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

[north 42]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

Isn't Lake St. Claire like 5 feet deep? Downtown Detroit is very impressive from Windsor. The location on the river is O.K.

It is a very shallow lake, the average depth is just 11ft with a maximum natural depth of 21ft.

[James Bond Agent 007]

Depth doesn't matter IMO, it's nice to look at.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by lio45

Capitals, especially Midwestern ones, seemed to get chosen mostly thanks to being close to the geographical centers of their states. Cincy and Cleveland and St. Louis and Chicago and Milwaukee and Omaha aren't capitals, I don't think Detroit would have been one even if SWO had been part of the USA.

Detroit was the capital. It was moved because of concerns about being on the border of British territory.

[jbermingham123]

Originally Posted by James Bond Agent 007

Depth doesn't matter IMO, it's nice to look at.

Thats what they say about your mom

Originally Posted by north 42

It is a very shallow lake, the average depth is just 11ft with a maximum natural depth of 21ft.

Yeah there are a couple channels in the lake to allow ship traffic that need to be dredged consistently

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by James Bond Agent 007

Depth doesn't matter IMO, it's nice to look at.

It matters for shipping/navigation.

Lake st. Clair has one of the flattest and shallowest lake bottoms anywhere. It's 430 sq. miles in area and yet it has an average depth of only 11'!!!

As mentioned above, the army Corp of engineers has to maintain a dredged channel of 28' depth clear across the lake just to make sure that the big lake freighters can safely traverse it.

My guess is that downtown Detroit being sited where it is along the navigably deep enough Detroit river vs. further east along the shores of lake st. clair might very well have had something to do with the lake's incredible shallowness.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

It matters for shipping/navigation.

Lake st. Claire has one of the flattest and shallowest lake bottoms anywhere. It's 430 sq. miles in area and yet it has an average depth of only 11'!!!

As mentioned above, the army Corp of engineers has to maintain a dredged channel of 28' depth clear across the lake just to make sure that the big lake freighters can safely traverse it.

My guess is that downtown Detroit being sited where it is along the navigably deep enough Detroit river vs. further east along the shores of lake st. claire might very well have had something to do with the lake's incredible shallowness.

Interesting that it's only 11' average depth... never realized that.

What's amazing to me is that a depth of only 28' is all those gigantor lake freighters need. It seems almost impossible that they only need that rather shallow depth when you see them in person.

I would imagine that Lake St. Clair was more marshy back in the day all along the shoreline out to a significant distance, long prior to any type of shoreline modifications and dredging. And thus as you said, not a suitable place for a settlement .

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by benp

The Seaway wasn't fully open to ocean ships until around 1959, 134 years after the opening of the Erie Canal. Even if the larger St. Lawrence locks had been constructed earlier, the Erie Canal would have preceded it as it was funded by NY State at a time prior to significant federal government involvement in large projects, and still would have accelerated NYC growth. NY still had a preferable harbor and location compared to Halifax, or even Montreal, for goods distribution, all-season access, and protection. Once the railroads were constructed, goods from Europe would still preferably be shipped to harbors more centralized to population, like NY, Boston, Philadelphia, and Charleston. In 1800, even prior to the canal, NYC population was 60k, while the combined population of Toronto and Montreal was less than 20k.

I really don't see that much would have changed in how US and Canadian cities would have developed and grown, as geography was the driver for growth in much of the 19th and early 20th centuries.

The seaway would likely have been built much earlier if Canada were a part of the US - but I agree that New York likely would have remained a major city. New York was the economic capital of the US long before the revolution and even if Upper Canada had joined the revolution in 1776, Ontario was nothing more than woodlands with a handful of very small settlements and Montreal was only a small town. Toronto wasn't even founded as a permanent settlement until 1793. New York had already asserted economic dominance at that point.

A lot of what drove major settlement in Ontario post-revolution was fleeing loyalists as well. It was entirely unsettled other than Kingston and Queenston at the time, both of which were nothing more than small villages. If it had been part of the revolution it would have grown at a much slower pace and likely not been largely settled until the mid-1800's and would probably have looked a lot like Michigan in it's settlement pattern, and would have had a lot less people. I imagine Toronto would have been a mid-sized city similar to Milwaukee or Toledo and Montreal would have remained fairly prominent, if not smaller than it is today.

It's all for moot anyway as Quebec, basically the only settled part of central Canada at the time, would never have joined in the US revolution owing to it's french past as the extremely different politics involved in that.

[Innsertnamehere]

Regarding major cities on the north shore of Lake Erie - there is a natural harbour that very closely emulates the natural state of Toronto's and Erie's harbours pre-settlement. The harbour is at Erieau south of Chatham.

My understanding was that London's location was largely picked specifically *because* it was away from the great lakes to make it more challenging to invade by the Americans.

London was originally intended to be the provincial capital for Upper Canada (Ontario) when it was founded in the late 18th century, thus the name London, however as it was so isolated at the time as none of Southern Ontario had been settled, Toronto was made the provincial capital on an originally temporary basis.

York (Toronto) at the time was nothing more than a handful of houses, but the largest towns at the time, Kingston and Queenston, were deemed too close to the border and at too much risk of invasion from the Americans. Toronto had a good natural harbour and was far enough from the border, so it was deemed appropriate for a temporary capital, if not ideal.

By the time London achieved sufficient infrastructure (roads accessing it, enough farms around to sustain it, etc.), the war of 1812 was over, York had been invaded and burned to the ground and rebuilt, and the risk of invasion wasn't really there anymore, so they never bothered moving the capital.

