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 have to defend Syracuse. I'll concede it may have one of the less desirable locations among major upstate cities, but no way it's anywhere near the least strategic nationwide!
Five most strategically placed major cities:
1. New York City - An important port city that has acted as a gateway to the Americas in just about every way imaginable since its founding. It is perfectly anchors the northeast, allowing not only the city itself to thrive, but for the surrounding areas to build off of that success. Perfectly connected to the nation by road, rail and sea, as well as to Europe via the Atlantic and air. The center of the universe is a deserving nickname for a reason.
2. Philadelphia - Centrally located amongst the BosWash cities and another well connected metropolitan area.
3. Chicago - A wonderful setting on the Great Lakes allows the city to act as a keystone, wrapping an arc of influence across the Midwest.
4. Los Angeles - While it may not have the perfect climate, it enjoys a very good one as well as an even better setting with the Pacific Ocean, California's diverse geographic regions, other population centers on the West Coast and Mexico's close proximity, building a bridge to Latin America.
5. Miami - A beautiful climate and gateway to Latin America, especially the Caribbean. Tons of renewable energy resources.
Some other cities I feel you could consider depending on the criteria include Boston, Providence, St. Louis and Seattle.
Five least strategically placed major US cities:
1. Phoenix - A big, unappealing city in the desert with an unbearable climate and isolation from any other major population center in North America. Arguably the worst air quality in the nation with few natural resources to compensate. They have fake lawns. 'Nuff said.
2. Las Vegas - See above, but with a slightly more appealing setting and closer to SoCal.
3. Juneau - I know I'm stretching the definition of a major city, but as a state capital and important metro of its region, the location, while visibly stunning, is insanely isolated, subject to natural disasters (avalanches and earthquakes) and counter productive to modern civilization. No roads to the outside world!
4. Atlanta - Isolated from other population centers. No navigable water within city limits.
5. Salt Lake City - I understand the economic upside, but it's another isolated city incredibly far removed from any other major area. Big enough to stand on its own, but not big enough to make up for its lack of neighbors. SLC just feels lonely.
. Phoenix isn't that isolated. It's 5 hours from LA and 4 hours from Vegas. Stop acting like Phoenix is a 1000 miles from the coast. Denver is way more isolated from major population centers than Phoenix
1. Denver
2. Miami
3. Los Angeles
4. Seattle
5. Chicago
LEAST:
1. Houston
2. Portland, OR
3. Salt Lake City
4. Phoenix
5. Minneapolis.
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.
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.
He probably thinks that Portland should've be built in Astoria, but actually Portland is the best place for a major city in Oregon, it's on the confluence of the Columbia and Willamette rivers making Portland in-between the ocean and the farming settlements further down river such as Salem and Eugene. (you couldn't go much further east until the dams where built since there were many rapids in the gorge)
People understand we bought 1/3rd of the continental United States as a package deal for New Orleans right? Its not even close #1, they built the city below sea level because its such an important location in the world.
1) New Orleans- End of the Mississippi, whoever controls New Orleans controls a continent
2) NYC- closes city to the largest gap in the Appalachians, allowed the Erie Canal and access to the vast interior
3) Pittsburgh- Natural Resources+ N/S and W river travel
4) Chicago- Located on the Great lakes, and massive transportation hub
5) Atlanta- Geographic center of the south, transportation hub
Least
1) Salt Lake City- Given to the Mormons because basically no one else wanted it
2) Las Vegas- Only exists because of a public works project in the 30s
3) Columbus- just kind of exists because its in the center of the state
4) Indianapolis- same as Columbus
5)Dallas: not a bad location but seems like it could have been anywhere
I thought about including Salt Lake City too. Very random location and isolated. Columbus and Indianapolis are only there because they are in the center of a bunch of arbitrarily-drawn state lines
New Orleans has excellent location for a port, but it is located below sea level in an area that is very very very very hurricane prone, and is surrounded by lakes on all sides. Ideally it should've been built close to where Baton Rouge is now
Why do you mention NOLA's disadvantage as hurricanes and not Miami's? Unlike Miami, New Orleans has the Mississippi River. And midway between South America? Don't see how that matters that much in the grand scheme. It's like saying New Orleans is midway between the East coast and Mexico. So?
Also I think Atlanta's relative distance from big cities is an advantage. It's grown to be very economically powerful without much regional competition, and it's such a crossroad for rail and road, it's certainly not remote.
You'd think that Miami would be a horrible location given the hurricanes, but somehow it has managed to stay out of the direct hits. Maybe because Miami has the Bahamas to the east and Cuba to the west, both of which shred a bit off the hurricanes. Whereas New Orleans and Texas have nothing but open waters, so there is nothing to weaken the hurricane once it enters the gulf
And being midway to South America is very important. Means that it's an entry point for South Americans who want to come to the US, and the opposite too. It is no coincidence that Miami has large Colombian, Cuban, Venezuelan, and Brazilian communities. Lots of South Americans also shop in Miami in order to buy American goods and bring them back to their home countries. If you live in Miami travel to South America is very cheap and affordable
1. Denver
2. Miami
3. Los Angeles
4. Seattle
5. Chicago
LEAST:
1. Houston
2. Portland, OR
3. Salt Lake City
4. Phoenix
5. Minneapolis.
Don't understand how Houston is even mentioned on least strategically placed cities. It's centrally located in the US on the bay to build a port and not to far from Latin America. Flooding problems lately are more of terrible urban planning but it is a great spot to build a city.
You'd think that Miami would be a horrible location given the hurricanes, but somehow it has managed to stay out of the direct hits. Maybe because Miami has the Bahamas to the east and Cuba to the west, both of which shred a bit off the hurricanes. Whereas New Orleans and Texas have nothing but open waters, so there is nothing to weaken the hurricane once it enters the gulf
And being midway to South America is very important. Means that it's an entry point for South Americans who want to come to the US, and the opposite too. It is no coincidence that Miami has large Colombian, Cuban, Venezuelan, and Brazilian communities. Lots of South Americans also shop in Miami in order to buy American goods and bring them back to their home countries. If you live in Miami travel to South America is very cheap and affordable
Miami gets hammered by hurricanes watcha mean? LOL
Miami has more connections to the Caribbean than South America though, and that is only relevant in present day, historically it had no relevance to Miami. Key West has a more historic strategic point.
There are locations based on geography/topography that literally demand a great city be located there.
There are other locations that leave one scratching his head and wondering WTF is a city doing here? It makes no sense.
Your challenge, should you opt to accept it, is to make two lists, each with five major cities. The first list would be your five most strategically placed major US cities in order. Your second list obviously will be your five least strategically placed major US cities, also in order.
Commentary why you chose these ten is,of course, desirable
And feel free to copy and paste this template
Five most strategically placed major cities
1
2
3
4
5
Five least strategically placed major US cities
1
2
3
4
5
Five most strategically placed major cities
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.
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.
