Cities that would be better off in somewhat different locations than they are

[James Bond Agent 007]

Originally Posted by MAC123

Can't believe it hasn't been said yet. New Orleans. Don't know the exact position I'd want it, preferably more uphill. They're in a bowl right now with a lake on one side, and a river on the other.
Though have they finally fixed their problem with their new levees?

Yeah they fixed all those levees.

NO is in such a crappy location I'm not sure moving it 50 miles in any direction would make much difference. Maybe they should have just let Baton Rouge become the biggest LA city from the get-go and get it over with. I suppose we have the French to blame for that.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by James Bond Agent 007

Yeah they fixed all those levees.

NO is in such a crappy location I'm not sure moving it 50 miles in any direction would make much difference. Maybe they should have just let Baton Rouge become the biggest LA city from the get-go and get it over with. I suppose we have the French to blame for that.

The French actually built above sea level, it wasn't until we git it that we developed anywhere.

[Steely Dan]

Another bit of a head scratcher for me, to go along with my earlier Baltimore question, I wonder why New Haven was founded at the mouth of the relatively minor Quinnipiac River, instead of 30 miles east at the mouth of the FAR more substantial Connecticut River, which stretches deep in New England.

[LAisthePlace]

I love seeing the mountains beyond the Downtown Los Angeles Skyline, but I think starting from scratch it may have been better right along the coast (my vote goes to where the neighborhood of San Pedro is now).

[James Bond Agent 007]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Another bit of a head scratcher for me, to go along with my earlier Baltimore question, I wonder why New Haven was founded at the mouth of the relatively minor Quinnipiac River, instead of 30 miles east at the mouth of the FAR more substantial Connecticut River, which stretches deep in New England.

I think in the case of both Baltimore and New Haven, the harbors of the existing locations might have been better for the sea-faring ships of the 16th and 17th centuries than the harbors at the mouth of the bigger rivers. At least looking at the locations on Google maps, it looks to be that way.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by James Bond Agent 007

Why would you want it away from the waterfront?

Seems to me the ideal location would be overlooking Lake St Claire.

Aesthetically I like it where it's at, but I think downtown Detroit would be better off if it developed in a location that is not as cut off from surrounding population. Because of the border, it has about the worst location that you could conceive of bad relative to the regional population. All of the big Great Lakes cities have a similar problem, but Detroit's might be the worst due to the curvature of the river/coast line. Chicago, Toronto, Milwaukee, and Cleveland could develop pretty symmetrically along the coast going away from downtown.

Most other cities don't have isolated downtowns. Even on the coasts, all of the downtowns took root away from the coast with developable land in most directions away from downtown.

[softee]

It would be pretty awesome if Toronto and Buffalo were across the Niagara River from each other on the South shore of Lake Ontario.

[James Bond Agent 007]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Aesthetically I like it where it's at, but I think downtown Detroit would be better off if it developed in a location that is not as cut off from surrounding population. Because of the border, it has about the worst location that you could conceive of bad relative to the regional population. All of the big Great Lakes cities have a similar problem, but Detroit's might be the worst due to the curvature of the river/coast line. Chicago, Toronto, Milwaukee, and Cleveland could develop pretty symmetrically along the coast going away from downtown.

Most other cities don't have isolated downtowns. Even on the coasts, all of the downtowns took root away from the coast with developable land in most directions away from downtown.

Yeah, but imagine if downtown Detroit was at the location I linked. All the buildings downtown would have views of the lake. North along the western shore of Lake St Claire you could have a wall of highrises. It could be like Chicago.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Most other cities don't have isolated downtowns. Even on the coasts, all of the downtowns took root away from the coast with developable land in most directions away from downtown.

Right. Downtown Detroit is kind of isolated, from a regional construct. The river and Canada are to the south. The lake to the east. Downriver is factories and then rapidly shifts to farms. Growth and wealth has shifted north/west for a century. Even in Detroit boom times, the downtown core was rather small and constrained.

[James Bond Agent 007]

Getting a little more detailed about my downtown Detroit idea, let's say it was located precisely here. Just across from the south end of downtown you'd have Belle Isle and you'd have a park like it is now. Then spreading north along the shore of Lake St Claire you could have a wall of highrises overlooking the lake. It could look like this.

That would be great!

