This article is particularly interesting as I am currently living in Upstate NY exploring the Erie Canal and understanding how all the cities were built along its path (Syracuse, Rochester etc).
Today we are taught that the Robber Barons were an awful breed of people but without them and men like them even today, we would all be worse off for it.
Cornelius Vanderbilt built the New York Central Railroad, which became one of the largest and most profitable railroads in the United States. The New York Central Railroad helped to connect the East Coast with the Midwest, which helped to boost economic growth in both regions.
This article filled in some blanks for me, how the Ohio Erie Canal and the Miami Erie Canal fit into the big picture, connecting most of Ohio to NY and the Atlantic, as well as connecting the East to the West using the Ohio River along Ohio's southern border.
There was a race. Any state that could wanted to connect to the vast American hinterland in the early 19th century, so not only NYS but also PA tried to connect to the Great Lakes and Maryland tried to connect Baltimore to the Ohio river (and then the vast Mississippi watershed). But the Appalachians there are and were much harder to cut through.
Though the Baltimore and Ohio railroad was eventually launched. The B&O is one of the historic railroads in American history. The song "John Henry" was about a guy who worked on the B&O and died.
Aug 10, 2023·edited Sep 15, 2023Liked by Tomas Pueyo
Uh, the Appalachian mountains are much harder to build/cut through than the Mohawk Valley so the Erie Cannal was built first. That's 1.
2. You can just transport bigger ships along the Great Lakes and it connects more. The Ohio River does connect with the Mississippi but there are falls/rapids along the Ohio that have to be traversed between where the Mississippi and Ohio meet and where the Ohio and B&O meet. Part of the reason why St. Louis lost out to Chicago as capital of the Midwest as well.
Scintillating article, Tomas. Interesting to see that geography underpins economic development this extensively -- not just based on latitudes and weather patterns, but also based on terrestrial formations. Even more interesting to note that our efforts to exploit this reality were limited to the technological prowess of the time.
see if this link works. A lot of fun to watch, every border tells a story about natural resources, slavery, rivers, mountains, trains, politicking etc.
We hear about these places and visit them, oblivious of why they got there, and we forget why things are the way they are. These deep dives feel to me a bit like I imagine middle-ages scholars rediscovering the wisdom of the Ancients
This is really interesting! One thing I'm curious about is the how / when cities can "stack" growth levers over time vs. riding and dying based on one factor - for example, the Eire canal was probably not cost competitive vs. railroads by the early 20th century (or at least its advantage substantially eroded) but NYC continued to grow by huge amounts. Would be really interesting to see a comparison of growth over time for seeming similar cities for some of these articles!
Marketplaces have network effects, so if you are one, you are incentivized to invest as much as possible in developing that.
This usually means transportation between regions. The bigger the region, the more valuable. For example, Madrid was a trade hub for spain as it centralized a lot of roads, railroads, and highways. With the airport though, it then went for the position of hub for Europe vs LatAm.
Conversely, industries don’t have these network effects. The result is if you specialize too much, you might suffer when your industry does, like Pittsburgh with the end of coal and steel. The antidote to that is just to try growing as much as you can, because with size comes diversification, and with that strength. This is another reason why city population sizes follow a power law.
This article is particularly interesting as I am currently living in Upstate NY exploring the Erie Canal and understanding how all the cities were built along its path (Syracuse, Rochester etc).
Each one has its own reason to be, rooted in Geography!
Geography yes and access to a water source as you pointed out in other articles
Today we are taught that the Robber Barons were an awful breed of people but without them and men like them even today, we would all be worse off for it.
Cornelius Vanderbilt built the New York Central Railroad, which became one of the largest and most profitable railroads in the United States. The New York Central Railroad helped to connect the East Coast with the Midwest, which helped to boost economic growth in both regions.
I think the next level of question is:
Would these have happened without them? If so, what share of the accrued value should they have captured?
This article filled in some blanks for me, how the Ohio Erie Canal and the Miami Erie Canal fit into the big picture, connecting most of Ohio to NY and the Atlantic, as well as connecting the East to the West using the Ohio River along Ohio's southern border.
That’s right! You don’t have cities like Columbus, Pittsburgh, or Cleveland without Chicago and New York
But Montréal is still the north-est container port for Chicago.
You’re going to love the premium article coming on Tuesday
(Or hate it!)
It helps that Canada and the US are no longer at war...
There was a song about the Erie Canal we used to sing--'I've got a mule, name is Sal/15 miles on the Erie Canal..,'
Oh fascinating!
There was a race. Any state that could wanted to connect to the vast American hinterland in the early 19th century, so not only NYS but also PA tried to connect to the Great Lakes and Maryland tried to connect Baltimore to the Ohio river (and then the vast Mississippi watershed). But the Appalachians there are and were much harder to cut through.
Though the Baltimore and Ohio railroad was eventually launched. The B&O is one of the historic railroads in American history. The song "John Henry" was about a guy who worked on the B&O and died.
Why didn't Baltimore compete more with NY then? Do you know?
Maybe reaching the Ohio River was not enough?
Maybe the railroad was much more expensive per ton?
Uh, the Appalachian mountains are much harder to build/cut through than the Mohawk Valley so the Erie Cannal was built first. That's 1.
2. You can just transport bigger ships along the Great Lakes and it connects more. The Ohio River does connect with the Mississippi but there are falls/rapids along the Ohio that have to be traversed between where the Mississippi and Ohio meet and where the Ohio and B&O meet. Part of the reason why St. Louis lost out to Chicago as capital of the Midwest as well.
Congrats on making it into the Morning Brew - more distribution... more network effects!
Hahaha I didn’t know. Thanks for letting me know!
Scintillating article, Tomas. Interesting to see that geography underpins economic development this extensively -- not just based on latitudes and weather patterns, but also based on terrestrial formations. Even more interesting to note that our efforts to exploit this reality were limited to the technological prowess of the time.
Hope to visit New York someday!
A pleasure. Tomas, have you see the series, "How The States Got Their Shapes"?
No, tell me more!
see if this link works. A lot of fun to watch, every border tells a story about natural resources, slavery, rivers, mountains, trains, politicking etc.
https://www.amazon.com/How-States-Their-Shapes-Season/dp/B004Z4QUB0
Saw a couple on YT. Not bad! Thanks!
Don't cheat yourself, they are all entertaining but maybe only to an American.
Great article. Love the data visuals. How it got big is a fascinating story. I often have wondered why is it still big.
Isn’t it fascinating?!
We hear about these places and visit them, oblivious of why they got there, and we forget why things are the way they are. These deep dives feel to me a bit like I imagine middle-ages scholars rediscovering the wisdom of the Ancients
This is really interesting! One thing I'm curious about is the how / when cities can "stack" growth levers over time vs. riding and dying based on one factor - for example, the Eire canal was probably not cost competitive vs. railroads by the early 20th century (or at least its advantage substantially eroded) but NYC continued to grow by huge amounts. Would be really interesting to see a comparison of growth over time for seeming similar cities for some of these articles!
Interesting! I might look into such a chart.
So, on the question:
Marketplaces have network effects, so if you are one, you are incentivized to invest as much as possible in developing that.
This usually means transportation between regions. The bigger the region, the more valuable. For example, Madrid was a trade hub for spain as it centralized a lot of roads, railroads, and highways. With the airport though, it then went for the position of hub for Europe vs LatAm.
Conversely, industries don’t have these network effects. The result is if you specialize too much, you might suffer when your industry does, like Pittsburgh with the end of coal and steel. The antidote to that is just to try growing as much as you can, because with size comes diversification, and with that strength. This is another reason why city population sizes follow a power law.