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.
But to your question.....Denver, Tucson, Phoenix, Los Angeles (environmental laws would stop development), San Francisco (the city not the region), Portland, Oregon.
Portland?
The city is in the extremely fertile Willamette Valley. Winters and summers are mild and it is rich in resources like water and energy. Why would it not exist today?
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.
For some of us, that choice we made was "being born here." I'm a life long Midwesterner, or border Midwesterner if Kentucky counts. I'm allowed to have a negative opinion about winter, and lot of us in the Midwest do. It is ok to not love Midwestern winters.
For some of us, that choice we made was "being born here." I'm a life long Midwesterner, or border Midwesterner if Kentucky counts. I'm allowed to have a negative opinion about winter, and lot of us in the Midwest do. It is ok to not love Midwestern winters.
Sure, there's that, for sure, but if someone absolutely couldn't stand it, there's always the option to move. I've lived in 4 states...all in the Midwest. It would be my choice all over again. Not for everyone, but many of those here, are here because they like it.
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.
Huh?
Heard of Illinois and Michigan Canal? Chicago Sanitary & Ship Canal? The former is the reason why Chicago got large, the latter replace the former.
The city is in the extremely fertile Willamette Valley. Winters and summers are mild and it is rich in resources like water and energy. Why would it not exist today?
There would be a city in the Willamette Valley, but it would probably be Eugene instead of Portland is my guess.
Portland was the "port" city for eastern Washington until recent years. Most of the agricultural products went to Portland, but since the 1980's with improvement in I-90 and the Port of Seattle much of the agricultural traffic shifted to Seattle.
For a long time you could get the Oregonian is Yakima and they reported on issues in eastern Washington and made recommendations in political races well into the early 1990's.
The exception is wheat. With the Snake River Dams and lock system wheat comes from Montana and eastern Washington down the Snake and Columbia Rivers to Portland. Until the Snake River dams are removed wheat will continue to move to Portland.
San Francisco is a phenomenal place for a city, and you just noted one reason. People can have different climate preferences and all enjoy the same place. Plus the protected bay, the agricultural hinterlands, etc.
San Francisco is a phenomenal place for a city, and you just noted one reason. People can have different climate preferences and all enjoy the same place. Plus the protected bay, the agricultural hinterlands, etc.
REALLY. Did you ever live or work in San Francisco??
It WAS a really cool town. Put a city there??? What are you smoking??
If we were starting from scratch today, the cities that wouldn't get built, IMO, are the ones that are not ecologically sustainable in the long run. Say goodbye to Las Vegas and Phoenix, because the long-term prognosis for their water supply is not good. For the same reason, Los Angeles might exist as a small city, but certainly not the huge city that it is today. San Francisco (or maybe Oakland) would be the big West Coast player because of the excellent natural harbor that the Bay provides.
As for New Orleans, who would be foolish enough to build a city below sea level? The main port for the Mississippi Delta would have been located somewhere upstream, wherever the land rose above sea level. Likewise, South Florida wouldn't have been built up, because it's too narrowly squeezed in between the ocean and the Everglades swamp. Probably the southernmost city would be West Palm Beach on the Atlantic side and Fort Myers on the Gulf side.
Oh, and finally, there would be no cities at all on the coastal barrier islands. No Miami Beach, no Galveston, none of those at all, because we would have been smart enough to understand that the purpose of a barrier island is to protect the mainland against storms, not to build them up.
REALLY. Did you ever live or work in San Francisco??
It WAS a really cool town. Put a city there??? What are you smoking??
If you're basing that on anything other than your personal opinion of the weather, please say so. Try for something that overcomes the excellent port setting and access to food production.
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.
