Which Cities Wouldn't Exist Today. (transfer, legal, move to)
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.
The city which is today the center of a bustling metropolitan area of 6 million was settled primarily, if not solely, due to being a railroad terminus. After all, it is one of the few without an ocean, bay, lake, river or any navigable water (the Chattahoochee flows several miles north of the core). There would be better settlement choices geographically if the railroad were a non-factor. I still think Georgia would have a major city, but perhaps it would be Savannah, Augusta or another city that does not exist today.
Nope. That railroad junction got replaced by Interstates, it's still the junction and in a lot of ways logistics center of the entire SE. It's remarkably in the center of the US population distribution as well. The geography, plus the weather and shelter from disasters that other areas nearby have, dictates that a ton of people will live in the piedmont. They may have been less clumped into one metro and more NC like with alternate development, but North Georgia would always have a lot of people.
Likewise with the DC region, it wouldn't be so big without fed spending, but it'd be big. Even before Europeans there was an abnormally large amount of indigenous people in the Northern Virginia area. It's the southern terminus of the eastern seabelt. And you have things like a bazillion data centers that are there just cause it's a good centralized location for that stuff.
Pueblo CO wouldn't exist in today's world, people today would go to Canon City or Colorado City, Pueblo's kinda just in a meh geography.
Also the entire state of Wyoming has pretty horrible population distribution, where the few people are is not the sexy part of the state, functions of a energy economy I guess.
Somewhere in that area, there would be a city. I am surprised that they have not moved NO.
You can't just move New Orleans. It is one of the most unique cities in the US because of its 300+ year history, and you can't just recreate that.
And what do you mean somewhere in the area?
The natural course of the Mississippi has shifted to over 100 miles west. But for forcing water down to New Orleans, the river commerce would bypass it completely.
Whatever new city formed in the approximate Morgan City vicinity would be nothing like the New Orleans we know.
Memphis seems like it would be on the list. Tulsa or Oklahoma City. -- would we need both? The same goes for Texas cities -- Dallas or Ft. Worth? Salt Lake City is another one. Minneapolis or St. Paul? Kansas City and Omaha?
We would still need cities for ports, for agriculture/farming products, for energy, for military/defense industry, transportation hubs, and Las Vegas, of course.
And I can't get over the number of people who feel they can't possibly hack some cold and snow for part of the year - good grief! The reward for doing so is a distinct spring, summer, and autumn.
who cares? How is the fall a reward?
I can live cold just fine but who cares about distinct seasons? Why? It doesn't seem logical to me.
Nope. That railroad junction got replaced by Interstates, it's still the junction and in a lot of ways logistics center of the entire SE. It's remarkably in the center of the US population distribution as well. The geography, plus the weather and shelter from disasters that other areas nearby have, dictates that a ton of people will live in the piedmont. They may have been less clumped into one metro and more NC like with alternate development, but North Georgia would always have a lot of people.
I suppose that’s true, but by virtue of being a centralized metro, Atlanta is relatively isolated from other major economic centers too. It’s an interstate junction, but 12 hours away from Houston and Dallas, 10 hours from Miami, 9 hours from Northern Virginia. Charlotte and Nashville are close, albeit much smaller. The immediate region outside of Metro Atlanta is impoverished. The best argument I can think of for a hypothetical fresh settlement in North Georgia would be the climate as mentioned, but there are better options geographically.
In this hypothetical thought exercise, it is impossible to consider which cities today wouldn't exist without also considering which cities would exist that don't today.
I don't think the top 10 biggest cities would change much. I also don't think the southeastern cities would lose much, since that is the region growing the fastest in today's environment. Maybe we'd see another Atlanta type city in the southeast? Maybe we'd see Birmingham AL or Jackson MS (or both) as more of an Atlanta/Nashville/Charlotte growth city.
Any city who started as a pure river town and lost influence to regional competitors would be candidates for not existing, or at least being far smaller than they are today (think like Cairo IL). I'm thinking of your St Louis and Memphis type cities. Perhaps in this scenario Kansas City takes on a larger presence out in the plains with no STL to battle in Missouri.
I think cities that were just sort of placed somewhere for no natural reason would be similar to what they look like today. These are your Dallas and Indianapolis type places. Maybe some of the other cities that are currently smaller that fall into this category would themselves be larger? I think places like Buffalo and Cleveland might be smaller, but freshwater is still a benefit that people would want to be near even if the weather sucks half the year.
I suppose that’s true, but by virtue of being a centralized metro, Atlanta is relatively isolated from other major economic centers too. It’s an interstate junction, but 12 hours away from Houston and Dallas, 10 hours from Miami, 9 hours from Northern Virginia. Charlotte and Nashville are close, albeit much smaller. The immediate region outside of Metro Atlanta is impoverished. The best argument I can think of for a hypothetical fresh settlement in North Georgia would be the climate as mentioned, but there are better options geographically.
The isolation is the point though. the Eastern US looks like a web, where things remarkably follow a pattern of like a Civilization hex board of big metro hub surrounded by satellite cities. People can look at geographic features as to why something is where it is, but really they all kinda follow a pattern of being equidistantly spread out, where every 100-200 miles there's another big city surrounded by smaller satellites.
So something was gonna be in that SE slope of the Appalacians.
Whatever new city formed in the approximate Morgan City vicinity would be nothing like the New Orleans we know.
This goes for every single city in the world if it was rebuilt today. New York wouldn't be the city we know if it was to be built today.
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.
