Is Atlanta the most important city in the South?

[Omaharocks]

^ All true, but Atlanta's consistent, heavy, healthy tree coverage does distinguish it from other major cities.

You're right in that there's no real "photo backdrop" for the skyline that provides a spectacular vantage ala Seattle or San Diego or Chicago. But, the mountains aren't far off in the distance, and it's also hilly, with very pretty rivers (chattahoochee) and streams throughout. Pretty, but not spectacular, much like the Twin Cities, Austin, Milwaukee...

I think east of the Rockies, Pittsburgh is the only major city that has really spectacular topography/geography and even that could be argued.

[pj3000]

^ none of what I’ve been talking about has anything directly to do with a city’s natural setting being “spectacular” or having some sort of "photo backdrop".

[(four 0 four)]

Originally Posted by pj3000

An extensive tree canopy is a great attribute for a city to have, but unless one is viewing aerial photos or in a plane, it will go unnoticed on the large scale. It’s impossible to perceive extensive, city-wide tree canopy when at one point on the ground.

On the contrary, it is more than evident to perceive a city’s setting on a vast harbor, on a lakeshore, at a river confluence, with a mountainous backdrop, in a river valley, on a plain leading to the ocean, etc.

The city's dense tree canopy is impossible to perceive for anyone who can't see what's in front of them and is enjoyed pretty much throughout the city. Don't you have to be within a few blocks of the harbor or lakeshore to experience the fabulousness of said attribute?

How are these not as dramatic as any lakeshore setting!?




The photos are not mine but I cannot find the names of the photographers.

[JManc]

We've got a pretty decent tree canopy here as well...


Museum District Houston by jmancuso, on Flickr

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by (four 0 four)

The city's dense tree canopy is impossible to perceive for anyone who can't see what's in front of them and is enjoyed pretty much throughout the city. Don't you have to be within a few blocks of the harbor or lakeshore to experience the fabulousness of said attribute?

How are these not as dramatic as any lakeshore setting!?

Again, what I've been talking about is not about a city's "spectacular" setting, "dramatic" setting, "photo backdrop", nor "fabulousness". It's not a pretty city pissing contest. I'm don't care to get into any of that surface-level BS.

It is much more about a city's reason for settlement and existence in a particular area due to the natural setting... which shapes the very structure, history, fucntion, and feel of the place. I'll say it yet again... Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston could be moved 100 miles in any direction (it's a generalization) and it wouldn't make much difference in how the city looks or functions. There was no major compelling reason to locate any of these cities where they are. Most other major cities in the US have very specific reasons (i.e., natural setting/natural resources) for their founding at their particular locations.

[cabasse]

really? i think a lot of lakefront and riverfront cities could be moved in either direction along their respective waterfronts without much of a change. i can only think of a few that seem strategically placed - san francisco, seattle, pittsburgh, new york, boston, maybe baltimore? you could move philly along the riverfront or swap chicago and milwaukee and they would still feel similar, geographically.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Again, what I've been talking about is not about a city's "spectacular" setting, "dramatic" setting, "photo backdrop", nor "fabulousness". It's not a pretty city pissing contest. I'm don't care to get into any of that surface-level BS.

It is much more about a city's reason for settlement and existence in a particular area due to the natural setting... which shapes the very structure, history, fucntion, and feel of the place. I'll say it yet again... Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston could be moved 100 miles in any direction (it's a generalization) and it wouldn't make much difference in how the city looks or functions. There was no major compelling reason to locate any of these cities where they are. Most other major cities in the US have very specific reasons (i.e., natural setting/natural resources) for their founding at their particular locations.

Houston not really. Perhaps east to west but north and south is quite a bit of variation. To the south its scrubbish gulf coast, the middle where most of the city is more 'tropical' and to the north is dense forest.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by cabasse

really? i think a lot of lakefront and riverfront cities could be moved in either direction along their respective waterfronts without much of a change. i can only think of a few that seem strategically placed - san francisco, seattle, pittsburgh, new york, boston, maybe baltimore? you could move philly along the riverfront or swap chicago and milwaukee and they would still feel the same, geographically.

