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.
There are locations in the United States (as is true with locations around the world) where geography/topagraphy create a location where a great city had to be. More often than not, water is part of the equation....the interplay of water and land pinpointed the site.
Give an example of a major city located where a great city had to be built. And give the factors of the site that literally demanded a city be built there.
Anywhere a natural seaport exists on the edge of an ocean, or at the nearest point to another continent. San Francisco has the bay and a water route to its inland agricultural area, albeit one that didn't thrive until irrigation. Seattle has the Puget Sound in the corner of the lower 48, closest to Asia and Alaska. Same with Vancouver for Canada. I'd say Boston but it's not the only protected water pointing toward Europe. New York after the Erie Canal.
St Louis is close, being near the confluence of the Missouri River and Mississippi River. Probably Pittsburgh, too, for similar reasons.
St. Louis also has the Illinois River entering the Mississippi a few more miles to the north flowing from near Lake Michigan. The great prehistoric city of Cahokia and it’s many ‘’suburbs” on both sides of the Mississippi a few miles east of St. Louis.
If we're talking whole world, then Istanbul was probably the most geographically dictated city ever. In the US, I'd say it probably has to be New York City with rich ground and resources from surrounding lush hillsides and the meeting of a major river next to the ocean, yet the island it is on is still somewhat protected and inland. Montreal is also a place that was very purposefully formed.
Up until the rise of the Sun Belt (when highways could create good connections essentially anywhere), every substantial U.S. city in the country was either navigable by water or a state capital.
In the mid-late 19th century, the nation needed a large city somewhat in the middle of the country, to handle agricultural/raw material transit, passenger railroads, and the influx of new immigrants to man the burgeoning steel mills. And it wouldn't hurt aesthetically if if was located on a major lake. The area grew to the point where it became the 2nd largest metro area in the US, and held that title for decades.
In the mid-late 19th century, the nation needed a large city somewhat in the middle of the country, to handle agricultural/raw material transit, passenger railroads, and the influx of new immigrants to man the burgeoning steel mills. And it wouldn't hurt aesthetically if if was located on a major lake. The area grew to the point where it became the 2nd largest metro area in the US, and held that title for decades.
Chicago.
I'm pretty sure the location of Chicago had to be nailed down more concretely than that. The Illinois and Michigan Canal (completed in 1848) played a major role, because it linked up the Great lakes with the Mississippi basin, allowing for ease of shipping to and from Chicago anywhere from NYC to New Orleans decades before the railroads really took off.
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.
