Power Shift: Cities

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

the silly population permutations aside, i find it PROFOUNDLY more interesting that, after NYC of course, north america's next two most impressive skylines* can be found on the shores of the great lakes as opposed to our continent's much over-hyped east and west coasts. how did that happen? discussing that is much more interesting to me than the 500th iteration of the great "chicago vs. toronto pissing match". what is it about these inland freshwater seas that inspired the city builders in chicago and toronto to aim so high? is it something in the water itself?

Too young to have developed in the style of the dense colonial cities of the east; too old to have come of age in the automobile era that characterizes the west.

[Centropolis]

all of the great lakes cities have sort of a lean, expansive feel to their "skeletons," so it makes sense that skyscrapers would sort of be an extension of this. these cities were being welded together and formed on a broad scale with an eye to the east, in anticipation of the crush of millions of urban dwellers who didn't all end up coming (at least to the american cities).

[kool maudit]

second-wave cities, lots to prove, less weight of history and pre-skyscraper conventions.

[Altauria]

Originally Posted by Trantor

well, if you stop to think, many of the ANCIENT world important cities were coastal cities, or very close. At least around the Mediterranean and Black sea.

I guess many of the important barbarian towns romanized were also coastal.

the inland european towns gained proeminence only in the middle ages, MAYBE due to viking raids, in the north of Europe.

but Venice was a very large and one of the most important cities in the late middle ages and it was of course a coastal town (and it was important exactly because of that)

Haha, I was actually thinking that very thing as I was writing - Alexandria, Carthage, Athens, etc. I'm definitely thinking more of the Viking raids.

[Yuri]

Let's get out of North America for a moment:

Johannesburg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/christi...n/photostream/

vs

Cape Town

http://www.flickr.com/photos/encoreo...n/photostream/


Johannesburg
1891 ------- 26,000
1911 ------ 237,100
1936 ---- 1,017,190
1951 ---- 1,449,347
1970 ---- 2,779,432
1990 ---- 4,164,900
2001 ---- 6,452,444
2011 ---- 8,434,292


Cape Town
1891 ------- 83,700
1911 ------ 162,000
1936 ------ 344,223
1951 ------ 571,368
1970 ---- 1,107,763
1990 ---- 2,350,900
2001 ---- 2,892,243
2011 ---- 3,740,026


Quoting a South African forumer on it:

Cape Town founded 1652. Johannesburg founded 1886
This was due to the Witwatersrand Gold Rush - the biggest gold rush the world has ever seen (larger than California's by a long run). To give you an idea - 50% of all gold ever mined on this planet comes from South Africa and most of it from Witwatersrand.

And in 10 years, Johannesburg surpassed Cape Town in population, a city that was already over 200 years old. This must be the fastest shift in power and population between the two major cities of any country.

Today, Cape Town population approx 4 million. Johannesburg population 9-10 million.

Johannesburg in 1900 (less than 15 years after it was founded):


Cape Town in early 1900s:

Johannesburg, after mere two decades of existence, became the wealthiest city of Africa, position they hold till today. Amazing city.

It's a very big shift, as Cape Town is also called the "Mother City", as South Africa started there.

[ue]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

all of the great lakes cities have sort of a lean, expansive feel to their "skeletons," so it makes sense that skyscrapers would sort of be an extension of this. these cities were being welded together and formed on a broad scale with an eye to the east, in anticipation of the crush of millions of urban dwellers who didn't all end up coming (at least to the american cities).

True. In Toronto's case, it has more to do with internal shifts in power (from Montreal) which is why most of Toronto's expansive skyline was built post-1970, unlike Chicago, Milwaukee, Detroit, Cleveland, and Buffalo.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Trantor

well, same thing in Brazil, and it is quite obvious it´s related to the way the two countries were settled and how in the beginning they had export oriented cultures (usually to Europe).

in Europe, plenty of cities were there a long way before, and it seems to me middle age kings never were very fond of coastal cities. Maybe coastal cities were easier to invade.

Yes, that absolutely had a lot to do with it. The vikings...