Maybe, but they were located where they are for a compelling natural setting reason, whether it's along a river, lake, ocean, harbor, along a mountainous front/near a pass, etc.

I think most major cities in the US were strategically placed, as you say.

I know that both Chicago and Milwaukee were founded where rivers empty into Lake Michigan... and they're not far from each other, so maybe one could swap their locations and they would still have a similar feel. I don't know enough about either city to offer too much on that. But I do know that you couldn't just move them elsewhere along the lakefront and they would look the same. Chicago wouldn't have developed and look as it does if it were directly across the lake in Michigan, nor if it were 50 miles inland.

Philadelphia is located at a VERY specific point on broad plain between (and at the confluence of) two rivers. It would absolutely NOT be the same city if you moved it like you suggest.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by cabasse

you could..... swap chicago and milwaukee and they would still feel similar, geographically.

milwaukee actually has decently sized bluffs along its lakeshore, interspersed with ravines, whereas chicago is utterly, relentlessly pancake flat. you don't see noticeable bluff/ravine formation in chicagoland until you get up into the northshore burbs.

and in a historical sense (which i think is what pj3000 was really driving at), that pancake flatness is a big reason why chicago became chicago - it lead to much of the area being marshy wetlands, and one of those wetlands, "mud lake", actually connected the great lakes and mississippi river watersheds with a portage-less crossing during periods of high water. that geographic quirk, a portage-less water connection from the great lakes all the way down to the gulf of mexico, is what first drew the attention of settlers to the area, and once that connection was made permanent with a relatively short and simple canal, it eventually led to chicago becoming the rail center of the continent a couple of decades later, and the rest all sprung forth from that.

such a great lakes-to-mississippi river water connection would not have been nearly as easily made at milwaukee (or anywhere else on the lakes) as it was in chicago.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by JManc

Houston not really. Perhaps east to west but north and south is quite a bit of variation. To the south its scrubbish gulf coast, the middle where most of the city is more 'tropical' and to the north is dense forest.

Yeah, I know. Like I said earlier, don't get too technical on me with the mileage. It's a generalization. A hundred milles might be a stretch for Houston. The point is that Houston's locational origins are rather arbitrary, owing to where some brothers bought some cheap land near a small water source. Houston didn't really need to be there.

It wasn't founded on the bay... that would be a major difference. But there's not a whole lot of physical variation in the terrain emanating out from the Houston area for quite a stretch. And it was all much denser forest before plantation agriculture. I don't think that the city proper would look much different if it were out the I-10 corridor or where Victoria is, for instance. What I think is interesting about a city like Houston is that it grew to be such a major city, without having some major compelling natural attribute where it was initially founded.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

milwaukee actually has decently sized bluffs along its lakeshore, interspersed with ravines, whereas chicago is utterly, relentlessly pancake flat. you don't see noticeable bluff/ravine formation in chicagoland until you get up into the northshore burbs.

and in a historical sense (which i think is what pj3000 was really driving at), that pancake flatness is a big reason why chicago became chicago - it lead to much of the area being marshy wetlands, and one of those wetlands, "mud lake", actually connected the great lakes and mississippi river watersheds with a portage-less crossing during periods of high water. that geographic quirk, a portage-less water connection from the great lakes all the way down to the gulf of mexico, is what first drew the attention of settlers to the area, and once that connection was made permanent with a relatively short and simple canal, it eventually led to chicago becoming the rail center of the continent a couple of decades later, and rest all sprung forth from that.

such a great lakes-to-mississippi river water connection would not have been nearly as easily made at milwaukee (or anywhere else on the lakes) as it was in chicago.

Exactly. Compelling reasons for settlement and large-scale development based on the existing natural attributes of the land (usually having something to do with navigation in one form or another).

Chicago had to be there.

[bossabreezes]

Originally Posted by cabasse

really? i think a lot of lakefront and riverfront cities could be moved in either direction along their respective waterfronts without much of a change. i can only think of a few that seem strategically placed - san francisco, seattle, pittsburgh, new york, boston, maybe baltimore? you could move philly along the riverfront or swap chicago and milwaukee and they would still feel similar, geographically.

