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.
On the East Coast, I always wondered how Philadelphia got to be such a large important city what with not being on the ocean. I think the answer is similar to Portland's--it has good water access to the ocean without having to be located on it.
On a smaller scale, Rochester is usually considered a Great Lakes city, and even has a port on Lake Ontario, but the city developed several miles further south of the Lake around the waterfalls of the Genessee River, its industrial nexus. Its port was a separate town called Charlotte, which was annexed by the city many decades ago. Today, Charlotte is just another city neighborhood.
Good points, but will add one little tweek; Portland is actually mostly on the Willamette, not the Columbia. The north part of town that borders the Columbia is mostly lakes, golf courses, and the airport. The Willamette, and of course, the Columbia, are navigable by ocean going vessels.
The main one being the Columbia which enables the ocean-going vessels to reach Portland... And, yes, most of the actual industry in Portland is on the poor Willamette. Filthy, filthy river.
On the East Coast, I always wondered how Philadelphia got to be such a large important city what with not being on the ocean. I think the answer is similar to Portland's--it has good water access to the ocean without having to be located on it.
Philadelphia's location has a lot to do with A) the land Pennsylvania founder William Penn received from the king and queen of England (i.e. New Jersey and Delaware were not part of that land) and B) the fact that the location where Center City Philadelphia sits is on flat land at the narrowest point between the Delaware and Schuylkill Rivers and is not swampy (i.e. not like where the Delaware and Schuylkill Rivers come together).
Writing that has me thinking about why SF developed in the Bay Area (though its important port was on the bay side of the city) instead of, say, Oakland.
I think the climate where the Bay Area is located was not as harsh at the coast as it was further north, plus the eastern part of the Bay Area is not as far inland relatively-speaking as Portland, Seattle-Tacoma, and Vancouver are (and it also was not protected by mountains, unlike the cities further north).
05-10-2010, 09:32 PM
Status:
"From 31 to 41 Countries Visited: )"
(set 8 days ago)
4,640 posts, read 13,920,579 times
Reputation: 4052
I agree Portland, Oregon is beautiful but Seattle seems much more beautiful and iconic to me for the natural landscapes and urban landscapes. From Portland, you can see only Mount Hood, and barely. From Seattle, you can see parts of two different mountains ranges(at least 20 mountains) on two different sides, as well as Mount Rainier, and much more water around it with the semi-oceanic Puget sound. Seattle also seems to have better urban landscapes to me than Portland. This is true even if Portland Oregon was built right along the Pacific Ocean. Seattle where it is still would have better scenery to me. As well as Vancouver, Canada. I still liked Portland, though! Just not nearly as much as Seattle and Vancouver BC. Seattle and Vancouver seems like cities to me while Portland Oregon seems like a very nice large town.
I agree with what others are saying about why Portland wasnt built on the Pacific Ocean itself. I wouldnt call the weather "nasty" though. It is rainier and windier most of the time on the coast itself than in the inland area Portland is in which is also why it couldnt be built over there. Portland gets like 35-45 inches of precipitation per year while the coast itself gets 80 inches- 140 inches+ Usually the coast gets Portlands yearly precipitation in like 4 months. Also, not any big enough areas for a port, the oregon coast mountain range is fun but "difficult" for road access, and the coast gets slightly cooler temperatures than the inland locations. The coast can have subarctic temperatures in the summer(40s to 60s)! I wouldnt say the weather in this region is particularly bad though, and actually lots of nice things about it.(Usually no extreme temperatures below 30 degrees or above 85, usually no drought conditions, good air and water quality a lot of the time, no thunderstorms almost all the time, no tornadoes, or hurricanes, lush and green landscapes).
Most of America has to deal with horrible weather like that while the PCNW doesnt. Ill take some clouds over hurricanes, thunderstorms, tornadoes, below 30 degrees or above 85 degrees, bad air and water quality, lack of green and trees, and drought.
I know this is an old thread but why didn't a major port city develop in Grays Harbor? Aberdeen is already one of the largest, if not the largest city within 20 miles of the coast with a 2014 est. pop of 16,255 and if you add Hoquiam and Cosmopolis it becomes 26,233 and back in 1930 these three cities had a combined pop of 36,432. And today Grays Harbor County has a population of 70,818. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grays_...ty,_Washington Also the Chehalis river that flows into the Grays Harbor gives access to Lewis county with a population of 75,128 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_County,_Washington
Compared to the cities of Coos Bay, North Bend, Bunker Hill, Barview have a combined pop of 28,870 and this is the largest it has ever been, and Coos county has a population of 62,475 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coos_County,_Oregon
So why didn't a major port city of at least the size of tacoma develop in Grey Harbor? Also it's very possible that "Seattle" would've been on the the northern coast of the olympic peninsula. The developers of Port Townsend were planning to make it the largest port of the west coast of the US and Port Angeles was the only city besides Washington D.C to be planned and built by the federal government. And this area has the calmest climate in all of western WA. However their plans failed because the northern Pacific failed to connect port townsend to the rest of the state and instead Tacoma and Seattle took its place. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Townsend,_Washington https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Angeles,_Washington
I'm also quite surprised how small Astoria is, only 9,521 people.
