If our four largest were gone...

[kayman]

This quote is FALSE. Please do further research before passing information off as fact. If it helps you, google each hospital provided by Flith and read for yourself the information provided. Now unless we have several different terms for "Level 1 Trauma Centers," every Georgia hospital listed by Flith is a Level 1 trauma center.

This is a link the Georgia EMS website. I checked the Grady Memorial Hospital website and it list itself as a Level 1 facility.

Georgia Trauma Centers

I have no idea where that website got it's information (or if it is current) but it is NOT completely correct. I'm almost positive that the hospitals int eh other states listed by Flith are Level 1s as well. I could do the research but Leonard I would prefer you to do it. It may be a learning experience. I know I learned something today because I thought that Georgia only had three level 1 facilities.

Celeste, that information isn't false and is up to date (look at the expiration dates for the hospital's certification licenses). The American College of Surgeons is the official national certification board for hospital trauma center listings. Georgia and another other state may have certain standards to be listed as a Level 1 trauma center within that state itself, but those are not national standards.

[elb401]

NCB where did you get those figures. I would like see some other cities populations from that era.

[NCB]

NCB where did you get those figures. I would like see some other cities populations from that era.

Here you go:

Population of the 100 largest cities and other urban places in the United States: 1790 to 1990

[rusthebuss]

You really can't argue who would be the 4 to replace the biggest now. History had so much affect on these cities. Also economics built these cities as well because of natural resources and who was in political power. Houston got the NASA controls there because Lyndon Johnson was from there and wanted it in his home town. Houston was also shaped because of oil.Miami is because of location. Atlanta was shaped alot by the civil war. These situations make it hard to argue other areas would replace them.

[Justiceham]

You really can't argue who would be the 4 to replace the biggest now. History had so much affect on these cities. Also economics built these cities as well because of natural resources and who was in political power. Houston got the NASA controls there because Lyndon Johnson was from there and wanted it in his home town. Houston was also shaped because of oil.Miami is because of location. Atlanta was shaped alot by the civil war. These situations make it hard to argue other areas would replace them.

And Dallas?

[AlabamaGuy2007]

You really can't argue who would be the 4 to replace the biggest now. History had so much affect on these cities. Also economics built these cities as well because of natural resources and who was in political power. Houston got the NASA controls there because Lyndon Johnson was from there and wanted it in his home town. Houston was also shaped because of oil.Miami is because of location. Atlanta was shaped alot by the civil war. These situations make it hard to argue other areas would replace them.

You do know that Huntsville was originally offered the job of mission control right? But the turned it down. Houston was the only other place that could support it. That's why they got it.

[monsoon]

You do know that Huntsville was originally offered the job of mission control right? But the turned it down. Houston was the only other place that could support it. That's why they got it.

Would you please offer a reputable source for this?

[rusthebuss]

I know that Hampton, Va. was trying to get it with NASA research facility already here. I've never heard that Huntsville turned it down. There is alot of places besides Houston that can handle it. You could put it in alaska and it would work fine there.

[flith]

Wow, calm down, please. Haha, I do believe from looking at that website that those are Georgia Level I Trauma Centers. Georgia's standards, not the American College of Surgeons (ACS) standards. I got my info from the ACS.

Here's the link, it is current. I looked all over the website and found no other list. ACS Trauma Centers

But in a way you're correct, it was false, UAB Medical Center is the only Level I Trauma Center (by ACS Standards) in the entire FIVE state area.

By the way, please do your research the next time you bat down someone's claims.

Perhaps a better way to have posted that claim would have been to cite a source, I wasn't aware, and apparently other urbanplanet were not aware that there is another agency other than the state that decided what the Trauma Level of a hospital is.

[Pillsbury]

^ Exactly!! All my life I've heard how the Medical College of Georgia was a level I trauma center; it's even advertised on their website, so it was upsetting to read that according to a group of surgeons it's not, which sucks for me if I get into a bad accident---I guess they could airlift me to Winston. Oh well, at least if someone sets me on fire I've got the burn center in town---unless it's not really a burn center anymore...maybe they're lying about it on their website too.

