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.
My vote goes to St. Louis, at the confluence of the Mississippi and Missouri rivers and right in the geographical center of the lower 48. As water becomes more scarce I could see St. Louis experiencing a dramatic rebirth.
The geographic center of the Lower 48 is located on the grounds of Fort Riley, Kan., next to Ogden, about 100 miles west of Kansas City.
The latter is the closest large US city to that location. It also sits at a junction of two rivers (the Missouri and the Kansas, the former being the Mississippi's principal tributary), and it too would be well situated to benefit from a water shortage in the drier Western United States. It's also second to Minneapolis as a grain shipment and processing center, as it's located close to where the Corn and Wheat Belts meet. (Provided we don't muck it up by running a pipeline over it, the Ogallala Aquifer should keep the wheat fields of western Kansas productive for a while.)
If easy access to any coastal location matters, then it does have a slight advantage over St. Louis in that regard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toxic Toast
You could consider all sorts of things to be strategic. It is a bit ironic to laud STL as being in a "strategic" location because it is on a river considering the history of the region. I do think being on the river is important from a drinking water perspective, but STL is hardly the only city on a river.
I've heard Duluth MN and Buffalo NY mentioned as cities best positioned for a changing climate. Strategically, I'd bet on Duluth MN if we're worried about access to drinking water.
Yeah, Lake Superior is a pretty huge source of the stuff. But I'd bet many would sooner build a pipeline or aqueduct south from Duluth to someplace warmer, or maybe a canal from the lake to the Mississippi headwaters a little ways to the south.
Yeah, Lake Superior is a pretty huge source of the stuff. But I'd bet many would sooner build a pipeline or aqueduct south from Duluth to someplace warmer, or maybe a canal from the lake to the Mississippi headwaters a little ways to the south.
Assuming by someplace warmer you're referring to somewhere like Florida or Texas, the Great Lakes–Saint Lawrence River Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement / Great Lakes Charter prevents water from being piped out of the Great Lakes to some place warmer.
I get the coastal cities and the Great Lakes cities, but why Atlanta?
Read my post #29.
It's near equal distant from chicago-detroit-miami-texas triangle-and the NE corridor which is pretty much our country's largest cities not on the west coast. (Ie. Within a hour flight of the home airport from 80% country's population, not including...wheels up/wheels down, not including air traffic control delays, weather delays, yada yada....)
It's the northernmost point ground transportation can easily ship good east or west of the Appalachian without a mountain crossing and the rest of the South. This makes it one of the top 5 freight centers in the country, by terms of warehouse space.
Whenever cities grow that large there is a geographic reason for it one way or another
New York: largest port on the Atlantic in more ways than one. Airport, seaport, freight port, and a crossway for logistics via roadways. An absolute juggernaut for U.S. based logistics.
Los Angeles: largest port on the Pacific. Again in more ways than one. Airport, seaport, freight port, and a crossway for logistics via roadways. Soon will be the recipient of hypersonic planes as a springboard for locations in the Trans-Pacific part of the world.
Houston: largest port on the Gulf. Seaport with heavily utilized freight port, airport system, and a major and growing crossway via roadways (see the U.S. plan for the I-69 super trade highway from Canada to Mexico). Also the only major population center with a spaceport, significant in the development of hypersonic planes.
Dallas/Fort Worth: largest inland intermodal port in the U.S. along with Chicago. Very significant airport system, freight system, and highly valuable roadways for trade between North America's 3 most powerful countries. The center of the U.S. population is gradually shifting further south and further west into the Metroplex. They also built their infrastructure with a plan to expand them all gradually and are doing so now.
Chicago: largest freight system in the world with a very significant airport system and the crossroads for much of the North American continent via roadways. All Class 1 railways go through Chicago.
Atlanta: another very large intermodal port and largest population center for hundreds of miles with a very significant airport system, freight system, and roadways for logistical purposes. Is the center of a fast growing region while maintaining it's undisputed status as the only significantly sized city for hundreds of miles in any direction. Major recipient and distributor of the shipments to and from Savannah.
Miami: a very significant port of entry for immigrants from Latin America due to its location being adjacent to the Caribbean nations. Also a very significant international airport system and seaport system.
Washington D.C.: more of a symbolic geographic location that delineates the northern and southern United States. Major nerve and command center politically and lately has been a major recipient for major corporations moving their base of operations to the Northeast to work more closely with the federal government.
Seattle: a very significant regional hub for an otherwise isolated corner of the United States. Handles significant operations from the seaport, freight port, roadways, and airports for it's part of the country.
Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 08-04-2022 at 03:20 PM..
Gary Indiana, the southern tip of the great Lakes. If trains had been invented a few decades earlier, Chicago would have sprouted at Gary. Don't write off Gary just yet. Things are happening here. Good things.
That has not been the case for Baltimore nor St. Louis. Seems like they should be much larger, especially Baltimore.
Those are sizable cities and there are reasons they exist where they do too, but they do not share the geographic qualities and nuances I presented about Atlanta.
That has not been the case for Baltimore nor St. Louis. Seems like they should be much larger, especially Baltimore.
Both were larger 70 years ago.
And both still anchor large metropolitan areas, though both are growing more slowly than many of their peers in their own regions.
But both are also politically constrained, and in the same way: They are independent cities that could not annex or expand into the counties surrounding them.
Based off of solely geographics? Honolulu without question
Next down the list would be anything with deep water ports so cities like NYC, Miami, LA, Baltimore, Seattle, etc.. followed by cities with navigable rivers.
Not really. Think primarily industrial/port areas in Seattle/Tacoma. The coastal resorts and towns are at major risk however.
Yeah coastal Washington is *screwed* if the Cascadia plate decided to buckle (it’s capable of +9.0) right now.
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.
