32 replies to this topic

[TexasTea]

Quote

Galveston was the largest city in Texas until 1900 when a hurricane largely destroyed it.  After that Houston replaced it in prominence and is the largest city today, followed by Dallas and San Antonio as distant 2nd and 3rd.

  Some people say that Galveston never recovered from the storm, but El-Paso and Forth Worth also have populations of over 600,000. We can have 5 cities with over 1 million people in this state.

[Aporkalypse]

TexasTea, on Dec 4 2006, 01:12 AM, said:

Some people say that Galveston never recovered from the storm, but El-Paso and Forth Worth also have populations of over 600,000. We can have 5 cities with over 1 million people in this state.

El Paso and Ft Worth are surrounded by abundant land and aren't hemmed in by suburbs so the potential for them to pass a million someday is there.  I guess Austin could as well, though it's somewhat restricted in its growth.  

Ft Worth might be there in no time at all.

[Spades]

Aporkalypse, on Dec 1 2006, 03:10 PM, said:

Galveston was the largest city in Texas until 1900 when a hurricane largely destroyed it.  After that Houston replaced it in prominence and is the largest city today, followed by Dallas and San Antonio as distant 2nd and 3rd.

In Arkansas, Little Rock has been the largest city since the 1830s.

I thought San Antonio at one point was the largest city in the state. Houston has been the largest since the 1920's I believe.

[Aporkalypse]

Spades, on Dec 5 2006, 12:51 AM, said:

I thought San Antonio at one point was the largest city in the state. Houston has been the largest since the 1920's I believe.

SA may have been once under Mexican rule, but not since statehood.

SA is now larger than Dallas in city population, though that's largely because SA lacks ringing suburbs and Dallas is largely hemmed in by large suburbs.

[Hybrid0NE]

No one has done Georgia?

1860 - 1900: Savannah*, 14,580 (1860)
1900 - present: Atlanta, 89,872 (1900) and 470,688 (2005 estimate)

*Savannah had been largest since Georgia was declared a British Colony but was officially certified by the Census in 1860.

[GAOnMyMind]

krazeeboi, on Nov 27 2006, 11:40 PM, said:

Which cities in your state have at one point or another held the title of the state's largest city?

First goes to Savannah (1733), then Augusta (1736). Atlanta didn't even exist to about 100 years later.

[Trae]

San Antonio was the largest city for some time. Then it went to Galveston until the 1900 Hurricane. After that, Houston and Dallas flip-flopped for a few years. THen since 1920, Houston has been the largest city in Texas.

[davidals]

Spartan, on Dec 1 2006, 06:52 PM, said:

I think that is very imortant to consider in this discussion because 1) Annexation laws vary from state to state and 2) do these cities have to compete with their suburbs for population growth?

And within individual states, individual cities can sometimes approach annexation with widely differing philosophies: in NC, the majority of growth since 2000 has been through in-migration and 'actual growth' (Raleigh, Cary, Durham, High Point, Concord), through annexations (Wilmington, Greenville, Winston-Salem, Asheville, Fayetteville), or about 50-50 (Charlotte, Chapel Hill, Greensboro).  And even with more restrictive laws, the same seems true to some degrees in SC and VA.

[wrldcoupe4]

davidals, on Feb 6 2007, 08:53 PM, said:

And even with more restrictive laws, the same seems true to some degrees in SC and VA.

Cities in Virginia, for the most part, cannot annex. Thus for many years now, no growth in Virginia city (or county) population is from annexation. That whole independent city thing further mucks everything.

[Brent]

I like the idea of fixed boundaries.  True, productive growth cannot be measured if the boundaries keep changing.  Cities should fix what problems they have instead of looking for quick fixes like annexing land to increase one's tax base (or one's standing in largest cities rankings).  It is too late for annexation to do anything for Richmond.  Richmond doesn't need Henrico's aging inner suburbs, nor does it need Chesterfield's abandoned strip malls.

Cities and counties are very different animals.  Seems reasonable to me to keep them separate entities. BTW I loved paying city AND county income taxes when I lived in Columbus, OH.  Let the other 49 states keep their system.  Ours works just fine.

Edited by Brent, 07 February 2007 - 03:40 PM.

[davidals]

^^
My VA reference was mainly with those exceptions in mind - Danville's big expansion in the 1990s, and the process that created some of the Tidewater cities.

[wrldcoupe4]

Brent, on Feb 7 2007, 04:39 PM, said:

I like the idea of fixed boundaries.  True, productive growth cannot be measured if the boundaries keep changing.  Cities should fix what problems they have instead of looking for quick fixes like annexing land to increase one's tax base (or one's standing in largest cities rankings).  It is too late for annexation to do anything for Richmond.  Richmond doesn't need Henrico's aging inner suburbs, nor does it need Chesterfield's abandoned strip malls.

I don't necessarily disagree with you. It's just worth pointing out when comparing growth in Virginia cities to cities in states with more lax annexation laws. Style had a great article yesterday on issues related to post-war neighborhoods in the counties. I'd prefer greater regionalism over annexation these days.

[DaltonGA]

Georgia 1860 (pop 1,057,286)
1) Savannah 22,292
2)Augusta     12,493
3)Atlanta        9,554
4)Columbus    9,021
5)Macon         8,247


Georgia 1870 (pop 1,184,109)
1)Savannah  28,235
2)Atlanta      21,729
3)Augusta     15,380
4)Macon       10,810
5)Columbus    7,401

These two census comparisons show just how rural Georgia was at the outbreak of the Civil War. Columbus is the only one of Georgia's largest cities to post a decline during the decade. Sherman burning Atlanta and marching through Macon and capturing Savannah did little to set these three cites back. Atlanta was just getting started, though it has been estimated the war boom has brought the population up to almost 40,000 before it was burnt, but I've also seen 30,000 and 35,000 as estimates also. Either way it was unofficially the largest city from 1863-1865. It didn't officially overtake Savannah until 1880 with 37,409 in Atlanta vs. 30,709 in Savannah.

Edited by DaltonGA, 21 February 2007 - 03:41 PM.