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.
Do re-read the original post. The point isn't to recreate a city somewhere else; the point is: with all the advances of modern society, what city's location is so... unfortunate that if it was redone today would not exist.
New Orleans fits the bill perfectly as the River that it owes its very existence to would be flowing 50 miles west of New Orleans present location.
Edit: let me be more clear for those who purposefully ignore the reasoning behind the thread. New York, Boston or Baltimore starting from scratch may not be the same cities we know today, but they are all in excellent locations for a city and I am certain that starting over a city would be located in those locations. Where New Orleans is situated however is a crappy location for a city and like the Mississippi abandoning that area, so too would the thought of a major city developing in that area. It is sinking into the Gulf.
The fundamentals that resulted in New Orleans just isn't as applicable today as it was 300 years ago. New York, Baltimore, Boston however are all on sheltered harbors and maintains the qualities that made them good locations back then
Last edited by atadytic19; 05-08-2023 at 05:18 PM..
Do re-read the original post. The point isn't to recreate a city somewhere else; the point is: with all the advances of modern society, what city's location is so... unfortunate that if it was redone today would not exist.
New Orleans fits the bill perfectly as the River that it owes its very existence to would be flowing 50 miles west of New Orleans present location.
Well OP never said that existing infrastructure wouldn't be built. The Mississippi River is natural and a city will always be located near its mouth.
If no older infrastructure exists then the Erie Canal doesn't exist, which gave rise to Chicago. The Mississippi River may shift, but it's still one of the largest rivers in the world.
The opposite of this is if not for technology, what cities wouldn't be around today? And, if for not the invention of air conditioning, you could start with a pretty hefty list particularly the southwest, where I live. If you limit this question, to pre-rail, then, yes, river cities. But as another poster said, the real game changer is proximity to the interstate highway system. A better question, what I think you are trying to get at, is post-railroad, what cities wouldn't exist today? And yet another poster said New Orleans. And the idea that it is below sea level, and suspectible to many natural disasters, (namely flooding) is fair. But it would be interesting to flip this question, and ask if not for technology, what cities wouldn't be around today?
But that's a much easier question, because that was once the reality, and the reality was that we didn't have a large Phoenix or a large Houston, etc.
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.
In summary, who ****ing cares.
All cities are somewhere for a reason, a city that seemingly looks like it was plopped down for any reason, probably exists as a rail-hub (that lost importance) like Dallas or Indianapolis or the central market in a region with particular resources like southern cotton towns like Memphis or Jackson.
And of course it's not important, but if this place isn't for hypothetical exercises and what ifs between city lovers than what the f**k is it for? A Billion and one threads about "Is this the South?" I was just thinking about cool ideas to debate about on my fourth ever thread, they will get better.
In summary, chill out.
Last edited by PHILLYUPTOWN; 05-09-2023 at 02:38 AM..
Optimistically, I'd hope that oil would be less important in a newly settled US, so Houston and the western Plains cities (Midland-Odessa, Amarillo, Lubbock, Williston, etc) would stay small farm towns.
Ditto for coal, so I guess goodbye most of West Virginia/western PA? I don't have as good a sense of coal's geography.
I might have confused, but its simple, if you were settling the USA today where would you place the cities, assuming you only need only a handful to function (like someone said, they can't be imaginary cities):
New York City would exist because you need an east coast port. Philadelphia and Boston exists because pre-railroad and highway it was too far to move goods and run a government in such a large space. So with highways and railroads to move goods quickly you don't really need Boston or Philadelphia do you?
Still, Philly would be the capital due to legacy; but otherwise, not necessary.
You need a mid-atlantic port. Baltimore exists because its the furthest inland, which was important pre-railroad. With a railroad and highways, maybe you'd just need Norfolk.
You'd need a city at the mouth of the Mississippi to gather up all the goods and transfer it to seagoing boats from the largest breadbasket in the world. New Orleans.
St Louis, Kansas City, Tulsa, OKC and Memphis, all do nearly the same thing and were all useful when travel wasn't as quick and easy, but you need one city to gather up goods of the lower plains; Kansas City.
Louisville and Cincinnati and to a lesser extent Pittsburgh as well, but the Ohio valley is too large to have no cities on it; Pittsburgh
Chicago exists as the furthest inland port on the great lakes to pick up goods from the breadbasket and ship them seaward as well as being a natural transfer point from east to west.
Minneapolis would still exist as a market for the iron range and Dakota, timber, coal and shipping goods south down the Mississippi.
I personally think Denver would still exist because you need some sort of population center in that space.
Houston would still exist as a hub for oil and the refining and exportation of it.
Miami is important for trade to the caribbean, plus its the warmest spot on the east coast, so it would always have use, even if just for recreation.
You need a population center in the southeast region, plus a stopover/transfer point between the East, South and West at the foot of the appalachians. Atlanta.
