef Highway' in from Gulfport. I can verify that after a canal and levee, with a floodgate that you can drive through; there's nothing but swamp all the way out to Mississippi. Anything past that floodgate is built on stilts.

[brickell]

New Orleans Rank- http://www.census.gov/population/www...0027/tab01.txt

1810 - #7 - cracks the list of 10 most populous cities in the US. The first in the top 10 not located in the original 13 colonies.
1820 - #5
1830 - #5
1840 - #3
1850 - #5 (St Louis makes the list)
1860 - #6 (Chicago Makes the list)
1870 - #9 (SF makes the list)
1880 - #10
1890 - #12
1900 - #12
1910 - #15
1920 - #17
1930 - #16
1940 - #15
1950 - #16
1960 - #15
1970 - #19
1980 - #21
1990 - #24

[Prahaboheme]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

Galveston wasn't as large but the reputation was better than anywhere on the Gulf Coast except New Orleans.

Galveston was closer in importance and population size to other Gulf Coast cities, Mobile, Key West and a lesser extent Pensacola.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

Except this is NOT how New Orleans was laid out...

No, that's exactly how it happened. The original city was the French Quarter, with land both upriver and downriver divided into plantations based on the long lot system. Due to the river's curvature the long lots tended to more wedge-shaped than rectangular. As the city grew and expanded, the city grid was platted into the adjacent plantations by licensed surveyors that all generally respected the grid, but added their own flourishes (parks, market squares, wide boulevards, etc).

Generally the land sloped downward and got more marshy the further you got from the river, so the practical limit of the long lot occurred at a line 40 arpents back from the river (1.5 miles), and landowners dug a canal and levee at this line to prevent the occasional flooding of the higher ground. In St. Bernard Parish, this is still the edge of urbanization. In New Orleans, that line is now Claiborne Avenue and lands to the lake side of Claiborne were drained and settled in the 20th century.

[Centropolis]

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by brickell

New Orleans Rank- http://www.census.gov/population/www...0027/tab01.txt

1810 - #7 - cracks the list of 10 most populous cities in the US. The first in the top 10 not located in the original 13 colonies.
1820 - #5
1830 - #5
1840 - #3
1850 - #5 (St Louis makes the list)
1860 - #6 (Chicago Makes the list)
1870 - #9 (SF makes the list)
1880 - #10
1890 - #12
1900 - #12
1910 - #15
1920 - #17
1930 - #16
1940 - #15
1950 - #16
1960 - #15
1970 - #19
1980 - #21
1990 - #24

And starting in about 1950 with the rise of suburbs, it's really worse than that. Today's New Orleans urbanized area ranks 49th in the US. It's MSA is 45th. What was once America's 3rd largest city is now struggling to stay in the top 50.