Are St. Louis and New Orleans the last "eastern" cities?

[ChiSoxRox]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

It's a little hard to compare NYC's current definition to 1800. At that time, I think, the Bronx was part of Westchester County and Nassau County was still part of Queens. So that number is probably over counted by about 5-10k if trying to figure out the population according to the current definition of the 5 boroughs.

True about the shifting county definitions, although the Wikipedia chart is pulling its data from an old Census report where some long-ago Census worker dug through the old returns to calculate the population of the future 1898 limits.

Example: The 1810 NYC table population is given as 119,734.

Adding together Richmond, New York, Kings, and Queens Counties in 1810 gives 129,359 (even without the future Bronx but including the future Nassau County).

[jbermingham123]

Originally Posted by MAC123

Except it was already part of NY state at the time DC was founded.

yeah no shit.. and what is now DC was already part of Maryland. DC needed to be carved out of an existing state or territory, and SI is naturally separated from NY by its geography

[Nomad9]

One thing that’s always stood out to me as a “western” city feature is a relatively clear demarcation where the city starts and ends.

I’m a western city, you’re often clearly in the country and then you hit that first exit on the freeway where strip malls and subdivisions start. Then it’s pretty contiguous until you’re back in the country. I’ve always thought Vegas or Denver were good examples of this, or even cities in the midwest/Great Plains like Omaha or Sioux Falls.

In the east, it’s hard to tell where the metro begins and ends because the surrounding communities are more densely located and grew more organically toward/around one another. It’s also usually more densely wooded, which makes it hard to visually spot a clear demarcation. If I’m in exurban DC or ATL, it can either feel rural or completely suburban depending on which turn I happen to take.

Ultimately, I guess those are just another manifestation of age, precipitation (woods vs. prairie/desert), and population density.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Nomad9

One thing that’s always stood out to me as a “western” city feature is a relatively clear demarcation where the city starts and ends.

Ultimately, I guess those are just another manifestation of age, precipitation (woods vs. prairie/desert), and population density.

Yeah, when you fly out of an eastern city at night, you get a decent sense for where the metro actually ends. In the case of Atlanta, you never really get a sense for how big the place is until you fly out of it at night and see the lights stretch out a bit like LA (if LA didn't have a grid and was in the woods).

[wanderer34]

The only city where I can say takes attributes from the north, the east, the west, and the south is St Louis. New Orleans, despite the French, Italian, and Irish immigrants, and the catholicism and maybe even it's local accent is South all the way.

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ it looks like the poles didn't really cross the mississippi river so much.

obviosuly there's some in st. louis and minneapolis, but nothing like the hordes of poles that swarmed into the great lakes cites.

It seems like the Poles in St Louis generally settled in Old North St. Louis. Here's some links proving that case:

Polish Heritage Center: http://www.phcstl.org/index.html

Polish National Catholic Church: http://stlpncc.org/

Piekutowski's Distributors: https://www.piekutowskis.com/

I'm also thinking that Granite City was the place where many Eastern Europeans migrated to when it comes to suburbanization and it makes sense why the polish settled in Old North St Louis because Granite City was a steel town.

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Maybe an unpopular opinion, but the capital should be in New York.

If that was the case, then the state capital of NJ would be in Newark, not Trenton. In PA, it would be Philadelphia, not Harrisburg, in MD, Baltimore, not Annapolis, in MI, Detroit over Lansing, and in IL, Chicago, not Springfield. There's a reason why state capitals have usually been in the middle of their states and why DC is the American capital over NYC.

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I was kidding.

But it should be New York precisely because the center of gravity of the country has continued to change throughout the country's history. At the time the government settled on Washington they didn't know that New York would be the nation's big city for at least the next several hundred years, and they also didn't expect the population center of the country to move so dramatically away from D.C.

I believe it was better to let DC be the nation's capital and let NYC be America's largest city simply because the Potomac River didn't have a major harbor like Baltimore, NYC, or Boston, as DC is simply a river city and unlike Philadelphia's Delaware River, the Potomac wasn't a wide enough river so Baltimore was eventually delegated as the region's major port while DC handled the federal government and nowadays DC is thriving while Baltimore is declining.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by wanderer34

If that was the case, then the state capital of NJ would be in Newark, not Trenton. In PA, it would be Philadelphia, not Harrisburg, in MD, Baltimore, not Annapolis, in MI, Detroit over Lansing, and in IL, Chicago, not Springfield. There's a reason why state capitals have usually been in the middle of their states and why DC is the American capital over NYC.

Detroit was the capital of Michigan, and in an ideal world it still be the capital of Michigan. Annapolis is the capital of Maryland for historical reasons, much like the modern reasoning for D.C. remaining the capital of the United States. It's also barely a 20 minute drive from Baltimore. Chicago and Springfield were the same size when Illinois became a state. I don't think it was very obvious in the early history of Illinois that a large population settlement would sprout there.

Washington was not a natural major city. I understand why they made the decision, but it was flawed reasoning. Washington was close to the geographic and population center of the country when it was chosen, but that was obsolete within a couple of decades. If the decision of where to permanently locate the capital had been delayed by even a couple of decades there is probably zero chance that the current location would have been selected.