You need a west coast port in the North to pick up goods from the east and also a market for regional goods...Seattle .
You need a west coast port in the center and the south, Los Angeles and San Francisco.
To me there's a reason why the West Coast has less cities, and more space for nature, because it was developed later when so many cities weren't needed due to technological advancements. The west coast gets it done with 5 port cities. The East Coast (+ Gulf) has what, 15? So this exersize is not just a fu*k you to the heartland.
Last edited by PHILLYUPTOWN; 05-09-2023 at 02:58 AM..
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.
I also agree that there will be a city somewhere near the mouth of the Mississippi, all the goods from farms surrounding the largest river on the continent. Those goods need a place to board seafaring ships for trade.
Think about it this way, if New Orleans exists despite all the reasons for it not to exist, it really must be needed or destined to exist. Like someone else said, the port of LA. is still one of our largest ports.
Quote:
Originally Posted by atadytic19
The fundamentals that resulted in New Orleans just isn't as applicable today as it was 300 years ago. New York, Baltimore, Boston however are all on sheltered harbors and maintains the qualities that made them good locations back then
But would we need 5 North-east coast ports? Norfolk, Baltimore, Philly, New York and Boston? They were all created when these places were technically different "countries", and then filled a geographical niche when travel was slower and more difficult, and before containerization.
I also agree that there will be a city somewhere near the mouth of the Mississippi, all the goods from farms surrounding the largest river on the continent. Those goods need a place to board seafaring ships for trade.
Think about it this way, if New Orleans exists despite all the reasons for it not to exist, it really must be needed or destined to exist. Like someone else said, the port of LA. is still one of our largest ports.
New Orleans exists because at the time the French needed a connection and the river provided an out.
But take OP's premise as given and not try to make it suit your point.
You are given a blank slate. The entire 50 states. Coast to coast with all the modern technologies and natural elements can be altered, but has not already been altered.
Given there is no French to desire access to the Caribbean there will be no great drive for a French city on the Gulf. Shipments can easily be sent to the east or west via railroads.
I know you are going to say that the Mississippi River is convenient for shipping but keep in mind, if you are starting today the outlet would be at Morgan City, not New Orleans. Starting New Orleans today would require the army Corp of engineers to create a spillway to send water down to New Orleans. Why would they do that to create a city when they can just set up Morgan City? I understand the reason for KEEPING Baton Rouge and New Orleans because the importance of those cities, but starting fresh there would be no reason to force it to make those cities happen.
I really don't know what is so hard to understand about the conditions that made New Orleans attractive to start a city 300 years ago would not be there today if we are starting fresh today. You are looking at it from the importance of New Orleans today. Think of it as a blank slateand that area not having the history it has, and if you are not familiar with the Atchafalaya River GOOGLE IT. the thread is all about locations, not about the history those cities have had.
While on the face of it it's an interesting what if, I'm having a hard time following it through to its logical conclusion, because I don't believe the U.S. has had a major metropolitan area pop out of nowhere since Las Vegas popped out of nowhere in the period between 1940 and 1970. Even Phoenix was a few decades older. Ironically Las Vegas is a case of a city which only exists as a big thing due to a legal quirk (gambling legalized in 1931) and relative proximity to Los Angeles.
Since then, new metros have not really been founded. Sure, existing metropolitan areas expand, and in some cases micropolitan areas transitioned into metropolitan areas, but IMHO unless you had some major non-market employer like a new military base, you're just not going to see a new greenfield city pop out of nowhere and be successful. No one wants to move to the middle of nowhere just on the promise there will be more to do in 20+ years.
While on the face of it it's an interesting what if, I'm having a hard time following it through to its logical conclusion, because I don't believe the U.S. has had a major metropolitan area pop out of nowhere since Las Vegas popped out of nowhere in the period between 1940 and 1970. Even Phoenix was a few decades older. Ironically Las Vegas is a case of a city which only exists as a big thing due to a legal quirk (gambling legalized in 1931) and relative proximity to Los Angeles.
Since then, new metros have not really been founded. Sure, existing metropolitan areas expand, and in some cases micropolitan areas transitioned into metropolitan areas, but IMHO unless you had some major non-market employer like a new military base, you're just not going to see a new greenfield city pop out of nowhere and be successful. No one wants to move to the middle of nowhere just on the promise there will be more to do in 20+ years.
Along these lines, I think a good example of a city that would exist and whose growth has been almost totally influenced by the modern era would be Raleigh. Like many state capitals, it was a site intentionally chosen for that purpose because of being centrally located within its state (so it would exist regardless). However, had it not been for the wildly successful RTP and IBM’s influence, it would arguably still be a smallish city and region. The big dogs in North Carolina were always those cities tied to rail, tobacco, textiles, etc. RTP changed the game and you couldn’t tell anyone at the turn of the 20th that it’d be a national leader in growth.
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.
