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

[JManc]

Originally Posted by muertecaza

Good take. And if I remember correctly, roughly where the airport is located was the other option--Jack Swilling, generally seen as the "founder" of Phoenix, owned land around where the airport is now, and wanted the townsite there, but was outvoted in favor of the current location.

Assuming Phoenix was founded where the current downtown is, that's literally almost across the freeway from PHX

[Buckeye Native 001]

Its about 3.5 miles give or take from the center of Downtown Phoenix (Central and Washington, or Central and Jefferson?) to the western end of Sky Harbor.

When Sky Harbor first opened in 1928, it was out in the middle of the desert, relatively far from the main population center. I think most of the development occurred west (toward the Capitol) and north at the time.

[R1070]

Originally Posted by aderwent

I wish Chillicothe had remained Ohio's capital, and it would be what Columbus is today. Except it'd be in the foothills of the Appalachians instead of sprawling into farmland. The hills on the Great Seal of Ohio are in Chillicothe with a park with its namesake.

It would still probably sprawl North into the fields. The hills would be a nice backdrop though.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

Agreed about London, Ontario being located on Lake Erie. Not like it would've turned into Cleveland or anything as there isn't really enough around to justify significant industry/steelmaking, but the setting would've been far nicer.

The topic of a lack of any cities of any real consequence on the Ontario shore of Lake Erie has come up before.

IIRC, the lack of any serviceable harbors was given as one theory, but if you look at what a "harborless" city like Chicago did with its humble and lazy little prairie marsh stream, A LOT can be accomplished with very little, if there's a will/need.

In the case of lake Erie's northern shore, I think it's more of a lack of will/need for the reason why there aren't any significant cities.

[bnk]

Surprised no one has mentioned.

Brasília


The problems Brasilia faces today include inequality, congestion, and sprawl—which are far from unique in this city and common throughout the world. They're direct ripple effects of the utopian thinking that went into its design. Brasilia, like all cities, needed time to develop and evolve. Another major criticism of Brasilia was its reliance on highways. Brasilia, critics proclaimed, was a failure due to its dependence on highways and broad streets rather than pathways for pedestrians and bike riders.
And why did It need to be so inland.


https://archive.curbed.com/2019/6/7/...tecture-design

[SFBruin]

Originally Posted by JManc

Assuming Phoenix was founded where the current downtown is, that's literally almost across the freeway from PHX

Yeah, I mean, it's a small difference.

Just giving my opinion, that's all.

[James Bond Agent 007]

Originally Posted by bnk

Surprised no one has mentioned.

Brasília


The problems Brasilia faces today include inequality, congestion, and sprawl—which are far from unique in this city and common throughout the world. They're direct ripple effects of the utopian thinking that went into its design. Brasilia, like all cities, needed time to develop and evolve. Another major criticism of Brasilia was its reliance on highways. Brasilia, critics proclaimed, was a failure due to its dependence on highways and broad streets rather than pathways for pedestrians and bike riders.
And why did It need to be so inland.


https://archive.curbed.com/2019/6/7/...tecture-design

That's not what the topic was about.

[xzmattzx]

I wonder what Boston would be like if the original town has not been founded on that peninsula, but down the Charles River a little bit, like where Brookline is today. It would've spread outward in four directions a little more evenly. Was the Charles River navigable for large ships that far inland?

[ue]

Originally Posted by biguc

Manitoba's big city was supposed to be Selkirk. Winnipeg is in a pretty lousy location for a city--it floods. Selkirk has a deeper river valley, but Winnipeg bribed the railways or something. Anyway, if Winnipeg was where Bond suggests, it would still have access to the Red River and Assiniboine rivers via the lake. And there might have been some incentive to make the Winnipeg river navigable, and dig a canal connecting LOTW to Superior.

Yeah, I knew that about Selkirk, but that's a good point about the Winnipeg River location. But the climate and geography is definitely harsher up there.

Selkirk is also near Lower Fort Garry, so there was a historic precedent of settlement there. It's kind of interesting that the Winnipeg location was chosen to begin with - even if the railroads went through Selkirk instead, the Red River Settlement that predated the railway was still the major settlement in that region of what is now Manitoba. Why there, and not upriver where flooding is less of an issue?

[SAN Man]

San Diego realized that a better townsite would be beneficial to the city if it was near a navigable waterway for trade purposes. It moved 4-5 miles south from the original townsite in what is currently known as Old Town near the banks of the San Diego River to a new area along the bay called New Town in the 1850s.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by JoeMusashi

I just think it would be a more impressive looking city with a coastline, not too knowledgeable about its development actually.