[Manitopiaaa]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

I always found it a touch odd that the main city of northern Chesapeake Bay developed at the mouth of the relatively minor Patapsco River (Baltimore), instead of a little ways north at the mouth of the FAR more substantial Susquehanna River, which stretches deep into Pennsylvania.

Baltimore is in a protected harbor. That was definitely a huge bonus. And Susquehanna is one of the world's largest non-navigable rivers, as the Fall Line is almost right at the mouth.

[SFBruin]

Originally Posted by muertecaza

I've wished that downtown Phoenix had been built ~2.5 miles south

I feel like Phoenix should have been located where the airport is now, and the airport should have been located somewhere else.

Idk, just my take on it.

[pdxtex]

Portland! Yes, Portland either needs to be 70 miles east or 70 miles west. Taking a nice mountainy hike takes 2 hours to get to the trailhead and driving to the coast is a white knuckle rally race on twisty two lane roads going 70 while either being tail gated by tweakers in a Saturn or their by dealer in a jacked up f150. Mazeltov!

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

I always found it a touch odd that the main city of northern Chesapeake Bay developed at the mouth of the relatively minor Patapsco River (Baltimore), instead of a little ways north at the mouth of the FAR more substantial Susquehanna River, which stretches deep into Pennsylvania.

Originally Posted by Manitopiaaa

Baltimore is in a protected harbor. That was definitely a huge bonus. And Susquehanna is one of the world's largest non-navigable rivers, as the Fall Line is almost right at the mouth.

Yup, Baltimore -- protected, stable harbor, fed by relatively minor sources, which are tempered by deepwater.

Mouth of Susquehanna -- deep, and then all of a sudden very shallow and erratic depths. Huge flooding... not a place for a substantial settlement back in the day (or now).

Originally Posted by James Bond Agent 007

Yeah they fixed all those levees.

NO is in such a crappy location I'm not sure moving it 50 miles in any direction would make much difference. Maybe they should have just let Baton Rouge become the biggest LA city from the get-go and get it over with. I suppose we have the French to blame for that.

New Orleans is a case of a city having to be there. Control the entire entry/exit to/from the heart of the continent.

[JoeMusashi]

Grand Rapids should be on Lake Michigan. It's a shame Michigan doesn't have a major city on its namesake Great Lake. It would be directly across the lake from Milwaukee and look good on a map. I would move Kalamazoo, Lansing, and Battle Creek to Lake Michigan. Also move South Bend to the Indiana coast.

[Crawford]

GR began as an industrial center with river-borne commerce, so unlikely.

And moving it to the coast would give it epic snowfalls, which would probably reduce desirability. That's the lake effect bullseye in Michigan.

[pj3000]

Move Erie (with its harbor) 30 miles east or west out of PA and into NY or OH, and Buffalo or Cleveland would have never developed into major cities.

[James Bond Agent 007]

BTW this doesn't just have to be the US and Canada, any city anywhere in the world is game.

Maybe Munich would have been better if it was closer to the mountains, like maybe at the north end of this lake here.

[SIGSEGV]

It always bothered me that Bucharest is on the dinky Dâmboviţa and not the Argeş or maybe even the Danube.

[ue]

Originally Posted by James Bond Agent 007

Did you ever look at a city on a map and think, "Y'know, if this city was just a few miles over in this direction it would be a lot better off?"

Here are two I've thought of for this:

Winnipeg could be here. Among other things, it would be along the Winnipeg River at the south end of Lake Winnipeg. Plus it would have lake views and be closer to some forests to the east.

Downtown Detroit should have been located here.

Originally Posted by Razor

Not to break the thread rules. but Winnipeg should of been a Great Lakes city..At the expense of Thunder Bay maybe? No offense Paul Schaeffer. No offense Staal brothers!

Interesting that Winnipeg came up twice. It's already at a significant geographic point (although less dramatic perhaps) - the confluence of the Red and Assiniboine Rivers. Both of these proposed relocations would have been much more rugged, Canadian Shield (harder to build on) and a harsher climate. Neither of these regions are near any significant arable land, which means that if Winnipeg were at either of these locations, it wouldn't have had a big rural hinterland feeding into it and boosting the local economy (there would be no grain exchange). Although I suppose the version at the mouth of the Winnipeg River is closer to farmable land at least, so it's the more realistic of the two.