Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Celebrating Memorial Day!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-27-2023, 08:46 PM
 
158 posts, read 167,781 times
Reputation: 353

Advertisements

It's interesting it's such a beautiful and overlooked part of the country. Northern California, Oregon and Washington coasts. Maybe Eureka is the largest coastal city I guess.

Still if you put a major city somewhere along there I think it would be immensely popular, I don't know if the US has just caught up to that part of the country quite yet. Thoughts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-27-2023, 08:49 PM
 
93,185 posts, read 123,783,345 times
Reputation: 18253
Some may consider Seattle to fit that description since it is in the Puget Sound, but it could be a matter of how strict you want to be.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2023, 09:20 PM
 
6,613 posts, read 16,573,741 times
Reputation: 4787
Quote:
Originally Posted by soldierlifter View Post
It's interesting it's such a beautiful and overlooked part of the country. Northern California, Oregon and Washington coasts. Maybe Eureka is the largest coastal city I guess.

Still if you put a major city somewhere along there I think it would be immensely popular, I don't know if the US has just caught up to that part of the country quite yet. Thoughts.
There are no natural harbors up there. That's also why Seattle and Portland aren't on the coast, they are on inlets to the sea.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2023, 09:41 PM
 
Location: Florida
2,327 posts, read 2,276,900 times
Reputation: 3592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Around View Post
There are no natural harbors up there. That's also why Seattle and Portland aren't on the coast, they are on inlets to the sea.
That’s probably right. It seems like Astoria should be bigger than it is by that logic, but there’s probably another reason.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2023, 09:51 PM
 
Location: Boise, ID
1,066 posts, read 782,609 times
Reputation: 2698
As already mentioned, lack of natural harbors. But also topography. The Coast Ranges are very rugged and push right up to the Pacific Ocean, leaving little land for development w/o great cost. Take a drive up highway 1/101 from SF and you'll get a sense for how long it takes to drive this route. It's a 3 hr drive on narrow highways from the nearest Interstate (I-5) to Eureka.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2023, 09:59 PM
 
Location: West Seattle
6,372 posts, read 4,985,124 times
Reputation: 8448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Around View Post
There are no natural harbors up there. That's also why Seattle and Portland aren't on the coast, they are on inlets to the sea.
There are a few harbors, like Grays Harbor (the Aberdeen / Hoquiam / Cosmopolis, WA area). But the areas around them are mountainous enough that it'd be hard to develop a large city on any of them. Also, the relatively flat valley between the Coast Ranges and Cascades --- the I-5 corridor, where agriculture and rail lines are actually viable --- is over an hour away from any of these harbors. The I-5 corridor is where the vast majority of the PNW's population lives.

I am still surprised they're so unpopulated, even if there are no major cities. Seems like there should be a ~200k pop. PNW coastal metro, at least.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2023, 10:06 PM
 
Location: Rochester, WA
14,458 posts, read 12,081,453 times
Reputation: 38970
The existence of Puget Sound, and the Columbia River, provided for better, more protected places for cities to be located.

SFO isn't on the coast either, it's in a protected bay. Puget Sound is paradise of protected deep water bay.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2023, 10:10 PM
 
Location: Rochester, WA
14,458 posts, read 12,081,453 times
Reputation: 38970
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheTimidBlueBars View Post
There are a few harbors, like Grays Harbor (the Aberdeen / Hoquiam / Cosmopolis, WA area). But the areas around them are mountainous enough that it'd be hard to develop a large city on any of them. Also, the relatively flat valley between the Coast Ranges and Cascades --- the I-5 corridor, where agriculture and rail lines are actually viable --- is over an hour away from any of these harbors. The I-5 corridor is where the vast majority of the PNW's population lives.

I am still surprised they're so unpopulated, even if there are no major cities. Seems like there should be a ~200k pop. PNW coastal metro, at least.
The interstate highways grew up inland because of Portland and Seattle as well as the topography as you say.

The bigger issue with Aberdeen is not just the mountainous surrounds, it's that the flat part along the river floods.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2023, 10:21 PM
 
Location: Seattle WA, USA
5,699 posts, read 4,920,492 times
Reputation: 4942
Another big factor is climate, Seattle and Portland get a bad reputation for being cold rainy cities outside of Summer, but they are miles better compared to the coast. Seattle and Portland are protected by the coast and Olympic Mountains but the coast is completely exposed to the massive storms that come one right after the other. Also it’s a pretty good thing that those areas are under populated as they are in danger of being hit by a massive tsunami whenever the Cascadia subduction zone triggers the next 9.0+ earthquake. Also those coastal towns economically have depended on the logging industry which doesn’t employ as many people as it once did so most of those places are pretty depressed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2023, 10:41 PM
 
Location: Seattle WA, USA
5,699 posts, read 4,920,492 times
Reputation: 4942
Quote:
Originally Posted by FL_Expert View Post
That’s probably right. It seems like Astoria should be bigger than it is by that logic, but there’s probably another reason.
Most cities are placed as far inland as possible a ship can go, that is why Portland sits on the Willamette and not the Columbia, and just a bit further south are the massive Willamette falls in Oregon city. Astoria is just too far away from the economic and population center that is the Willamette valley. The only thing Astoria had going for it was its fishing and lumber industries which got both decimated after the Dams were built up and the salmon population collapsed, and the spotted owl was placed on the endangered list preventing loggers from clear cutting as much forests as they once did.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top