Cities and Bodies of Waters (largest, highway, Atlanta, transportation)

[soldierlifter]

Back in history often times the reason the city or town was put in that spot was due to a strategic body of water like a river. And then grew it to the city it is today (i.e. NYC Hudson/Erie Canal) My question is how many of the water features in some places are still crucial to the city and it's economy? What are some where they are not so much?

[soldierlifter]

Or any that don't really have any to begin with? Some of those cities in North Carolina don't seem to built on any prominent rivers.

[annie_himself]

New Orleans still depends on the Mississippi River.

[Guineas]

Seattle and Puget Sound, which is part of the Inside Passage through Alaska. Seattle-Tacoma has one of the largest container ship ports in the country. I wouldn't say crucial, but certainly helps diversify the economy some from tech.


Puget Sound from Seattle (own photo)

[Avondalist]

Shipping is still the cheapest form of transportation. Port cities have if anything grown in importance since globalization began.

Chicago is an example of a city sited on a body of water that is hardly used anymore. Chicago's location was chosen as it's a portage between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi-Missouri-Ohio river system. This was during the canal days and in fact two canals were dug to connect the two water systems.

However this only mattered for a short time, until Stephen Douglas (of the Lincoln Douglas debates fame) used his power in Congress to make Chicago the center of the growing national rail network. After that, railroads surpassed the canals in importance and Chicago's port has been a small part of the city's economy since.

[bus man]

The Niagara River, and its namesake waterfall, was, and still is, an important source of hydropower and a major tourism draw for both Niagara Falls, NY and Niagara Falls, Ont.

[grega94]

Spokane’s site was chosen due to the falls which powered water mills and 2 hydroelectric dams that still operate today, the first being built back in 1890. Otherwise the falls main draw is tourists (so not nearly as economically important as it once was), and since the early 20th century the city grew a railway hub where trains from Portland and Seattle pass through on their way to the east coast.

[Nattering Heights]

Many southwestern cities get their water from distant sources, and will depopulate as there is more competition for shrinking water supplies, higher energy costs of pumping the water, and higher costs of infrastructure maintenance.

[citylove101]

Two of the South’s most important cities, Atlanta and Charlotte, developed with little if any relationships to large bodies of water. Atlanta was a railroad hub traditionally, while Charlotte’s growth took off during the postwar years, along with growth in car ownership and highway construction.

So it’s possible for a big city to grow with no big water accessibility, but it seems rare in the U.S., at least east of the Mississippi.

[ciceropolo]

Most cities by bodies of water are due to a couple things.

One what is the overall topography of a region and based upon its historical time of development and the predominant modes of transportation available as well as the primary source of fuel / energy to engage in the commerce of their times.


So, older cities pre industrial times tended to be near a body of water or close enough to channel water for agricultural purposes. Once the industrial age and coal, steam power up to modern variants of power their generally is still a reason for having a large body of water. Also if a settlement was to grow in population a source of potable / treatable water was necessary.

Anyplace where deep water ports will still function as developed for commerce and trade. In instances where a heavy working port brings undesirable elements the main commercial area of the city (FIRE) will likely have developed a node (Central Business District a distance away.

Some cities are evolving away from the the founding heavy resource intensive needs some of the ports / shipping centers that caused their initial development. In the US a lot of this has transpired from migration of population from dreary northern cities - as the technology of commerce has transitioned to a blend of encompassing higher cleaner technology based more on brain power than on brawn power of old industries - to warmer climates.

Another thing to consider is cities also tended to be in a 'Goldilocks' range within areas of fertile arable land (hence near water) which could at least sustain larger population for a reasonable amount of time in more distant times before larger commercial trade systems became set up with networks of sources. Advances in transportation (railhead crossroads on overland routes are also some without large bodies of water nearby, but you will find they most all had large reservoir waterworks projects put into place for energy / water management for agricultural / resident population purposes.


Lastly, humans have always had a symbiotic relationship with water as a lifeblood to survival since the most ancient of times with knowledge of aquifers et al