Originally Posted by wanderer34

I believe it was better to let DC be the nation's capital and let NYC be America's largest city simply because the Potomac River didn't have a major harbor like Baltimore, NYC, or Boston, as DC is simply a river city and unlike Philadelphia's Delaware River, the Potomac wasn't a wide enough river so Baltimore was eventually delegated as the region's major port while DC handled the federal government and nowadays DC is thriving while Baltimore is declining.

There would likely be no large settlement in the current site of Washington. Alexandria and Georgetown would probably be satellite cities of Baltimore.

[Quixote]

Having just completed a cross-country road trip across the Western U.S.:

LA --> St. George, UT
St. George --> Idaho Falls, ID
Idaho Falls --> Kalispell, MT


My geographic definition of the "West" is largely topographical. Large- to medium-sized cities are farther apart, with landscapes being drier and more sparse and mountainous. Basically, Pacific and Mountain Time Zones.

Dallas-Forth Worth is the new "frontier" that connects east and west, although "epicenter" might be more appropriate given how everyone and their mother is moving there from the two oceanic coasts.


There roughly are three types of "Wests":

1) Great Plains: Texas Panhandle and everything south and east of Abilene, the western parts of Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, and the Dakotas

2) Mountain West: Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho

3) Southwest: Arizona and New Mexico

4) Pacific Northwest: Washington and Oregon

5) California and Nevada (88% of Nevada's population lives in/around Las Vegas or Reno / Carson City), which have close connections with SoCal and the Bay Area / Sacramento, respectively


And regarding the U.S. capital, it should be as proximal to Europe, the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal corridor, (populated) Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean, and South America. DC is fine.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by wanderer34

The only city where I can say takes attributes from the north, the east, the west, and the south is St Louis. New Orleans, despite the French, Italian, and Irish immigrants, and the catholicism and maybe even it's local accent is South all the way.



It seems like the Poles in St Louis generally settled in Old North St. Louis. Here's some links proving that case:

Polish Heritage Center: http://www.phcstl.org/index.html

Polish National Catholic Church: http://stlpncc.org/

Piekutowski's Distributors: https://www.piekutowskis.com/

I'm also thinking that Granite City was the place where many Eastern Europeans migrated to when it comes to suburbanization and it makes sense why the polish settled in Old North St Louis because Granite City was a steel town.

.

This seems right, I attended the annual Polish Falcons bash on St. Louis Ave in north city for years in a giant guilded age mansion that was converted to a club in (?) whenever…75 years ago?

There was and still is an eastern european presence in the near southside as well, ive been to a polish influenced american legion and theres some more ancient churches.

[wanderer34]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Detroit was the capital of Michigan, and in an ideal world it still be the capital of Michigan.

The reason Lansing was selected over Detroit was that in the War of 1812, Detroit was captured by the British as well as Detroit's influence in state politics over other jurisdictions at that time.

In other words, safety was the number one reason for moving the state capital further inland as Canada was still British territory and had not MI moved to Lansing, Detroit would've been a much different looking city. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lansing,_Michigan#History)

It would still be a manufacturing city, but with a capital, it would've had a much more educated workforce since we're talking about lobbyists, lawyers, and politicians plus would've Michigan State University or the University of Michigan been based in Detroit over Lansing? Whatever the school would've been called, more than likely, there would've been a major university based in Detroit, turning Detroit into a university town.

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Annapolis is the capital of Maryland for historical reasons, much like the modern reasoning for D.C. remaining the capital of the United States. It's also barely a 20 minute drive from Baltimore. Chicago and Springfield were the same size when Illinois became a state. I don't think it was very obvious in the early history of Illinois that a large population settlement would sprout there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annapo..._(1649–1808)

Baltimore by your logic would've made a better capital but Annapolis was selected due to it's status as a temporary federal capital during which the Treaty of Paris was signed in 1783 while the State House was built in 1772-1797 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_State_House)

As for IL, the reason that Springfield was selected over Chicago had very, very little to do with Chicago, (founded in 1780 as a settlement, incorporated as a town in 1833, and incorporated as a city in 1837) and a lot more to do with Abraham Lincoln, who would eventually become the nation's 16th president (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spring...#Pre-Civil_War). The previous capitals at the time was Kaskaskia on the Mississippi River nearby St Louis, and Vandalia. I doubt Chicago would've made it as the capital of IL since it's too far north and Springfield was an ideal location for a state capital anyways.

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Washington was not a natural major city. I understand why they made the decision, but it was flawed reasoning. Washington was close to the geographic and population center of the country when it was chosen, but that was obsolete within a couple of decades. If the decision of where to permanently locate the capital had been delayed by even a couple of decades there is probably zero chance that the current location would have been selected.

You're right that DC wasn't a natural organic city like Boston, NYC, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, and even the southern cities of Richmond, Charleston, and Savannah, but it was chosen because it was closest to George Washington's homestead of Mount Vernon, as well as an appeasement to the more agricultural South, which heavily used slave labor at that time prior to the Civil War.