Seriously that's great for Birmingham, but every major hospital in this country has patients there from all over the country and the world. It's not really uncommon at all for places like St. Jude in Memphis to treat kids from all over the world---or for Doctors in Augusta to take burn patients from all over. It's just the way it works.

[AlabamaGuy2007]

Perhaps a better way to have posted that claim would have been to cite a source, I wasn't aware, and apparently other urbanplanet were not aware that there is another agency other than the state that decided what the Trauma Level of a hospital is.

I like search for sources, and next time I shall insert the link for the source. I had just thought that it was more widely known about UAB, I was wrong. I will remember this next time.

Here's a link I just found, it says that they selected Houston after scouting out other locations, but it doesn't say whether or not Marshall was one of them, I'll keep looking, but for the time being this'll have to do.

Mission Control

[VistaLakes01]

1. Charlotte or Nashville

2. Orlando/Tampa

3. New Orleans

4. Austin

[davidzLA]

Wow, what an interesting what-if topic.

I would argue it's disingenuous to look at the other big metros to decide what would replace Atlanta, Miami, Dallas & Houston. Cities are where they are for lots of reasons that you'd have to wave away, at various stages of history - when do you "get rid of" Atlanta, for example? Also getting rid of multiple cities refracts the change in multiple ways - remove Atlanta and Birmingham rotates in, but remove Atlanta AND Dallas and you get a megalopolis at Memphis, as mentioned earlier in a great post.

I assume the "rules" assume that 1) the current location of these cities are instead rural, at most semi-developed communities, but whatever resources are still there and 2) no other immediate city takes its place, i.e. that Galveston is the dominant city rather than Houston or that Ft. Worth is better known than Dallas, and 3) the effects and benefits are diffused over a larger area than a single replacement city.

ATLANTA: Without Atlanta earlier on, you could end up with a Rome, Macon or Athens that takes off. But I'd assume in more of the modern-day context that Birmingham, Nashville and Charlotte become bigger in the sense of prestige and population.

As a former resident of Birmingham I've often heard the urban legend that Birmingham & Atlanta were neck and neck cities up until a point in the 50's when Birmingham turned down the airport, which turned Atlanta into what it is today. Often these same people dislike Atlanta, lol. But it would make a good urban studies project to run the numbers and analyze if that was ever actually in the cards, compare the population growth curve, income per capita overall and among various ethnicities, growth of the developed area over time, number of incorporations and so forth.

HOUSTON: Without taking away the oil (MUCH more important here than Dallas) and Galveston Bay, you're going to have people over the past 100 years saying, "Why don't we pump that oil and build ports on that bay?" Leaving that aside, however, I see San Antonio benefiting, and possibly being the largest Texas city, with many nat'l headquarters as Dallas has today - but not nearly so much as Beaumont and Corpus Christi. Beaumont-Port Arthur would take up a fair portion of the oil servicing industry and port services and related transportation development, with Corpus Christi filling that same role to the south, with better scenery to boot. I'd expect that both Corpus and Beaumont would be in the Texas top 5, and either one or San Antonio 'replacing' Houston in rankings.

DALLAS: Without Dallas as a cattle and cotton center, again nearby cities get the benefit, because those areas will prompt development of those industries. Today it has excellent transportation and a good central location in the Sunbelt. Without Dallas, I pick Waco to develop the most, taking the north Texas metro role the Metroplex fills today. Oklahoma City (southern?), Shreveport, and Wichita Falls are all larger than in our timeline.

MIAMI: I don't know nearly enough about Florida, but my guess is that without Miami, there's a much bigger Tampa metro, alongside a much-earlier developed Ft Myers population center. Based on my limited knowledge however it would seem much harder to avoid 'replacing' Miami with a city not already in that region - I would think any one of the coastal cities south of Ft. Pierce would evolve into "Miami".

Again, great topic...

[BHCav]

Take away Miami, then you have Ft. Lauderdale. Take away Ft. Lauderdale, then you have Hollywood. Take away Hollywood..........

