3 ms·

I already knew all of that. Are you saying the NYC didn't exist before the eerie canal was built? Are you saying NYC wasn't the largest and most important city

I already knew all of that. Are you saying the NYC didn't exist before the eerie canal was built? Are you saying NYC wasn't the largest and most important city in the US before the eerie canal? So the eerie canal joined the hudson with the mississippi. The mississippi is 2300 miles long, the hudson river is 300 miles long. So which is the more important river? I wish you addressed my comment rather than posting a bunch of quotes. But I can see this won't go anywhere. You are entitled to your opinion. I'm sorry I could't change your mind.

raldi 7y ago
The topic of this thread isn't "What's the most important river in the United States?" Obviously the answer to that is the Mississippi. The topic is your claim that: > the hudson doesn't lead to a "huge hinterland" I think it's objectively clear that for any reasonable definitions of "lead" and "huge hinterland", it does.
- basetop 7y ago
  The topic of this thread is "what caused major cities to exist". The argument of the article was access to major hinterlands via rivers is why cities like london, nyc and shanghai exist. As you proved to me, the hudson didn't grant access to major hinterlands. It took the creation of the erie canal for access to the great lakes and mississippi. I'll repeat my point for your edification. NYC was already a major city before the erie canal. As I stated, the erie canal was built because NYC was the most important city in the US. The erie canal didn't cause NYC to become the most important city in the US. Yes, the hudson river with one of the world's major projects ( the erie canal ) eventually granted access to the hinterlands. But before the erie canal was built, it did not. Yet, NYC existed before the erie canal. Meaning without "access to the hinterlands via the artificially created erie canal", NYC would still exist because it did exist without the erie canal. Using your logic, NYC shouldn't have even existed before the erie canal because it didn't have access to the "huge hinterlands". But we know NYC existed prior to the erie canal and access to the "huge hinterlands".
  - raldi 7y ago
    You seem to deeply misunderstand my position. New York City exists at its location because nature made it the greatest port facility in the western hemisphere. Great cities emerge where there are transportation breaks: Seaports, rivers, lakeside sites (Chicago), the edge of mountain ranges (Denver). Any place goods need to be loaded and unloaded from long-range vehicles and onto other ones. The Erie Canal gave NYC access to America's hinterland, which floored the accelerator on the city's growth. But don't take my word for it; here's a foreword written by perhaps the most respected authority on the history of the city of New York: https://books.google.com/books?id=lVWSpqwqX8AC&lpg=PR15&ots=y68e-uRG4N&dq=%22New%20York%20City%20owes%20its%20location%2C%20its%20growth%2C%20its%20prosperity%2C%20and%20even%20its%20very%20existence%2C%20to%20its%20port%22&pg=PR15#v=onepage&q=%22New%20York%20City%20owes%20its%20location,%20its%20growth,%20its%20prosperity,%20and%20even%20its%20very%20existence,%20to%20its%20port%22&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=lVWSpqwqX8AC&lpg=PR15&ots=...

raldi 7y ago

The topic of this thread isn't "What's the most important river in the United States?" Obviously the answer to that is the Mississippi. The topic is your claim that: > the hudson doesn't lead to a "huge hinterland" I think it's objectively clear that for any reasonable definitions of "lead" and "huge hinterland", it does.

basetop 7y ago
The topic of this thread is "what caused major cities to exist". The argument of the article was access to major hinterlands via rivers is why cities like london, nyc and shanghai exist. As you proved to me, the hudson didn't grant access to major hinterlands. It took the creation of the erie canal for access to the great lakes and mississippi. I'll repeat my point for your edification. NYC was already a major city before the erie canal. As I stated, the erie canal was built because NYC was the most important city in the US. The erie canal didn't cause NYC to become the most important city in the US. Yes, the hudson river with one of the world's major projects ( the erie canal ) eventually granted access to the hinterlands. But before the erie canal was built, it did not. Yet, NYC existed before the erie canal. Meaning without "access to the hinterlands via the artificially created erie canal", NYC would still exist because it did exist without the erie canal. Using your logic, NYC shouldn't have even existed before the erie canal because it didn't have access to the "huge hinterlands". But we know NYC existed prior to the erie canal and access to the "huge hinterlands".
- raldi 7y ago
  You seem to deeply misunderstand my position. New York City exists at its location because nature made it the greatest port facility in the western hemisphere. Great cities emerge where there are transportation breaks: Seaports, rivers, lakeside sites (Chicago), the edge of mountain ranges (Denver). Any place goods need to be loaded and unloaded from long-range vehicles and onto other ones. The Erie Canal gave NYC access to America's hinterland, which floored the accelerator on the city's growth. But don't take my word for it; here's a foreword written by perhaps the most respected authority on the history of the city of New York: https://books.google.com/books?id=lVWSpqwqX8AC&lpg=PR15&ots=y68e-uRG4N&dq=%22New%20York%20City%20owes%20its%20location%2C%20its%20growth%2C%20its%20prosperity%2C%20and%20even%20its%20very%20existence%2C%20to%20its%20port%22&pg=PR15#v=onepage&q=%22New%20York%20City%20owes%20its%20location,%20its%20growth,%20its%20prosperity,%20and%20even%20its%20very%20existence,%20to%20its%20port%22&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=lVWSpqwqX8AC&lpg=PR15&ots=...