5 ms·

> There's plenty of cheap land where we could make cheap houses. It's just in the middle of nowhere. Why isn't America making more new big cities? There’s a fe

> There's plenty of cheap land where we could make cheap houses. It's just in the middle of nowhere. Why isn't America making more new big cities? There’s a few reason, I’ll tackle the geographic one. Big cities already occupy most/all the spots that work for big cities. Big cities almost invariably share a few attributes: -Interstate freeway access -On a navigable waterway or ocean -Railroad infrastructure I personally believe that navigable waterway/ocean proximity is the main thing that allows large cities to develop. Take a look at the navigable waterway map of the US: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inland_waterways_of_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inland_waterways_of_the_Unit... There are only a handful of major cities that aren’t on a navigable river or on the coast: Denver, Phoenix, Dallas/Ft Worth, Las Vegas, Atlanta, Indianapolis (probably more I am missing) Minnesota is an interesting case, MPLS/St Paul is reachable from the Gulf of Mexico via the Mississippi, and Duluth is reachable from the Atlantic Ocean via the St Lawrence Seaway (and Great Lakes). As the crow flies, the ocean is 800-1000 miles away from MN but it’s still accessible by water.

naijaboiler 2y ago
historically cities developed along navigable waterways. Not as necessary in modern times. But lots of big cities are a continuation of existing cities
pcthrowaway 2y ago
> (probably more I am missing) Pretty sure you're missing a lot of them Just from skimming the biggest 100 U.S. cities, these jump out to me * Austin * San Antonio * Colombus * Charlotte * Oklahoma City * El Paso * Albuquerque * Tucson * Fresno * Mesa * Colorado Springs * Raleigh * Bakersfield * Arlington * Wichita * Aurora * Anaheim * Henderson * Orlando * Lexington * Stockton * Riverside * Greensboro * Lincoln * Plano * North Las Vegas * Madison * Chandler * Gilbert * Reno * Fort Wayne * Lubbock * Laredo * Irving * Glendale * Winston-Salem * Scottsdale * Garland * Boise * Spokane * Richmond? So of the 98 cities which are in the contiguous u.s. and in the top 100 most populous cities, 47-48 of them are not connected to waterways on that map, though I realize many of these are parts of the same metro (like 4-5 of them in the dallas/ft worth area)
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

naijaboiler 2y ago

historically cities developed along navigable waterways. Not as necessary in modern times. But lots of big cities are a continuation of existing cities

pcthrowaway 2y ago

> (probably more I am missing) Pretty sure you're missing a lot of them Just from skimming the biggest 100 U.S. cities, these jump out to me * Austin * San Antonio * Colombus * Charlotte * Oklahoma City * El Paso * Albuquerque * Tucson * Fresno * Mesa * Colorado Springs * Raleigh * Bakersfield * Arlington * Wichita * Aurora * Anaheim * Henderson * Orlando * Lexington * Stockton * Riverside * Greensboro * Lincoln * Plano * North Las Vegas * Madison * Chandler * Gilbert * Reno * Fort Wayne * Lubbock * Laredo * Irving * Glendale * Winston-Salem * Scottsdale * Garland * Boise * Spokane * Richmond? So of the 98 cities which are in the contiguous u.s. and in the top 100 most populous cities, 47-48 of them are not connected to waterways on that map, though I realize many of these are parts of the same metro (like 4-5 of them in the dallas/ft worth area)

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]