why are there NO major cities in N Cal? (Los Angeles: centers, agriculture)

[soonmoving1]

why are there NO major cities in N Cal? It is inhabitable, there are cities, further north (portland, Seattle, Vvancouver, Anchorage)

[CAVA1990]

What's your definition of major? Wouldn't SF count?

[soonmoving1]

please tell me, how many miles, from SF to the top of the state...

[EscapeCalifornia]

The same reason the big cities are where they are: History.

[NewToCA]

Originally Posted by CAVA1990

What's your definition of major? Wouldn't SF count?

Well, if you take a look at the area north of metro Sacramento, drawing a straight line across the state, there is an area somewhat larger than the entire state of Ohio. This area has only about a million people.

So the thread originator has a legitimate question.

[soonmoving1]

yes legitimate, i have driven thru the entire length of CA. I am one to know...

[.highnlite]

The first question that must be answered is; why does a city exist? Take a look at a map of California and you will see that historically the major cities were on or near a harbor or navigable river, and served a market, that is people who required goods and services.
Los Angeles is an odd exception in that it was not on a harbor. Los Angeles remained a town of minor importance until wharves were built at Santa Monica, and gold was discovered at Cerro Gordo, it is said that the Cerro Gordo mines built Los Angeles.

Northern California has few (like 1) natural harbor, at Eureka, but even it could not handle large ocean going ships as the bar was shallow.

The port that handled cargo for most of Northern California was Sacramento, served by steam river boats.

Early American Immigration into California was concentrated in central California because of the location of the Mother Lode. The decision by Southern Pacific to extend rails south from Sacramento into the Central Valley played huge part in settling the San Joaquin Valley

Agriculture in the Sacramento was not sufficient persuade SP to run the rail road north, which served to stunt northern California growth further.

The above is a quick over view providing a quick answer to your question.

The end result has given us an area about the size of the State of Ohio with no more than a million people compared to Ohio's roughly 5 million people.

[RCLL]

Originally Posted by soonmoving1

why are there NO major cities in N Cal? It is inhabitable, there are cities, further north (portland, Seattle, Vvancouver, Anchorage)

California is a huge state. Give it time, as the population increases, places like Santa Rosa will become major cities. Keep your shirt on.

[.highnlite]

Originally Posted by CAVA1990

What's your definition of major? Wouldn't SF count?

I for one, do not consider San Francisco northern CA. It is the Bay area, which blends from central CA on the south to Northern CA on the north.

please tell me, how many miles, from SF to the top of the state..

.

As the crow flies, 300 miles.

[StandingLenticular]

Because it's a horrible horrible place. Nothing to see here.

J/K

Realistically, there are a few reasons:
1. Check out the topo maps of Mendocino, Trinity, Humboldt, Del Norte, Shasta, Lassen, Plumas, and Siskiyou counties. Where are you going to put a major city? It's very tough terrain for infrastructure.

2. Distance from trade routes/economic centers. By rail and by sea. Once again, see topography.

3. Major flat areas of Northern California are dominated by agriculture. Many cities have ordinances in place to preserve arable land for agriculture, preventing the sprawl that less fertile areas like the Bay Area and So Cal valleys have.