Yeah, I get what you're saying. Grand Rapids as a random mid-size Midwestern city on a random Midwest river is not as cool as if it was located just 30 miles west at the mouth of the grand river on the lake Michigan shore, where Grand Haven is located at.

As a lake Michigan super-nerd, I'd welcome another significant city skyline along its shores. There are only two: Chicago and Milwaukee. There really isn't anything else....... maybe freaking Evanston is 3rd?

And major city skyline on lake Michigan at Grand Haven would be almost exactly due east of Milwaukee for that nice symmetry thing.

[Kenneth]

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.

I could see that, Bells Isle would be closer to it, then the views on st clair lake, it probably would have been more luxury highrises residents built along Jefferson street. van dyke would have been completed as a.freeway, mound rd would probably of been the city limits to the west, all that industrial would still be where its located,

[aderwent]

Originally Posted by R1070

It would still probably sprawl North into the fields. The hills would be a nice backdrop though.

True, but the pre-war density would have been much greater and with that probably less devastation via demolition. Also, being further downstream I wonder what a dammed Scioto in Chillicothe would produce reservoir wise? Alum Creek and Big Walnut Creek dams would probably have never been built.

This would have changed the path of I-71, too. It would have probably paralleled the foothills leaving central and north central Ohio even more rural.

Taking Columbus' growth rates after becoming the capital and applying them to Chillicothe, it'd be over 1.5 million now. Perhaps a metro of close to 3 million. Would this have influenced Cincinnati and Dayton positively?

A couple other what ifs. What if Camp Sherman remained a fully staffed Army base? It had 60,000 soldiers during WWI. What if the Ohio & Erie Canal had simply connected the Sandusky River to the Scioto River? Would the Sandusky Bay area be Cleveland?

[aderwent]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Both of Ohio's earlier capital cities are in beautiful hilly natural settings - Marietta and Chillicothe. Plus, Chillicothe is a lot of fun to say.

At least a third of Ohio is forested hills but the interstate highways did everything they could to avoid them. The major exception I can think of is I-70 as it crosses over the river to Wheeling, WV.

Yeah, Chillicothe would have been the only major one. It would never have had to be "Chillicothe, Ohio". It also could have been a really cool Native American cultural center.

US-33 in southeast Ohio is wonderful. Since the Lancaster and Nelsonville bypasses have been put in it's the best/fastest way to get to the Southeast from Columbus. Bonus that it's much prettier than I-70->I-77.

[eschaton]

Not quite what the OP had in mind, but I do wonder why Evansville, Indiana didn't take off and become a major city on the Ohio River like Cincinnati and Louisville. It seems part of the issue is an early canal project to link Toledo to the Ohio through Evansville floundered, and was eventually replaced by a canal which connected to Terre Haute. The Flood of 1937 probably played a role as well, but that was basically after urban development ceased in the Rust Belt.

[Blitz]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

The topic of a lack of any cities of any real consequence on the Ontario shore of Lake Erie has come up before.

IIRC, the lack of any serviceable harbors was given as one theory, but if you look at what a "harborless" city like Chicago did with its humble and lazy little prairie marsh stream, A LOT can be accomplished with very little, if there's a will/need.

In the case of lake Erie's northern shore, I think it's more of a lack of will/need for the reason why there aren't any significant cities.

Yes, there really isn't a need for another Great Lakes port city beyond Toronto and Hamilton. London was founded at a strategic location at the time (the forks of a river). It has grown to become an important regional centre that is centrally located for a huge swath of Southwestern Ontario.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by The North One

Attendees ≠ northern OC exurbs, there are millions more people in the metro that go to hockey and basketball games. A much greater population is FAR closer to the LCA in Midtown than they ever were to Auburn Hills. Which is the point here, downtown Detroit is centrally located, it's not in an odd spot at all. And attendance pre-pandemic did not plummet either.

Yes, Joe Louis Arena completely rebuts the point about the Palace being successful because it was located in proximity to some affluent Oakland County suburbs. But at least part of the reason Joe Louis Arena was built is because of exactly what I'm pointing out. The city of Detroit scrambled to build it because the Red Wings were threatening to leave the city. Downtown was not a naturally convenient location for the population distribution then, but the city was trying to maintain it as the premier activity hub of the region. