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.
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.
But why is no one mentioning the Erie Canal and Chicago? The OP never said preexisting infrastructure was gone, so either way you slice it, there would be a city near the mouth of the Mississippi and no Erie Canal whatsoever so Chicago likely stays a small midwest town.
But to your question.....Denver, Tucson, Phoenix, Los Angeles (environmental laws would stop development), San Francisco (the city not the region), Portland, Oregon.
I guess I will respond to my own post.
Does anybody think that San Francisco would be a city in today's world?? Likewise for the others on the list.
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.
Actually, you are describing St. Paul here. St. Paul is and always has been, the head of navigation on the Mississippi. Minneapolis is about 12 miles upriver from St. Paul. But its existence is due to the Mississippi also, though not due to shipping. It became an important city with the establishment of the flour mills powered by the falls of St. Anthony back in the later 19th century. Neither the flour nor the wheat from which it was made was shipped to/from the city via the river, it was shipped by the railroads.
I can live cold just fine but who cares about distinct seasons? Why? It doesn't seem logical to me.
The same weather all year long, no matter how nice, gets boring and tiring after a while. If I had to live somewhere that was 75 degrees and sunny all year long, I would get so bored of it after 3-4 months I'd go crazy.
Change of weather = change of scenery = more interesting. Variety adds spice to life.
But why is no one mentioning the Erie Canal and Chicago? The OP never said preexisting infrastructure was gone, so either way you slice it, there would be a city near the mouth of the Mississippi and no Erie Canal whatsoever so Chicago likely stays a small midwest town.
Yeah, the Erie Canal wouldn't be needed besides connecting two shipping routes.
The second is a reason why Chicago still would exist, the Chicago Portage, the closest point between the Mississippi and the Great Lakes, a city would still be needed there because there would still be a reason for a shipping route through the Lakes and Mississippi. All the goods that are produced in that general region, the most fertile in the Country, would need a place to go to market and a place to ship them to other places; Chicago would still fill that role, and a couple other places.
And Chicago's position on the Lakes, the furthest south and deepest inland port, would ensure it exists for transportation, if you believe in the idea of getting goods on a boat as quickly as possible because boat travel is the cheapest form of transportation.
Yeah, the Erie Canal wouldn't be needed besides connecting two shipping routes.
The second is a reason why Chicago still would exist, the Chicago Portage, the closest point between the Mississippi and the Great Lakes, a city would still be needed there because there would still be a reason for a shipping route through the Lakes and Mississippi. All the goods that are produced in that general region, the most fertile in the Country, would need a place to go to market and a place to ship them to other places; Chicago would still fill that role, and a couple other places.
And Chicago's position on the Lakes, the furthest south and deepest inland port, would ensure it exists for transportation, if you believe in the idea of getting goods on a boat as quickly as possible because boat travel is the cheapest form of transportation.
That's fine, but it wouldn't be the massive city we now know. Sounds like there would be a Canal from the great lakes to the Mississippi instead of through New York.
The same weather all year long, no matter how nice, gets boring and tiring after a while. If I had to live somewhere that was 75 degrees and sunny all year long, I would get so bored of it after 3-4 months I'd go crazy.
Change of weather = change of scenery = more interesting. Variety adds spice to life.
I can add all sorts of variety to my life without enduring 3 months of miserable winter weather.
To the "cities that have winter" bashers. There are millions of people who live in cities that have winter...if they absolutely hated it, they wouldn't be there. It's not hard to understand. The choice was made, somewhere along the way.
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.