[kingchef]

i am responding---a week later--- re: post 20 something....memphis-nashville. memphis has always been the big girl in tn, and she remains so. don't forget to look at the small script re: metro definition changes, etc. memphis proper has over 709,000+ residents. memphis, w/in shelby county, has about 1,047,000. metro memphis has approximately 1,414,000, and greater memphis has over 2.6 million. shelby county was comprised of 8 counties, until last march. it was designated a csa, which added one county in ark, st. francis, and benton co, ms. was added to the metro, who knows why, as there are much larger counties 45 minutes from the memphis city center.

nashville and davidson county had approximately 625,000 in their metro government area. that includes both nashville and davidson co. they keep adding counties to pad an artificial urban enviornment---they had 14 counties in the census. we consider them to be an east suburb of Ms. M, as they have tried to identify most of the counties in middle tn as nashville. we think they are counting the cows and chickens to get their numbers. memphis is the urban center, and nashville is a smaller city with small cities and towns around, up to two hours away. they know the game! go to urban photos by bill cobb or jhonny ryall to really memphis.

[middeljohn]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Let's get out of North America for a moment:
]

Johannesburg
1891 ------- 26,000
1911 ------ 237,100
1936 ---- 1,017,190
1951 ---- 1,449,347
1970 ---- 2,779,432
1990 ---- 4,164,900
2001 ---- 6,452,444
2011 ---- 8,434,292


Cape Town
1891 ------- 83,700
1911 ------ 162,000
1936 ------ 344,223
1951 ------ 571,368
1970 ---- 1,107,763
1990 ---- 2,350,900
2001 ---- 2,892,243
2011 ---- 3,740,026


Quoting a South African forumer on it:



Johannesburg, after mere two decades of existence, became the wealthiest city of Africa, position they hold till today. Amazing city.

It's a very big shift, as Cape Town is also called the "Mother City", as South Africa started there.

And that doesn't even tell you half the story of how insanely big Jo'burg is. Johannesburg is the largest city in a large connurbation that is made of Jo'burg, Soweto and Pretoria of over 13M people. It goes about 100km in all directions and is the most sprawling urban area in Africa.

The highway that connects Pretoria to Johannesburg is called the Ben Schoeman highway and has an AADT of over 300,000.

[Beedok]

I think Cairo might be bigger depending on how things are defined.

[middeljohn]

Originally Posted by Beedok

I think Cairo might be bigger depending on how things are defined.

I meant largest within its connurbation, not in Africa. Joburg metro is about 10M, Soweto is about 1M, Pretoria is about 2M.

[Yuri]

Cairo is more populated, but PWV (Pretoria-Witwatersrand-Vaal) has by far the largest urban footprint of Africa. It's US kinda of suburbia sprawl going on there.

[middeljohn]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Cairo is more populated, but PWV (Pretoria-Witwatersrand-Vaal) has by far the largest urban footprint of Africa. It's US kinda of suburbia sprawl going on there.

US style sprawl in some sections:


http://www.relocate-southafrica.com/...ins-house.html

But not in others:


http://www.destination360.com/africa...-africa/soweto

[Trantor]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Yes, that absolutely had a lot to do with it. The vikings...

the way you worded your sentence sounds suspiciously ironic.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by middeljohn

US style sprawl in some sections:

Well, it looks a lot like Atlanta:










Roddas (SSC)

[middeljohn]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Well, it looks a lot like Atlanta:



Roddas (SSC)

Oh you're absolutely right. Some public transportation exists there, but anyone with access to a car doesn't use it there cause of the violence. This complete dependence on the car and fear of violence has significantly altered the way in which neighbourhoods developed, leading to lots and lots of gated communities. Cheap land there means huge properties for those making a Western living.

That picture you posted, the suburb of Sandton skyline, is actually the new economic center of South Africa, as Joburg's downtown has turned into a giant squatter - including the towers.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Toronto's regional population has a long way to go to catch up with Chicago. It's closer in size to Detroit.

And predictably the SSP response wasn't that a city power shift was under way.... and the disapproval at the mere notion came with the very next post no less.

Detroit? If that's the city pairing you'd rather see, I'll oblige. Detroit vs Toronto regional population comparison coming up:

1980-1981
Detroit: 5,203,269
Toronto: ~4,700,000

1990-1991
Detroit: 5,095,695
Toronto: 6,378,370

2000-2001
Detroit: 5,357,538
Toronto: 7,532,246

2010-2011
Detroit: 5,218,852
Toronto: 8,759,312 (Forecast to hit 10 million in about 6 years or ~ 2020)

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Beedok

I think Cairo might be bigger depending on how things are defined.

I thought Johannesburg was 4th behind Lagos, Cairo, and Kinshasa?

[middeljohn]

^^
While I agree with your using that figure for Toronto, you should point out you're using the Greater Golden Horseshoe population to translate into an American CSA population. Otherwise people may get confused

[middeljohn]

Originally Posted by isaidso

I thought Johannesburg was 4th behind Lagos, Cairo, and Kinshasa?

Yes, by population, but by area covered it's the largest in Africa.