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.
MN and most of the rural Midwest was settled by Germans and Scandinavians for farming reasons alone. Unlike places like Omaha, Des Moines, Milwaukee etc Minneapolis was the only one that really grew significantly over time. But I don't view it as "strategically placed." Not to mention the fact that a lot of people who live there are natives - it's not that appealing to many unless you're from these rural areas or Wisconsin.
Well, if you knew anything about Minneapolis, which apparently you do not based on every word in your post, Minneapolis is where it is precisely because of the large natural water falls (St. Anthony Falls) located near the head of navigation of the largest river in North America (the Mississippi). This was the reason that it became the milling capital of the world. It was also the location for the first bridge across the Mississippi. If that is not strategically placed, I don't know what is.
Curious to know why Baltimore and Philly are not strategic.
My list didn't really answer the OP's criteria of locational advantages and disadvantages in a geographic context. I was more thinking along the lines of advantageously located cities being able to dominate their respective regions. Hence why I included Boston, Denver, and Chicago. Similarly, I listed Philly and Baltimore as disadvantageously located because if one looks at cities across the world, major cities in close proximity to one another nearly always have an alpha and Philly and Baltimore clearly are not. Yes, access to these other major cities (New York and DC) can also be seen as something of a blessing but on a larger scale it's more of a curse. That being said, this doesn't address the geographic element because I misinterpreted the OP's question. That's my bad. Hope the explanation makes sense though.
This is one of the most simplistic, inaccurate posts I have ever seen here. Your comments about the second group of cities is laughable, and all of them with the exception of Vegas have been booming since WWII.
Atlanta & Dallas/Ft. Worth are among the fastest growing Metro's in the U.S. in both corporate relocations/expansions and population, and they both dwarf the Twin Cities in importance. Charlotte isn't too far behind. You are clearly biased, or simply don't know what you are talking about.
JMatl, I think perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying in my list, and your comment sheds no light on strategic placement of cities which is the whole point of this thread. I was precisely saying that all of these cities on the second list have been booming since WWII, as a result of shifting economics and technologies. The reason I believe they are not strategically placed is because they grew into the major population centers they are today only after exact locations didn't matter as much. It seems any of these cities could have been built 30 miles from where they are today and it would have made little difference, which is why I don't classify them as strategically placed.
The strategic locations of cities has a bit to do with the evolution of transportation.
From the beginning of urban societies thousands of years ago to the 3rd quarter of the 19th century (1860s, 1870s), transportation was heavily dependent on waterways - it was the cheapest means to travel and move goods. This is evident by the locations of the largest cities in the United States in the mid 1800s (New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Cincinnati, Baltimore, New Orleans, Pittsburgh, etc.).
New Orleans, Chicago, and New York are perhaps among the most strategic cities on America's waterways. New Orleans is at the mouth of the Mississippi river, Chicago is situated at the continental divide between both the Mississippi watershed and the Great Lakes watershed, and New York (with the construction of the Erie canal) was the most important east coast port from which the commodities of America's interior passed through to Europe.
This relief map of North America (1927) in the lobby of the Tribune Tower in downtown Chicago highlights the important watersheds of the continent.
The advent of railroads in the mid 19th century and the Jet Age in the mid 20th century was a HUGE game changer for cities because rails and freight/commercial airports can be built anywhere. For example, the junction between important rail roads became a strategic area for settlements that would later grow into large cities (e.g. Atlanta and Dallas).
Below is a really informative clip on Chicago's natural geographic advantages and how the city maintained it's economic importance throughout the evolution of America's transportation network.
I present day context Dallas is a corporate HQ magnet because of it's central location.
If/when Texas's corporate welfare teat dries up, the relos will slow down considerably. I'm gonna laugh when the demographic shifts caused by those moves turn Texas purple.
Thinking regionally, nationally, and internationally:
NYC
New Orleans
San Francisco
San Diego
Chicago
Honolulu and Seattle are also important, but I chose San Diego because it has the border and it has a deep natural harbor that is the closest to the Panama Canal and the rest of the Americas. I think an argument could be made for any of these cities. I know Atlanta's history (and the current prominence as an airport hub), but I also feel that the specific settlement site of Atlanta wasn't notably critical. It simply became strategic over time as more railroads linked up with the city. The "Terminus" could have just as well been in Duluth or an adjacent area. The original settlement wasn't particularly strategic, at least in the same sense as SF, NOLA, Chicago, NYC, SD being major ports along deep(ish) harbors and important for defense.
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.
Even though Seattle won out, I think it had less to do with geography and more to do with city leadership, Tacoma failed to realize how significant of an economic driver the Klondike gold rush would be, while Seattle was very aggressive in their advertisement campaign. Geographically I think Tacoma has the more strategic place, particularly for building a major city/metro area. Seattle is constrained by water on all sides, while Tacoma doesn't really have that problem and can spread out.
For instance the northern and southern borders of Seattle are about 9 miles away from downtown, if we were to include the cities that are mostly within a 9 mile radius of downtown Tacoma (on the eastern side of the Puget sound only) it would include the cities/communities of Tacoma, Federal Way, Lakewood, Waller, Edgewood, University Place, Parkland, Fife, Summit, Lakeland South, Midland, Milton, Fircrest, and Ruston. Combined this gives a land area of 145.95 sq mi, versus Seattle's 83.99 sq mi. Currently this Greater Tacoma has a population of about 520,402 people. If it had the same density as Seattle it would have 1,309,666 people, versus Seattle's population of 753,675.
On top of that, since Tacoma has a bridge over the narrows at point defiance, Tacoma has access to Kitsap for bedroom communities. This would mean that a metro area based in Tacoma would include 5 counties (Pierce, King, Thurston, Kitsap and Manson), versus the 3 that Seattle has (King, Pierce and Snohomish). Now this Tacoma metro area would end up having a little less land area (5,862 sq mi) than Seattle's (5,873 sq mi), however about half of Seattle's metro land area is made up of unhospitable mountains. So to estimate how populace this Tacoma metro area could be I swaped the densities for Pierce and King, then I divided Pierce's and Snohomish's land area in half to approximately find the hospitable density and applied that figure to Thurston and Kitsap counties, and also applied it to Mason county but with half the land area, since about half of Mason is in the Olympics. And so this estimate ends up being 4,512,991 people, versus Seattle's current metro population of 3,979,845.
County | estimated population | current population
Pierce | 1,777,952 | 904,980
King | 1,146,669 | 2,252,782
Thurston | 782,510 | 290,536
Kitsap | 428,104 | 271,473
Manson | 377,756 | 66,768
And as I said earlier to this day Tacoma has the larger/busier port. In 2013 port of Tacoma had a total trade cargo volume of 22,905,704 short tons, compared to Seattle's 20,563,501 short tons. And if Tacoma had become the major city I would imagine that Tacoma's port would end up being even larger/busier, especially since Seattle had to build an artificial island to build it's port, while Tacoma has much larger tidelands that can incorporate a much larger port than it currently holds if needed.
Last edited by grega94; 11-03-2020 at 02:12 AM..
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.
