Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're right. NYC is situated pretty nicely, with access to a lot. However, personally, I prefer to be in a city somewhat nearer to mountains.
East of the Mississippi River you will not find many large cities closer to mountains than New York. Indeed the Appalachian Trail passes through the northern suburbs of Sussex, Orange and Putnam Counties.
St. Louis I think. We are about as close to geographically centrally located as you can get.
Actually, Kansas City is much closer to the geographic center of the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LINative
East of the Mississippi River you will not find many large cities closer to mountains than New York. Indeed the Appalachian Trail passes through the northern suburbs of Sussex, Orange and Putnam Counties.
Pittsburgh is much closer to the Appalachian Mountains than NYC.
This is the best location in North America. On the Canadian side you have Quebec, Montreal, Ottowa, and Toronto. On the US side you have Boston, Philadelphia, New York, and Washington. They even match up well.
Ottowa - Washington (Capitals)
Quebec - Boston (Historic, Pseudo-European cities)
Toronto - New York (Largest and most significant cities)
Montreal - Philadelphia (Similar size, but not much else. Honestly this one was just process of elimination.)
An ideal place would be in the focal point of this.
Exactly and I hope some companies take notice of this too. I didn't even get into the many colleges within an hour of the area too. So, it would be ideal.
I didn't even realize until recently that it's almost exactly in the middle of two national capitals and the biggest cities of two countries too. It's also almost halfway between one countries' second biggest city and another's 4th biggest city. I also forgot about Quebec City being within 6 hours as well.
It's location on the Great Lakes and access to the Mississippi river via the Chicago River is what caused Chicago to grow so rap;idly in the 1800s. Also, its central location made it the nation's premier railroad hub, and later on one of the world's most important air hubs.
I was thinking about what cities are best situated geographically and why. Here are my (biased) choices.
1. Atlanta: Because it's relatively close to oceans, mountains, Florida and other cites in southeast. Plus it's airport can take you anywhere you want to go!
2. D.C.: Because it's about midway to all in the North East and the Southeast.
3. LA: Very close to ocean, mountains, border and other California cities, with also a lot to do and see within it.
I guess that depends on what you mean by best situated geographically. Geographically, the cities you mentioned are susceptible to hurricanes and tornadoes (Atlanta), flooding due to rising sea levels (DC), earthquakes, forest fires, mudslides (Los Angeles), etc.
Raleigh is midway between South Florida and Maine. It's almost literally in the exact middle of the East Coast and almost equidistant from the ocean and the mountains. It's also just far enough away from I-95 as to not be hasselled by it while remaining convenient to it.
By Air, Raleigh is within about a 90 minute flight (or less) to almost all of Florida, NYC, Boston, Toronto, Chicago, Atlanta, DC, Philly, Detroit, etc.
Dallas - 2-3 hour flight (at most) to any domestic continental destination. An hour or less to the major cities within Texas.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.