Weren’t almost all great cities located at harbors (or locations with access to a harbor) or on a navigable river prior to railroads? Not that these conditions were sufficient to determine which cities became great, but just that they were necessary. Prior to the invention of railroads, I think it would have been nearly impossible for Atlanta to become a huge city. That is to say, there is a reason why almost all major US cities prior to the US Civil War were on major waterways, and why so many canals were built linking different waterway systems.
"In most blue state cities, we know this happened at some point between the 1960s and 1980s. But why? And why did red state cities not follow this trajectory? Better understanding this transition is key to rolling back NIMBY hegemony."
In "Why Nothing Works," Marc Dunkelman describes two conflicting ideas in progressive politics, which he calls Hamiltonian (the need for big government to counterbalance big corporations and deliver public services) and Jeffersonian (suspicion and mistrust of power, whether private or public). Since the 1960s and 1970s, the balance has swung heavily to the Jeffersonian side, and its suspicion of power (including the power of the government) has been institutionalized in protracted public consultation and judicial review.
Jacob Anbinder describes the origins of anti-growth politics in Democratic cities: skepticism about the preceding period of rapid growth, historic preservation (aiming to stabilize declining neighbourhoods and increase their value), environmentalism, and again, Jeffersonian decentralization. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njaB0HAnkik
It'd be interesting to see a history of Republican thinking about growth during the same period of time - perhaps a history of Texas.
Chicago actually seems pretty inevitable given that it straddles the boundaries of the Great Lakes and Mississippi watersheds. Otherwise, totally agree. They’re all engine builders
Loved the article!- in a parallel thought, Dubai’s first foray into commercial growth is tied to Deira and Bur Dubai in the 50s, but it wouldn’t have existed as it does today if not for the dredging of the Dubai Creek- the natural shallow waters for fishing was repurposed into a new harbour and port for commercial ships to come in, changing the course of the city.
Interesting stuff. I'll quibble with one small point: St. Louis was a major city for a century before the engineering and tools existed to tame the Mississippi. (Unless by "tame" you meant simply navigating on it.)
Yes, historic St. Louis was built on higher ground. The 1993 flood primarily affected recent suburban development in the Missouri River valley protected by a poorly maintained levee. Tornadoes have been a bigger problem, from the 1870s to a few weeks ago.
Interesting post and thank you for the "Cities: The First 6,000 Years" book recommendation! Are there any other books that you would recommend with regard to this essay's topic?
Weren’t almost all great cities located at harbors (or locations with access to a harbor) or on a navigable river prior to railroads? Not that these conditions were sufficient to determine which cities became great, but just that they were necessary. Prior to the invention of railroads, I think it would have been nearly impossible for Atlanta to become a huge city. That is to say, there is a reason why almost all major US cities prior to the US Civil War were on major waterways, and why so many canals were built linking different waterway systems.
"In most blue state cities, we know this happened at some point between the 1960s and 1980s. But why? And why did red state cities not follow this trajectory? Better understanding this transition is key to rolling back NIMBY hegemony."
In "Why Nothing Works," Marc Dunkelman describes two conflicting ideas in progressive politics, which he calls Hamiltonian (the need for big government to counterbalance big corporations and deliver public services) and Jeffersonian (suspicion and mistrust of power, whether private or public). Since the 1960s and 1970s, the balance has swung heavily to the Jeffersonian side, and its suspicion of power (including the power of the government) has been institutionalized in protracted public consultation and judicial review.
Jacob Anbinder describes the origins of anti-growth politics in Democratic cities: skepticism about the preceding period of rapid growth, historic preservation (aiming to stabilize declining neighbourhoods and increase their value), environmentalism, and again, Jeffersonian decentralization. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njaB0HAnkik
It'd be interesting to see a history of Republican thinking about growth during the same period of time - perhaps a history of Texas.
Energy is life.
Chicago actually seems pretty inevitable given that it straddles the boundaries of the Great Lakes and Mississippi watersheds. Otherwise, totally agree. They’re all engine builders
Loved the article!- in a parallel thought, Dubai’s first foray into commercial growth is tied to Deira and Bur Dubai in the 50s, but it wouldn’t have existed as it does today if not for the dredging of the Dubai Creek- the natural shallow waters for fishing was repurposed into a new harbour and port for commercial ships to come in, changing the course of the city.
Interesting stuff. I'll quibble with one small point: St. Louis was a major city for a century before the engineering and tools existed to tame the Mississippi. (Unless by "tame" you meant simply navigating on it.)
Yes, historic St. Louis was built on higher ground. The 1993 flood primarily affected recent suburban development in the Missouri River valley protected by a poorly maintained levee. Tornadoes have been a bigger problem, from the 1870s to a few weeks ago.
Interesting post and thank you for the "Cities: The First 6,000 Years" book recommendation! Are there any other books that you would recommend with regard to this essay's topic?