5 ms·

Only seeing hand waving, not a single number. Lots of cities were founded in the Americas over the past 10k years. No major cities have been incorporated in t

Only seeing hand waving, not a single number. Lots of cities were founded in the Americas over the past 10k years. No major cities have been incorporated in the U.S. since Anchorage in 1914 and Vegas in 1911. On the other hand, Colombia, Mexico, Canada, the Bahamas, Paraguay, Brazil, and Belize have founded major cities since then. Why not in the U.S.? Cancun was founded in 1970!

bluGill 2y ago
Again, you can explain those newer cities by either politics (meaning I question how long they will last - though short of a medical breakthrough we will all be dead before we can see their death), or there are geographical reasons for a city to exist there. New York city has to exist there as a city - you can change the name, but the harbor is to useful to ignore.
- maxwell 2y ago
  But New York Harbor no longer has any cargo ports. Shipping shifted to Newark Bay decades ago. Same with San Francisco. No longer any cargo ports. They're all in Oakland now. And what's even the advantage of living near a cargo port in the 21st century anyway?
  - woodruffw 2y ago
    There are at least two active cargo ports in the New York Harbor: the Port Jersey Marine Terminal in NJ, and the Red Hook Marine Terminal in Brooklyn. I believe the city has also been slowly reactivating the South Brooklyn Marine Terminal. I don't know if the average resident on NYC benefits much from living near a cargo port. But there are significant benefits to living in coastal areas: water has a moderating effect on climate, provides either natural sewage outfall (or fresh water, depending), and brings in tourists. It's not a coincidence that the overwhelming majority of cities exist on sea or lake coasts, followed by navigable rivers, and that there aren't all that many choice locations left.
    - maxwell 2y ago
      Ah, good point, I stand corrected on New York Harbor, glad to see that. That seems true for most cities that made it through the Age of Sail, but less true before and unclear going forward. It seems trade routes by land were generally more important, and conquest and shipping were more carried out on land than sea until the technical developments of the 15th century. Most large ancient cities seem to have lied along the Silk Road, and many large (and late) ancient cities that still exist (Rome, Paris, London) aren't right on the sea as in the Americas. Going forward the bigger issue seems to be insurability. Who's going to hold the bag on all those high rises in Miami...
      - woodruffw 2y ago
        Rome is on the Tiber, which flows directly into the Tyrrhenian Sea (via Ostia, which was Rome's "Oakland" and had its own sizeable population in antiquity). London, Thames. Paris, Seine. (Closer to MENA and the Levant, and you'll find that antiquity cities almost entirely exist on the Tigris, Euphrates, Nile, etc. You can find inland Silk Road ksour in countries like Morocco, but these too exist along seasonal rivers, and have correspondingly lower and nomadic populations.) I don't particularly disagree about climate change, and I think a lot of the coastal Southern US is in for a rough awakening in the next 15 to 30 years. But things haven't been so peachy inland either (the Midwest has had both more numerous and more severe floods, tornadoes, etc.). NYC's weather is also certainly going to become more extreme, and the city's response so far has been unimpressive.
        maxwell 2y ago
        Rome is over 15 miles from the coast, London over 20, Paris over 90. OTOH, Lisbon, Amsterdam, and Antwerp have direct sea access (and benefited early in the Age of Sail). Boston, New York, Philly, Baltimore, and DC all have direct sea access. Agreed. To me New England and the Great Lakes seem the best positioned U.S. regions for the 22nd century.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
marssaxman 2y ago
Where would you put a new city, and what would be the point of going there? There are already settlements in every place it makes sense to live. Any new city would have to be developed on the strength of some newly-discovered resource; what would that be, and why would you not simply expand whichever town already happens to exist nearby, instead of going to all the expense of starting from scratch?
- maxwell 2y ago
  I'd connect the country with high-speed rail and focus entirely on manufacturing, just like China. Lots of cities and towns would pop up along the rail corridors, as in the UK and the first time we built out our rail infrastructure and everywhere else it's been done. The U.S. stopped building new cities around the same time we started adopting automobiles. Our highway system has enriched incumbent cities and created a nation of gas stations, inexpensive motels, restaurants that serve rapidly prepared food, tire salons, automobile dealerships, and billboards. Let's build Hyperdrive City, Nebraska, where you can rent an apartment on the 93rd floor of the mall for $200 a month: https://br.ifunny.co/picture/derek-eedrk-can-we-build-one-of-those-insane-neon-ZhQQBMOC9 https://br.ifunny.co/picture/derek-eedrk-can-we-build-one-of... Or one of these: https://www.cnn.com/style/article/chengdu-future-city-design-competition-masterplan/index.html https://www.cnn.com/style/article/chengdu-future-city-design...
  - jjav 2y ago
    > Let's build Hyperdrive City, Nebraska, where you can rent an apartment on the 93rd floor of the mall for $200 a month What is the motivation for a developer to build a 100 story (or at least 93 I guess) skyscraper in some empty field in Nebraska?
    - maxwell 2y ago
      I mean, maybe we go with OKC instead: https://therealdeal.com/national/2024/01/28/who-is-real-estate-developer-scot-matteson https://therealdeal.com/national/2024/01/28/who-is-real-esta... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legends_Tower https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legends_Tower Or let's give Washington back to Maryland (like Alexandria to Virginia), move the federal district to Lincoln, and build a new Capitol to accommodate a House with representation more like 70k:1 than the current (abhorrent) 700k:1.