I know this is an old thread but why didn't a major port city develop in Grays Harbor? Aberdeen is already one of the largest, if not the largest city within 20 miles of the coast with a 2014 est. pop of 16,255 and if you add Hoquiam and Cosmopolis it becomes 26,233 and back in 1930 these three cities had a combined pop of 36,432. And today Grays Harbor County has a population of 70,818. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grays_...ty,_Washington Also the Chehalis river that flows into the Grays Harbor gives access to Lewis county with a population of 75,128 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_County,_Washington
Compared to the cities of Coos Bay, North Bend, Bunker Hill, Barview have a combined pop of 28,870 and this is the largest it has ever been, and Coos county has a population of 62,475 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coos_County,_Oregon
So why didn't a major port city of at least the size of tacoma develop in Grey Harbor? Also it's very possible that "Seattle" would've been on the the northern coast of the olympic peninsula. The developers of Port Townsend were planning to make it the largest port of the west coast of the US and Port Angeles was the only city besides Washington D.C to be planned and built by the federal government. And this area has the calmest climate in all of western WA. However their plans failed because the northern Pacific failed to connect port townsend to the rest of the state and instead Tacoma and Seattle took its place. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Townsend,_Washington https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Angeles,_Washington
I'm also quite surprised how small Astoria is, only 9,521 people.
The terrain around Grays Harbor seems quite mountainous, with Aberdeen being a very small nugget of flatter land pushed against the water by mountains to the north. I suppose if Grays Harbor were to be developed into a highly populated metropolis, it would need to be a linear metro region built around where State Route 8 and 12 run today. But in terms of develop-friendly land, the Grays Harbor area doesn't really have much room. Just look at a geographic map.
And basically what was most important for any potential big city in the late 1800's was railroad access, and Tacoma was the best location for that. The Tacoma area actually has more ample flat prairie-like land than Seattle and geographically speaking would make for a better location for building a large metropolis due to there being less geographical obstacles as is the case for Seattle. But civilization-building is partly planned and partly just a fluke of random circumstances.
As for Astoria, again look at a geographic map. The terrain surrounding Astoria doesn't lend itself to much development.
The terrain around Grays Harbor seems quite mountainous, with Aberdeen being a very small nugget of flatter land pushed against the water by mountains to the north. I suppose if Grays Harbor were to be developed into a highly populated metropolis, it would need to be a linear metro region built around where State Route 8 and 12 run today. But in terms of develop-friendly land, the Grays Harbor area doesn't really have much room. Just look at a geographic map.
And basically what was most important for any potential big city in the late 1800's was railroad access, and Tacoma was the best location for that. The Tacoma area actually has more ample flat prairie-like land than Seattle and geographically speaking would make for a better location for building a large metropolis due to there being less geographical obstacles as is the case for Seattle. But civilization-building is partly planned and partly just a fluke of random circumstances.
As for Astoria, again look at a geographic map. The terrain surrounding Astoria doesn't lend itself to much development.
Well what about Ocean Shores and the northern shore of north bay as well as west port? that area seems to have enough flat land to support a mid sized city. Also speaking of Astoria I knew it was a small town but I thought it might be something like 20,000 people and not 9.000. Also Astoria could expand into Warrenton and then down the coast to seaside. And what about on the other side of the columbia in Ilwaco, Chinook, and Long Beach?
Astoria gets 95" of rain a year. The average high temp in summer is 66° with an average of 100 days of sun/partly sunny weather. That's why.
Much of the Oregon and Washington coasts (not the Puget Sound which is somewhat in the rain shadow of the Olympics) are the same. Gray's Harbor gets 87" of rain a year.
There are no large cities on the Oregon and Washington coasts in part because of the weather and in part because of the coast range, which is a barrier between the coast and the more populous Willamette Valley. Northern California is also similar. The Oregon coast is a long string of separate, tiny coast towns with the main industries being tourists and retirees.
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.
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.
Ill take some clouds over hurricanes, thunderstorms, tornadoes, below 30 degrees or above 85 degrees, bad air and water quality, lack of green and trees, and drought.
