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.
What do you think are the top three U.S. cities (metros) that are most defined by their geography? Another way of asking the question is what cities would be most different if they were taken out of their geographical setting?
I am defining geography broadly to include climate and natural hazards like earthquakes and hurricanes.
Criteria to consider are economy, culture, and urban design.
Examples of the above that I'm looking for:
Economy: Los Angeles and Seattle are both reliant to some degree on deep-sea port access for trade, which of course would be impossible if they were not located on bodies of water.
Culture: The beach culture of Miami and the island culture of Honolulu.
Urban design: Portland and Pittsburgh have a lot of bridges because they have multiple rivers running through them. San Francisco is dense because it's surrounded by water and hills.
The three I picked:
1. Honolulu. Economy is based on tourism (beaches). Island and beach bum culture. Dense because the metro is confined to an island.
2. San Francisco. Urban design is built around hills (I.E. cable cars) and water (ferries and bridges).
3. Los Angeles. Beach and surfing culture revolve around the ocean and sunny weather. Urban design = sprawl, lots of flat land to build upon. Economy = ports.
What are your top three?
I left off Atlanta, Dallas, some midwestern cities just because I didn't want the poll to be too crowded (hehe), but write-in candidates are perfectly acceptable.
Manhattan is completely a product of its island.
Chicago is a product of Lake Michigan.
Miami is a product of Biscayne Bay and the Atlantic Ocean.
Cities along the Fall Line (where the Piedmont meets the Coastal Plain) are all products of the fact that travel by boat was limited by the rapids they encountered.
Cities along the Mississippi River are products of the that vast travel route.
I could go on and on. It seems to me that many, many cities are products of their geographies.
What do you think are the top three U.S. cities (metros) that are most defined by their geography? Another way of asking the question is what cities would be most different if they were taken out of their geographical setting?
I am defining geography broadly to include climate and natural hazards like earthquakes and hurricanes.
Criteria to consider are economy, culture, and urban design.
Examples of the above that I'm looking for:
Economy: Los Angeles and Seattle are both reliant to some degree on deep-sea port access for trade, which of course would be impossible if they were not located on bodies of water.
Culture: The beach culture of Miami and the island culture of Honolulu.
Urban design: Portland and Pittsburgh have a lot of bridges because they have multiple rivers running through them. San Francisco is dense because it's surrounded by water and hills.
The three I picked:
1. Honolulu. Economy is based on tourism (beaches). Island and beach bum culture. Dense because the metro is confined to an island.
2. San Francisco. Urban design is built around hills (I.E. cable cars) and water (ferries and bridges).
3. Los Angeles. Beach and surfing culture revolve around the ocean and sunny weather. Urban design = sprawl, lots of flat land to build upon. Economy = ports.
What are your top three?
I left off Atlanta, Dallas, some midwestern cities just because I didn't want the poll to be too crowded (hehe), but write-in candidates are perfectly acceptable.
Well thought-out & I agree with your choices. Honolulu is most defined by it's geography since industry doesn't really exist & agriculture isn't that big. San Francisco is half-way between all-tourist Honolulu & the commerce of Los Angeles.
I picked New York (crowded port city built on islands), San Francisco (crowded port city built on a peninsula) and Chicago (major transportation city near the center of the country) as probably the best examples. If I had two more choices, I would pick Miami and New Orleans.
I picked New York (crowded port city built on islands), San Francisco (crowded port city built on a peninsula) and Chicago (major transportation city near the center of the country) as probably the best examples. If I had two more choices, I would pick Miami and New Orleans.
Also, why did you forget Pittsburgh with its rivers and hills?!?
St. Louis -- at the confluence of the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers (and Illinois River close by) the "Lion of the Valley' located near the prehistoric metropolis of Cahokia
Albuquerque -- High desert meets the mountains at the Rio Grande Rift...three cultures tied to history and geography
Salt Lake City -- duh...Salt Lake
Mobile -- it's on Mobile Bay
Baltimore -- sea port on Chesapeake Bay and immigration entry point
Niagara Falls -- there's a big waterfall there and the Niagara gorge and it's a border city with Canada
SF: goes without saying and one of the first cities to come to mind on this topic. A city set on a narrow peninsula with rolling hills. It's a city so tied to its physical space both structurally and culturally.
Seattle: much like SF, it's a city set on a narrow isthmus, bordered to the West by the Puget Sound and to the East by Lake Washington, with a partially man-made canal cutting through the center, and natural freshwater lakes located in various points in the city. Very steep hills, bluffs overlooking the Sound, and rocky beaches. Seattle's geography is truly beautiful.
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.