[Justiceham]

Take away Miami, then you have Ft. Lauderdale. Take away Ft. Lauderdale, then you have Hollywood. Take away Hollywood..........

Take away West Hollywood...

[AlabamaGuy2007]

ATLANTA: Without Atlanta earlier on, you could end up with a Rome, Macon or Athens that takes off. But I'd assume in more of the modern-day context that Birmingham, Nashville and Charlotte become bigger in the sense of prestige and population.

As a former resident of Birmingham I've often heard the urban legend that Birmingham & Atlanta were neck and neck cities up until a point in the 50's when Birmingham turned down the airport, which turned Atlanta into what it is today. Often these same people dislike Atlanta, lol. But it would make a good urban studies project to run the numbers and analyze if that was ever actually in the cards, compare the population growth curve, income per capita overall and among various ethnicities, growth of the developed area over time, number of incorporations and so forth.

Yea, most Birmingham area residents despise the city of Atlanta. I don't like it either. The main reason that Birmingham isn't anywhere near where it could be is because it's soooo close to Atlanta. Not that Atlanta isn't a bad city, I like the place, but, they're just so close it draws away lots of business. That's why I tend to call the ATL the "visceral mass."

[davidzLA]

Yea, most Birmingham area residents despise the city of Atlanta. I don't like it either. The main reason that Birmingham isn't anywhere near where it could be is because it's soooo close to Atlanta. Not that Atlanta isn't a bad city, I like the place, but, they're just so close it draws away lots of business. That's why I tend to call the ATL the "visceral mass."

I'm not sure I understand. If Atlanta wasn't there, Birmingham would have more of its business and population, which you want, but if so, it would be much more like Atlanta, which you don't want?

[Spades]

Take away Miami, then you have Ft. Lauderdale. Take away Ft. Lauderdale, then you have Hollywood. Take away Hollywood..........

then you have what is now Pembroke Pines, which is now the largest city in Broward County.

[912]

I guess if one goes way back in history, some answers could be found there.

Atlanta: Savannah was the first city in GA, and its colonial capital. If it had remained there, I'd bet Savannah would be the current Atalanta, with its sea, road & rail connections (Atlanta is one of the largest distribution hubs in the nation).

Houston: before the 1900 Galveston hurricane, there was very little in what is now Houston. If that hurricane had never happened, i'd see Galveston as the major city in that region.

Dallas: I'd have to guess that Dallas got its start in a similar fashion as Atlanta (rail crossroads). Not sure who'd fill Big D's shoes, but i'd guess Fort Worth.

Miami: Another tricky one. To make an educated guess, i'd go with Jacksonville (already FL's largest city), or even St. Augustine.

[AlabamaGuy2007]

I'm not sure I understand. If Atlanta wasn't there, Birmingham would have more of its business and population, which you want, but if so, it would be much more like Atlanta, which you don't want?

Yea, now that I read my post it doesn't make sense. Let me clarify. I like the going to the city and all, but what I don't like it is that they have all of these things, oppuritunities, and amenities that Birmingham doesn't have because Atlanta is soooo close.

I'd like Birmingham to be like Atlanta, just not with all the sprawling mass.

[davidzLA]

I like the going to the city and all, but what I don't like it is that they have all of these things, oppuritunities, and amenities that Birmingham doesn't have because Atlanta is soooo close.

I'd like Birmingham to be like Atlanta, just not with all the sprawling mass.

Ah, I once thought as you do... :-)

My best advice in that case (not that you asked) is to move to Atlanta. You can spend the next 40 years wishing, waiting and hoping for Birmingham to convert itself into an smarter, Atlanta-like conurbation or you can experience the one that exists already. Atlanta will not be standing still during this time so the "finish line" will never come. Atlanta will continue to be "the Atlanta" regardless of how many Cheesecake Factories or Urban Outfitters show up in suburban Birmingham. And Birmingham hasn't shown a lot of proclivity to reinvent to my regret.

Most people in Birmingham don't want to live in a city the size of Atlanta, and people who want to live in big cities should go live in big cities we already have in my opinion. It's what I did in any case. Moving to Birmingham in anticipation of what it could be is like marrying someone to change them - doomed to conflict and disappointment. Enjoy it for what it is and for what you can effect personally.