bluGill 2y ago

Again, you can explain those newer cities by either politics (meaning I question how long they will last - though short of a medical breakthrough we will all be dead before we can see their death), or there are geographical reasons for a city to exist there. New York city has to exist there as a city - you can change the name, but the harbor is to useful to ignore.

maxwell 2y ago
But New York Harbor no longer has any cargo ports. Shipping shifted to Newark Bay decades ago. Same with San Francisco. No longer any cargo ports. They're all in Oakland now. And what's even the advantage of living near a cargo port in the 21st century anyway?
- woodruffw 2y ago
  There are at least two active cargo ports in the New York Harbor: the Port Jersey Marine Terminal in NJ, and the Red Hook Marine Terminal in Brooklyn. I believe the city has also been slowly reactivating the South Brooklyn Marine Terminal. I don't know if the average resident on NYC benefits much from living near a cargo port. But there are significant benefits to living in coastal areas: water has a moderating effect on climate, provides either natural sewage outfall (or fresh water, depending), and brings in tourists. It's not a coincidence that the overwhelming majority of cities exist on sea or lake coasts, followed by navigable rivers, and that there aren't all that many choice locations left.
  - maxwell 2y ago
    Ah, good point, I stand corrected on New York Harbor, glad to see that. That seems true for most cities that made it through the Age of Sail, but less true before and unclear going forward. It seems trade routes by land were generally more important, and conquest and shipping were more carried out on land than sea until the technical developments of the 15th century. Most large ancient cities seem to have lied along the Silk Road, and many large (and late) ancient cities that still exist (Rome, Paris, London) aren't right on the sea as in the Americas. Going forward the bigger issue seems to be insurability. Who's going to hold the bag on all those high rises in Miami...
    - woodruffw 2y ago
      Rome is on the Tiber, which flows directly into the Tyrrhenian Sea (via Ostia, which was Rome's "Oakland" and had its own sizeable population in antiquity). London, Thames. Paris, Seine. (Closer to MENA and the Levant, and you'll find that antiquity cities almost entirely exist on the Tigris, Euphrates, Nile, etc. You can find inland Silk Road ksour in countries like Morocco, but these too exist along seasonal rivers, and have correspondingly lower and nomadic populations.) I don't particularly disagree about climate change, and I think a lot of the coastal Southern US is in for a rough awakening in the next 15 to 30 years. But things haven't been so peachy inland either (the Midwest has had both more numerous and more severe floods, tornadoes, etc.). NYC's weather is also certainly going to become more extreme, and the city's response so far has been unimpressive.
      - maxwell 2y ago
        Rome is over 15 miles from the coast, London over 20, Paris over 90. OTOH, Lisbon, Amsterdam, and Antwerp have direct sea access (and benefited early in the Age of Sail). Boston, New York, Philly, Baltimore, and DC all have direct sea access. Agreed. To me New England and the Great Lakes seem the best positioned U.S. regions for the 22nd century.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

marssaxman 2y ago

Where would you put a new city, and what would be the point of going there? There are already settlements in every place it makes sense to live. Any new city would have to be developed on the strength of some newly-discovered resource; what would that be, and why would you not simply expand whichever town already happens to exist nearby, instead of going to all the expense of starting from scratch?

maxwell 2y ago
I'd connect the country with high-speed rail and focus entirely on manufacturing, just like China. Lots of cities and towns would pop up along the rail corridors, as in the UK and the first time we built out our rail infrastructure and everywhere else it's been done. The U.S. stopped building new cities around the same time we started adopting automobiles. Our highway system has enriched incumbent cities and created a nation of gas stations, inexpensive motels, restaurants that serve rapidly prepared food, tire salons, automobile dealerships, and billboards. Let's build Hyperdrive City, Nebraska, where you can rent an apartment on the 93rd floor of the mall for $200 a month: https://br.ifunny.co/picture/derek-eedrk-can-we-build-one-of-those-insane-neon-ZhQQBMOC9 https://br.ifunny.co/picture/derek-eedrk-can-we-build-one-of... Or one of these: https://www.cnn.com/style/article/chengdu-future-city-design-competition-masterplan/index.html https://www.cnn.com/style/article/chengdu-future-city-design...
- jjav 2y ago
  > Let's build Hyperdrive City, Nebraska, where you can rent an apartment on the 93rd floor of the mall for $200 a month What is the motivation for a developer to build a 100 story (or at least 93 I guess) skyscraper in some empty field in Nebraska?
  - maxwell 2y ago
    I mean, maybe we go with OKC instead: https://therealdeal.com/national/2024/01/28/who-is-real-estate-developer-scot-matteson https://therealdeal.com/national/2024/01/28/who-is-real-esta... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legends_Tower https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legends_Tower Or let's give Washington back to Maryland (like Alexandria to Virginia), move the federal district to Lincoln, and build a new Capitol to accommodate a House with representation more like 70k:1 than the current (abhorrent) 700k:1.