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

[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.

[MolsonExport]

Montreal should have been located here

[James Bond Agent 007]

^
That's a little farther away than I had in mind.

Like, 50 miles away at the most.

[Boisebro]

i wish Bend, Oregon would've been located here, because then it would've been bigger.

[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.

[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!

[llamaorama]

If Dallas-Fort Worth was shifted west approximately 40 miles so that Dallas was centered on where Fort Worth is at the fork of the Trinity, and Fort Worth was on the Brazos where Mineral Wells is, then both cities would have slightly more hills and that might improve the aesthetics of them by a little bit.

[dubu]

Originally Posted by Boisebro

i wish Bend, Oregon would've been located here, because then it would've been bigger.

two places next to each other called big bend, they must be real bendy.

[muertecaza]

I've wished that downtown Phoenix had been built ~2.5 miles south so that it was on the Salt River. As far as I know the eventual townsite was basically just chosen because one of the founding farmers owned the land. The river would still have been dry from upstream dams. But if downtown was on the river, instead of the river being a neglected gravel pit on the wrong side of historical red lining, it might have at least eventually been dammed and filled like Tempe Town Lake.

[iheartthed]

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.

I think downtown Detroit would be a lot better off if it were located about 3-4 miles north of where its at now, away from the waterfront. Basically where New Center is located. Another scenario that would benefit downtown Detroit better is if Essex County, Ontario, was part of the U.S.

[James Bond Agent 007]

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!

If Canada wanted another big Great Lakes city, they should have located London somewhere around here.

[James Bond Agent 007]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I think downtown Detroit would be a lot better off if it were located about 3-4 miles north of where its at now, away from the waterfront. Basically where New Center is located. Another scenario that would benefit downtown Detroit better is if Essex County, Ontario, was part of the U.S.

Why would you want it away from the waterfront?

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

[The North One]

Eh, I don't think that would have been a good spot for downtown Detroit IMO. I prefer it where it actually is.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Montreal should have been located here

Montreal kinda moved, in 1976, to https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6488....3802465,17.5z

[R1070]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

If Dallas-Fort Worth was shifted west approximately 40 miles so that Dallas was centered on where Fort Worth is at the fork of the Trinity, and Fort Worth was on the Brazos where Mineral Wells is, then both cities would have slightly more hills and that might improve the aesthetics of them by a little bit.

I've always thought DFW being in the Palo Pinto/Brazos River area would very nice. It's so pretty around there. It is quite a bit higher in elevation though and the area would most likely experience slightly more overnight freezes in Winter which would be a negative.

[Buckeye Native 001]

Originally Posted by muertecaza

I've wished that downtown Phoenix had been built ~2.5 miles south so that it was on the Salt River. As far as I know the eventual townsite was basically just chosen because one of the founding farmers owned the land. The river would still have been dry from upstream dams. But if downtown was on the river, instead of the river being a neglected gravel pit on the wrong side of historical red lining, it might have at least eventually been dammed and filled like Tempe Town Lake.

Gonna have to concur, and I'm biased because I grew up in a river city before moving to Phoenix.

I also see what Tempe's doing with waterfront development every time I'm driving east on the 202 and get kind of jealous.

[lio45]

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?"

One example I can think of would be Amarillo, TX, which is in a featureless plain and the downtown happens to be nearly on a county line (the city is in two different counties; I believe this means two sheriff departments, etc.)

It could have been in a slightly different spot in the area and then it would be mostly within its one county.

(I don't think there's any reason for it to be where it is; it probably developed exactly there because the railroad was happening to be passing there and not somewhere else a few miles away.)

[JManc]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

If Dallas-Fort Worth was shifted west approximately 40 miles so that Dallas was centered on where Fort Worth is at the fork of the Trinity, and Fort Worth was on the Brazos where Mineral Wells is, then both cities would have slightly more hills and that might improve the aesthetics of them by a little bit.

Likewise if Houston was pushed north where The Woodlands is. Less ugly plain and more forests.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by JManc

Likewise if Houston was pushed north where The Woodlands is. Less ugly plain and more forests.

Better hurricane protection too.

In fact, there's a bunch of reasons Miami would be better off located where Orlando is, in the long term. It wouldn't be Miami anymore however.

[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?