I'd add Seattle to the list of the strategically placed cities, but otherwise I agree with all of this.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by cabasse

i can only think of a few that seem strategically placed - san francisco, seattle, pittsburgh, new york, boston, maybe baltimore?

Originally Posted by bossabreezes

I'd add Seattle to the list of the strategically placed cities, but otherwise I agree with all of this.

And Washington DC, Detroit, Cinncinati, Cleveland, Buffalo, Providence, Tampa, Miami, Jacksonville, Memphis, Omaha, Hampton Roads, New Orleans, St. Louis, Portland, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Denver, LA, and San Diego... should we go to smaller cities too? Charleston, Savannah, Newark, Rochester, Erie, Quad Cities, Duluth, El Paso, Albany, Springfield, Burlington...

[JManc]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Yeah, I know. Like I said earlier, don't get too technical on me with the mileage. It's a generalization. A hundred milles might be a stretch for Houston. The point is that Houston's locational origins are rather arbitrary, owing to where some brothers bought some cheap land near a small water source. Houston didn't really need to be there.

It wasn't founded on the bay... that would be a major difference. But there's not a whole lot of physical variation in the terrain emanating out from the Houston area for quite a stretch. And it was all much denser forest before plantation agriculture. I don't think that the city proper would look much different if it were out the I-10 corridor or where Victoria is, for instance. What I think is interesting about a city like Houston is that it grew to be such a major city, without having some major compelling natural attribute where it was initially founded.

You're correct. Downtown is merely where a couple of guys from upstate New York developed some shitty land that's prone to flooding to sell to American settlers. The topography in around the region (apart from the actual coast) is pretty unremarkable.

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Exactly. Compelling reasons for settlement and large-scale development based on the existing natural attributes of the land (usually having something to do with navigation in one form or another).

Chicago had to be there.

In the Midwest, you become hyperaware of how slight natural and man made geographic variances can completely change a neighborhood’s destiny.

Here’s one fun series about how Chicago and St. Louis differed in bridge building expertise, all the while each city tried to sabotage the other’s transportation links.

https://www.semissourian.com/blogs/p...ds/entry/42601
https://www.semissourian.com/blogs/p...ds/entry/42701
https://www.semissourian.com/blogs/p...ds/entry/42774
https://www.semissourian.com/blogs/p...ds/entry/42852
https://www.semissourian.com/blogs/p...ds/entry/42947

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by pj3000

And Washington DC, Detroit, Cinncinati, Cleveland, Buffalo, Providence, Tampa, Miami, Jacksonville, Memphis, Omaha, Hampton Roads, New Orleans, St. Louis, Portland, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Denver, LA, and San Diego... should we go to smaller cities too? Charleston, Savannah, Newark, Rochester, Erie, Quad Cities, Duluth, El Paso, Albany, Springfield, Burlington...

I was gonna ask before, but what was the logic behind locating Miami where it is?

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by JManc

You're correct. Downtown is merely where a couple of guys from upstate New York developed some shitty land that's prone to flooding to sell to American settlers. The topography in around the region (apart from the actual coast) is pretty unremarkable.

But I think what is remarkable is the fact that Houston became what it is without having the natural locational advantages that other major (and non-major) cities have.

Though, Houston, with where the bayou spreads out into a vast bay and subsequent ship channel, is really in a different category than how I've been talking about Dallas and Atlanta, I guess. While downtown is not in a location that is naturally too compelling... its proximity to "big water" is.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I was gonna ask before, but what was the logic behind locating Miami where it is?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by pj3000

But why not farther north or south? And why Miami over Fort Lauderdale, Fort Myers, or Tampa?

[TexasPlaya]

Cotton was pretty big in SE Texas when Houston was founded. Houston was aided by Galveston's proximity and by the US Congress in the late 19th century with all the canals/channels they were funding/building which culminated in the start of the Houston ship channel.

Power shifted towards Houston once Galveston was nearly destroyed by a hurricane and by the discovery of oil at Spindletop (Beaumont, TX today) in the very early 20th century.