So the reason there isn't a big city on the north shore of Lake Erie is that the original settlers of Upper Canada wanted a capital that was hard to invade by the Americans and specifically located the major population centre in the area away from the lake.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Blitz

Windsor dates back to 1749...it's the oldest European-founded settlement west of Montreal. It didn't really see substantial growth until Henry Ford established the auto industry in Detroit. Shortly after that, a factory was built in Windsor to serve the Canadian market. Several small communities along the river then merged together to form a larger city.

The early French settlements in what is today the Detroit-Windsor area spanned both sides of the river I believe, as the border concern was irrelevant at the time.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

It matters for shipping/navigation.

Lake st. Clair has one of the flattest and shallowest lake bottoms anywhere. It's 430 sq. miles in area and yet it has an average depth of only 11'!!!

As mentioned above, the army Corp of engineers has to maintain a dredged channel of 28' depth clear across the lake just to make sure that the big lake freighters can safely traverse it.

My guess is that downtown Detroit being sited where it is along the navigably deep enough Detroit river vs. further east along the shores of lake st. clair might very well have had something to do with the lake's incredible shallowness.

Most of the Detroit river also had to be dredged for those bigger ships. Downriver before you reach the city was dredged as well. There are multiple channels, Livingstone is the main one.

Detroit was founded where it is because it was an excellent spot for a fort, perched on bluffs over the water. But also it was an important spot on the fur trade route (which had to be the on the strait, lake St. Clair wouldn't have been easily controlled). It was also a significant gathering location for the Native Americans.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by The North One

Detroit was founded where it is because it was an excellent spot for a fort, perched on bluffs over the water.

yeah, that's a great point. a lot of the very earliest european settlements in the great lakes region were strategic places of control (niagara, detroit, mackinac, sault ste. marie, etc.) not necessarily places that simply had "really good harbors".

[lio45]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Detroit was the capital. It was moved because of concerns about being on the border of British territory.

All those early state capitals that were on the edges of their states (Savannah/Augusta, Natchez, Kaskaskia IL, St. Louis/St. Charles, etc.) eventually got replaced as capitals by newer/younger cities that were deliberately chosen for the one characteristic of being way more central to the states. I guarantee Detroit would not have remained capital even if SWO had been part of the USA.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

yeah, that's a great point. a lot of the very earliest european settlements in the great lakes region were strategic places of control (niagara, detroit, mackinac, sault ste. marie, etc.) not necessarily places that simply had "really good harbors".

Yeah, exactly. The city was guaranteed to be somewhere on the strait because that's where Cadillac wanted it, and convinced France of a strategic settlement. But it's exact location actually has a reason.

https://detroithistorical.org/learn/...unding-detroit

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by The North One

Yeah, exactly. The city was guaranteed to be somewhere on the strait because that's where Cadillac wanted it, and convinced France of a strategic settlement. But it's exact location actually has a reason.

https://detroithistorical.org/learn/...unding-detroit

Awesome link!

And that is why downtown Detroit wasn't located several miles east on the shores of Lake St. Clair.

Narrowest part of the river, no islands obstructing the view, a high ground easier to defend, BOOM! that's where you build a fort to control who goes up and and down the river. Cadillac wouldn't have given the single slightest shit about pretty lake views. He knew what he was doing.

[Crawford]

Not sure Lake St. Clair would have offered much of "pretty lake views" back then anyways.

The less developed parts show it was pretty much a weedy marsh. It looks like a regular lake in Metro Detroit suburbs, but go north, and there's no distinct shoreline per se, just a wetland than gradually becomes open water.

[north 42]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Not sure Lake St. Clair would have offered much of "pretty lake views" back then anyways.

The less developed parts show it was pretty much a weedy marsh. It looks like a regular lake in Metro Detroit suburbs, but go north, and there's no distinct shoreline per se, just a wetland than gradually becomes open water.

The weedy areas are more to the north east part of the lake, especially the river delta around the mouth of the St. Clair River (the largest delta on the Great Lakes) The lake actually has a fair amount of sandy beaches along it.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by lio45

All those early state capitals that were on the edges of their states (Savannah/Augusta, Natchez, Kaskaskia IL, St. Louis/St. Charles, etc.) eventually got replaced as capitals by newer/younger cities that were deliberately chosen for the one characteristic of being way more central to the states. I guarantee Detroit would not have remained capital even if SWO had been part of the USA.

I'm not so sure about that. I think western states were likely to choose a central location for a capital at time statehood was granted, but moving state capitals after statehood seems to be biased to the eastern states. Nearly every state east of the Mississippi moved state capitals at least once, while very few states west of the Mississippi did. I don't think it's a given that Michigan would have moved the state capital were it not for the obvious threat from the British. I suspect that many other state capitals were moved for strategic reasons related to security.

From wikipedia: States (highlighted in blue) that have changed their capital city at least once.

[Razor]

Like a lot of Iconic NA cities, I like that Detroit started off as a fort and trading post..It gives it some historical depth..

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by biguc

Manitoba's big city was supposed to be Selkirk. Winnipeg is in a pretty lousy location for a city--it floods. Selkirk has a deeper river valley, but Winnipeg bribed the railways or something.

You are thinking of Emerson, Manitoba. Not Selkirk.

[bellason]

Originally Posted by Razor

Like a lot of Iconic NA cities, I like that Detroit started off as a fort and trading post..It gives it some historical depth..

Fantastic. I have a few memories left behind in Detroit. Detroit was somewhat simple to expand on, then again, actually it was very wet and marshy, which represented a few issues. Yet, it had genuinely a couple of moraines, and along these lines, the land in Detroit was exceptionally level. Additionally, it had exceptionally simple admittance to the Great Lakes, since it was right on one.