[kayman]

Ah, I once thought as you do... :-)

My best advice in that case (not that you asked) is to move to Atlanta. You can spend the next 40 years wishing, waiting and hoping for Birmingham to convert itself into an smarter, Atlanta-like conurbation or you can experience the one that exists already. Atlanta will not be standing still during this time so the "finish line" will never come. Atlanta will continue to be "the Atlanta" regardless of how many Cheesecake Factories or Urban Outfitters show up in suburban Birmingham. And Birmingham hasn't shown a lot of proclivity to reinvent to my regret.

Most people in Birmingham don't want to live in a city the size of Atlanta, and people who want to live in big cities should go live in big cities we already have in my opinion. It's what I did in any case. Moving to Birmingham in anticipation of what it could be is like marrying someone to change them - doomed to conflict and disappointment. Enjoy it for what it is and for what you can effect personally.

I don't believe anybody who wants Birmingham to progress wants it to become like Atlanta. IMO, Atlanta is what it is, an oversprawled out mess. To me it seems Charlotte wants to emulate that, and good luck to them with the problems that comes with it. Birmingham can improve on what it has and go in the direction of its own. It is more comparable with cities like Nashville, New Orleans, Memphis, Louisville, Raleigh, Norfolk, Jacksonville, and Richmond, and those are the cities Birmingham should continue to compete with. Birmingham will probably top out at 2 million to 2.5 million, but what can be done first and foremost is improve upon the idea of regionalism amongst its leaders.

[AlabamaGuy2007]

Ah, I once thought as you do... :-)

My best advice in that case (not that you asked) is to move to Atlanta. You can spend the next 40 years wishing, waiting and hoping for Birmingham to convert itself into an smarter, Atlanta-like conurbation or you can experience the one that exists already. Atlanta will not be standing still during this time so the "finish line" will never come. Atlanta will continue to be "the Atlanta" regardless of how many Cheesecake Factories or Urban Outfitters show up in suburban Birmingham. And Birmingham hasn't shown a lot of proclivity to reinvent to my regret.

Most people in Birmingham don't want to live in a city the size of Atlanta, and people who want to live in big cities should go live in big cities we already have in my opinion. It's what I did in any case. Moving to Birmingham in anticipation of what it could be is like marrying someone to change them - doomed to conflict and disappointment. Enjoy it for what it is and for what you can effect personally.

I appreciate your suggestion, but I don't like the idea of living there. Sure, I'd love to live near my aunt in Alpharetta, but, I just couldn't live in an area that large. When you get downtown, Atlanta seems (to me) to lose some of it's "southernness". Birmingham maintains that. That's why I plan to move to the area after college. That is, assuming there's anywhere affordable/safe to live.

[monsoon]

Yea, most Birmingham area residents despise the city of Atlanta. I don't like it either. The main reason that Birmingham isn't anywhere near where it could be is because it's soooo close to Atlanta. Not that Atlanta isn't a bad city, I like the place, but, they're just so close it draws away lots of business. That's why I tend to call the ATL the "visceral mass."

Maybe it would help to look at Birmingham rather than blame another city for Birmingham's issues. I highly doubt the main reason is where it is, is because Atlanta is so large. And faulting Atlanta for sprawl is a generalization that doesn't make any sense in this regard when you consider that almost all the growth in the Birmingham area is in the suburban counties. If people of Birmingham "despise" Atlanta, then I would say that the attitude behind that leads to decisions that hold the city back from being like the city of Atlanta.

[monsoon]

To me it seems Charlotte wants to emulate that, and good luck to them with the problems that comes with it. Birmingham can improve on what it has and go in the direction of its own. It is more comparable with cities like Nashville, New Orleans, Memphis, Louisville, Raleigh, Norfolk, Jacksonville, and Richmond, and those are the cities Birmingham should continue to compete with. ........

What is your rationale for thinking that Charlotte is developing like Atlanta, and the other cities on your list are not?