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.
This is something I think about sometimes.
The cost of living there would have been much lower for starters.
Maybe it would have been more populated even.
Basically like Florida.
This is something I think about sometimes.
The cost of living there would have been much lower for starters.
Maybe it would have been more populated even.
Basically like Florida.
I don’t think that’s accurate, just because a place is flat, doesn’t make it cheap, the entire Bay Area as far as elevation, basically doesn’t even have an elevation in the cities, like San Francisco, San Jose, etc...
It’s expensive due to people flocking in, jobs, etc...
This is something I think about sometimes.
The cost of living there would have been much lower for starters.
Maybe it would have been more populated even.
Basically like Florida.
well for starters the climate would be way different, the coastal areas particularly in the NW would be considerably drier, and the interior would be much wetter and milder, more similar to western Europe. Also if it was flat that probably means there wouldn't be all those precious metals and stones so no gold rush in California. But the flat terrain would make it easier for settlers to get there, and there would've been canal systems built to connect the major rivers of the west and east. Now some might say that the rivers would be much smaller since most major rivers of the world get their water source from mountains, however their are plenty of rivers that don't have headwaters in major mountain ranges, such as the Mississippi river, or many of the larger river systems in Ukraine and European Russia. So with a huge canal system we probably would've developed the transcontinental railroad much later, and possibly not at all.
It would be like most of Arizona. Or Western Kansas. Or Western Nebraska.
Anywhere that is flat and past the moisture line that bisects the US in the middle of those latter two states. Check the satellite view in google maps for details. In fact, you can go to those places and check them out. They exist as we speak
If the West was flat, then it'd be significantly cooler and wetter, and there'd be far less extreme heat west of the Mississippi River. Washington, Oregon and California would still have mild winters, but summers would be much cooler. Idaho, Montana and Wyoming would be the snowiest states outside of Alaska, because there'd be no mountains to squeeze out all the Pacific moisture before encountering the continental polar air from Canada. Utah, Arizona, Colorado and New Mexico would become significantly more prone to tornadoes and severe thunderstorms, due to Pacific moisture mixing with Sonoran warmth in advance of any frontal passages. The Great Plains would be the driest region, and the southern Great Plains would be the hottest. The most extreme heat would be found in an area centered on the Texas panhandle.
It would be easier to navigate.
You wouldn't have to pay double for that split-level just to observe changes in elevation.
I'm seeing fewer downsides....
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.
