U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Are river cities "landlocked?"
Of course, what kind of question is this? Who cares about a river? 27 46.55%
No, their location on the water is as significant as any other ocean, lake, etc. 8 13.79%
It's complicated, somewhere between coastal and landlocked 23 39.66%
Voters: 58. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-22-2017, 12:04 PM
 
Location: Point Loma, San Diego, CA
1,307 posts, read 1,104,207 times
Reputation: 1103

Advertisements

Spent the week in Pittsburgh, a city that I"ve seen dismissed/demoted as "landlocked" around here, as I'm sure its counterparts have been also. Raging rivers, boats, bridges, fused into the fabric of the city pretty much everywhere in this "landlocked" city. Meanwhile, downtown Los Angeles is 14 miles inland with almost nothing in sight to indicate it is near water, while claiming "coastal" status.

Is this fair? Are river cities like Pittsburgh and St. Louis more, less, or as significant as Great Lake cities in the context of their location on a waterway?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-22-2017, 12:07 PM
 
29,902 posts, read 27,345,109 times
Reputation: 18439
Landlocked doesn't mean lacking access to water. There are inland bodies of water.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2017, 12:36 PM
 
Location: St. Louis
2,481 posts, read 2,223,791 times
Reputation: 2353
Quote:
Originally Posted by Losfrisco View Post
Spent the week in Pittsburgh, a city that I"ve seen dismissed/demoted as "landlocked" around here, as I'm sure its counterparts have been also. Raging rivers, boats, bridges, fused into the fabric of the city pretty much everywhere in this "landlocked" city. Meanwhile, downtown Los Angeles is 14 miles inland with almost nothing in sight to indicate it is near water, while claiming "coastal" status.

Is this fair? Are river cities like Pittsburgh and St. Louis more, less, or as significant as Great Lake cities in the context of their location on a waterway?
The Mississippi is terribly important to St. Louis, but St. Louis doesn't interact with its riverfront in the same way that a city like Chicago interacts with its riverfront or its lakefront. The Mississippi being an active river in regards to trade, its harsh currents, and general polluted nature make it an undesirable river for pleasure boating in metro St. Louis. St. Louisans generally prefer to take these activities to other rivers in the metro. St. Louis also doesn't have personal use harbors on the Mississippi River in the same way that Chicago has harbors on Lake Michigan and the Chicago River. Additionally, St. Louis lacks the riverwalks that Chicago has on the Chicago River. This probably boils down to the sheer amount of the Mississippi riverfront that's still dominated by industry and barges, and the fact that the Mississippi floods frequently. Due to this, St. Louis doesn't give off nearly the same vibe as Chicago when it comes to waterfronts. For example, in terms of desirable neighborhoods. St. Louis seems to almost entirely disregard its waterfront in favor of a neighborhood like the Central West End that borders the eastern half of Forest Park. In Chicago, some of the most desirable neighborhoods in the city border Lake Michigan.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2017, 12:51 PM
 
Location: Point Loma, San Diego, CA
1,307 posts, read 1,104,207 times
Reputation: 1103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutiny77 View Post
Landlocked doesn't mean lacking access to water. There are inland bodies of water.
Of course. I suppose I meant the word not in its literal sense, but how it's sometimes adopted as a slight to cities not on the ocean.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2017, 12:59 PM
 
Location: East of the Sun, West of the Moon
15,504 posts, read 17,724,856 times
Reputation: 30796
I would say 'landlocked' refers to an area without a coast or seaport. I would make an exception for a city on a tidal estuary, though.

Rivers and canals leading to the ocean or great lakes penetrate 2/3s of the nation, but it would be silly to say that such Midwestern cities are not landlocked just because there is river commerce which ultimately has access to the ocean.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2017, 01:45 PM
 
Location: Cincinnati (Norwood)
3,507 posts, read 3,958,908 times
Reputation: 1850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Losfrisco View Post
Is this fair? Are river cities like Pittsburgh and St. Louis more, less, or as significant as Great Lake cities in the context of their location on a waterway?
This really depends upon what's being measured. For example, while there's little doubt that Chicago, Cleveland and Buffalo's leisure-time usage of their lakes may surpass St. Louis, Pittsburgh and Cincinnati's leisure-time usage of their rivers, that's not the complete picture. For example, in freight tonnage it's often the opposite. Take a look at these statistics, wherein the nation's busiest truly inland river port is actually the Port of Cincinnati/NKY.

https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/r...ble_01_57.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2017, 01:50 PM
 
Location: 352
5,122 posts, read 3,880,627 times
Reputation: 3491
Yes. If you're not on a coast you're landlocked, imo. Especially if you're in a landlocked state. Nashville, Columbia, Memphis, St Louis, Salt Lake, DC, Phily, etc, they're landlocked.

I would not count Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland, Milwaukee, Erie, etc. The Great Lakes are so big they have tides, beaches, and even effect the weather, and they're the size of states themselves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2017, 01:53 PM
 
Location: Point Loma, San Diego, CA
1,307 posts, read 1,104,207 times
Reputation: 1103
Quote:
Originally Posted by motorman View Post
This really depends upon what's being measured. For example, while there's little doubt that Chicago, Cleveland and Buffalo's leisure-time usage of their lakes may surpass St. Louis, Pittsburgh and Cincinnati's leisure-time usage of their rivers, that's not the complete picture. For example, in freight tonnage it's often the opposite. Take a look at these statistics, wherein the nation's busiest truly inland river port is actually the Port of Cincinnati/NKY.

https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/r...ble_01_57.html
This is what I was getting at-the significance of river ports vs. lake ports vs. ocean etc. IIRC, the port of Pittsburgh outranks San Diego in at least a category.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2017, 02:06 PM
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
3,511 posts, read 2,970,647 times
Reputation: 2737
I personally think it's situational, depending on how integrated the water is to the culture of the city, as well as the specific point of access to the ocean and distance from it. There are cities that are on the mouth of rivers or bays/estuaries that lead directly to the ocean, and I wouldn't consider them "landlocked" (because they're not), even though they're not truly "coastal" (beach culture, in addition to ports). "Maritime" I think would be the best descriptor.


As examples, I'm thinking specifically of Wilmington, DE and Baltimore in this region, which are not "coastal" cities in the truest sense, but have strong maritime histories, influence and "feel". Philadelphia I consider also as "maritime" (less so, imo, then either Baltimore or Wilmington, though noticeable), but definitely not "coastal". Washington DC I feel is the real outlier in the region, as it never gives off a maritime feel to me, despite being on the Potamac and Anacostia rivers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2017, 03:54 PM
 
Location: Colorado
390 posts, read 231,559 times
Reputation: 710
Quote:
Originally Posted by motorman View Post
This really depends upon what's being measured. For example, while there's little doubt that Chicago, Cleveland and Buffalo's leisure-time usage of their lakes may surpass St. Louis, Pittsburgh and Cincinnati's leisure-time usage of their rivers, that's not the complete picture. For example, in freight tonnage it's often the opposite. Take a look at these statistics, wherein the nation's busiest truly inland river port is actually the Port of Cincinnati/NKY.

https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/r...ble_01_57.html
Wow, that's an eye-opener. Cincy's port handles almost as much freight tonnage as Los Angeles.

Landlocked - Certainly not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top