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.
I like the concept of the thread, but the issue is that what's strategic or not can vary heavily from era-to-era.
For example, the advent of railroads made it such that inland cities like Atlanta with no navigable ports to the ocean still served as strategic locations. Or advancements in wind/flood proofing technology can end up eliminating the hurricane threat posed for places like Miami.
How are Minneapolis and Portland not strategic? Both are on rivers, Minneapolis on the Mississippi for Christ sakes. Also Minneapolis was built in the only spot in the river to have natural waterfalls allowing for the city to have a booming milling industry. Again, I am not seeing the lack of strategy there, unless you think it's simply "too far north" too which I can easily say "Miami is too far south". Portland is also close enough to Seattle and has river access to the ocean. Don't get the disadvantage. The only thing linking those two cities is how far north (and in Portland's case, west as well) and that isn't an actual disadvantage.
Minneapolis because it started itself off as an offshoot of immigrants from Chicago to pursue farming and manufacturing - the Fortune 500 companies came later. The climate up there is less than ideal as well.
As far as Portland goes, it's a city that has always tried to ride the coattails of Seattle, and only recently has been blowing up with transplants. It's importance on the West Coast is tiny compared to the other major metro areas.
Least:
Philadelphia
Baltimore
Fort Worth
New Orleans
Tacoma
What makes Tacoma not strategic? It has a larger port than Seattle does, also the Puget sound is kind of unique in the US being such a large, deep, and long inlet that is very well protected from the ocean. The average depth of the Puget sound is 450ft compared to San Francisco bay 20-50ft and Chesapeake bay 21-46 ft.
What makes Tacoma not strategic? It has a larger port than Seattle does, also the Puget sound is kind of unique in the US being such a large, deep, and long inlet that is very well protected from the ocean. The average depth of the Puget sound is 450ft compared to San Francisco bay 20-50ft and Chesapeake bay 21-46 ft.
Tacoma is an iffy choice in some ways I agree but I put it in the least strategic category becoz it lost out on Alpha City of its region to Seattle. All my other "least" choices are similar except for New Orleans, which I listed becoz of Katrina. Philadelphia plays second fiddle to New York, Baltimore to DC, and Fort Worth to Dallas.
1 New York City: Nestled between the Hudson River and the East River, at a harbor where both meet the Atlantic Ocean, New York City is the ultimate center of commerce for its strategic location in relation to other city centers in the Middle Atlantic and New England states, and is the economic powerhouse for the United States.
2 Chicago: Historically the railroad capital of America, Chicago was and is the hub for Midwestern commerce. Located at the point where the Illinois River and Great Lakes meet, this is the place where commerce and trade for commodities and exchange industries happens.
3 Boston: Located on a bay at the mouth of the Charles River, this is the City on a Hill that John Winthrop referred to, had
4 Washington, D.C: Home of the U.S. Naval Yards, the U.S. federal government, and the Federal Reserve system, this place is very centrally located being on the north side of the tidewater of the Potomac.
5 San Francisco: Largest city on the largest bay system on the West Coast, this is the center of Venture capital, and the high-tech industry is easily located mostly within the MSA or CSA.
Five least strategically placed major US cities
1 Juneau: This one's a stretch to call it a major city, but it's literally the most isolated state capital in America. No outside Roads!
2 Las Vegas: Basically, other than the fact that it's on a rail line to Los Angeles, it's in a flat, high desert nowhere near the sea.
3 Phoenix: Nowhere near anything except the Grand Canyon and maybe the Mexican Border.
4 Tallahassee: this place is located in the Gulf Coastal Plain, in an area with no oil anywhere nearby, without a navigable river that empties into any major port city, with only one railroad going through the whole town East to West.
5 Indianapolis. No Navigable Rivers, no natural resources except farm commodities.
Tallahassee is far from a major city. It was chosen as the capital because it was midway between Florida's two most important cities, St Augustine and Pensacola.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,175,298 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjv007
Tacoma is an iffy choice in some ways I agree but I put it in the least strategic category becoz it lost out on Alpha City of its region to Seattle. All my other "least" choices are similar except for New Orleans, which I listed becoz of Katrina. Philadelphia plays second fiddle to New York, Baltimore to DC, and Fort Worth to Dallas.
The latter two have more to do with historical factors than geography, really. New York City really only left the Philadelphia metropolitan area behind due to the construction of the Erie Canal, which allowed it access to the Great Lakes region (and obscene profits/population growth). Its location directly on the Atlantic (and its deep harbor) is the only geographic advantage it has over Philly, which also lies on a major river with direct access to the sea and has a milder climate. Baltimore is actually way better positioned geographically than D.C. is, with much easier access to Chesapeake Bay, and thus the Atlantic. D.C.'s growth and subsequent surpassing of Baltimore really has nothing to do with geography. Dallas has no distinguishable geographic advantage over Fort Worth, as both lie in the Trinity River's watershed, which has no navigable link to the ocean.
Last edited by qworldorder; 09-23-2017 at 04:49 PM..
Jacksonville and Pensacola in the 1800's. Also it was mid way between the majority of 19th century Florida's population (remember, much of central and south Florida is naturally a swamp). So, Tallahassee WAS a VERY strategic location when it was chosen as the capital city in the sunshine state.
Tallahassee is far from a major city. It was chosen as the capital because it was midway between Florida's two most important cities, St Augustine and Pensacola.
I know. My original post was to say that it's one of the most un-strategically placed state capitals. It's really only a major city in the sense of it being a state capital for the largest state by population in the Southeast and 3rd most populous state.
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.