That's why the nickname for DC is "The Swamp" because DC was all swamp prior to it being built and it's the first city in the world, if I recall, that was built specifically for a national government and a planned city with a grid and diagonals running through it by Benjamin Banneker.

And around 1800, it made perfect sense to place the US capital in DC over other places since America at that time was composed of much of the eastern seaboard without FL (which was still Spanish territory), and OH, MI, and IL weren't states yet so Washington, DC was the perfect location for a federal capital at the time. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1800_U...ntial_election)

Originally Posted by iheartthed

There would likely be no large settlement in the current site of Washington. Alexandria and Georgetown would probably be satellite cities of Baltimore.

Remember that it was George Washington who founded DC, a Revolutionary War General and later on the first ever United States president who founded the site of DC, although Washington worked in Philadelphia as president, he selected the site (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washin....C.#Foundation) and if you're willing to go back in time and go against Washington's wishes for a capital and tell Washington not to place the future capital on the north bank of the Potomac but in French territory nearby St. Louis, then that's your shot. Once again, by 1800, DC was the perfect site of America at the time, not St. Louis!!!

[Segun]

To the casual eye, IMO, the difference between east East Coast and Midwest is not as dramatic as say the difference between anywhere east of the Mississippi and the Southwest, but where does that place Seattle, Portland, Denver, whose building materials are similar?

I find those cities very Midwestern in their design. The Midwest to me is like a mix of the built, planned East Coast, with a bit of the "frontiersy" open space added to it, while the South is a bit more rugged, with a stronger, wilder presence of nature. I might say that Seattle and Portland have a stronger Southern vibe in that regard.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

st. louis kinda seems like the ultimate junction city of north, east, south, and west.

it's a bit of shame about TWA getting bought out by American, STL is such a natural spot for a large hub airport.

KC almost as central, but a tad more "western" in feel than SL. SL, where the "east" ends. KC, where the "west" begins.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by wanderer34

The reason Lansing was selected over Detroit was that in the War of 1812, Detroit was captured by the British as well as Detroit's influence in state politics over other jurisdictions at that time.

In other words, safety was the number one reason for moving the state capital further inland as Canada was still British territory and had not MI moved to Lansing, Detroit would've been a much different looking city. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lansing,_Michigan#History)

It would still be a manufacturing city, but with a capital, it would've had a much more educated workforce since we're talking about lobbyists, lawyers, and politicians plus would've Michigan State University or the University of Michigan been based in Detroit over Lansing? Whatever the school would've been called, more than likely, there would've been a major university based in Detroit, turning Detroit into a university town.

Since it's a land-grant school, Michigan State would most likely not have been located in Detroit even if the city did remain the capital of Michigan. Ironically, MSU could have plausibly ended up in Ann Arbor lol.

The University of Michigan was founded in Detroit and was located there for about two decades. The university moved to Ann Arbor because the city of Ann Arbor lost the bid to become the capital of Michigan. The state bought the land that speculators had acquired in Ann Arbor, anticipating it to be chosen for Michigan's capital, and gave it to the university to relocate from Detroit.

Originally Posted by wanderer34

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annapo..._(1649–1808)

Baltimore by your logic would've made a better capital but Annapolis was selected due to it's status as a temporary federal capital during which the Treaty of Paris was signed in 1783 while the State House was built in 1772-1797 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_State_House)

Annapolis was the original large settlement in Maryland. As I said, the reason it remained the capital was because of historical reasons. It is also located in the Baltimore MSA.

Originally Posted by wanderer34

You're right that DC wasn't a natural organic city like Boston, NYC, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, and even the southern cities of Richmond, Charleston, and Savannah, but it was chosen because it was closest to George Washington's homestead of Mount Vernon, as well as an appeasement to the more agricultural South, which heavily used slave labor at that time prior to the Civil War.

That's why the nickname for DC is "The Swamp" because DC was all swamp prior to it being built and it's the first city in the world, if I recall, that was built specifically for a national government and a planned city with a grid and diagonals running through it by Benjamin Banneker.

And around 1800, it made perfect sense to place the US capital in DC over other places since America at that time was composed of much of the eastern seaboard without FL (which was still Spanish territory), and OH, MI, and IL weren't states yet so Washington, DC was the perfect location for a federal capital at the time. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1800_U...ntial_election)



Remember that it was George Washington who founded DC, a Revolutionary War General and later on the first ever United States president who founded the site of DC, although Washington worked in Philadelphia as president, he selected the site (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washin....C.#Foundation) and if you're willing to go back in time and go against Washington's wishes for a capital and tell Washington not to place the future capital on the north bank of the Potomac but in French territory nearby St. Louis, then that's your shot. Once again, by 1800, DC was the perfect site of America at the time, not St. Louis!!!

It wasn't solely Washington's decision to make, but Virginia was the richest and most powerful of the 13 colonies. It is no coincidence that 7 of the first 11 presidents were from Virginia. I think most/all of those Virginian early presidents were born within 50 miles of the eventual District of Columbia.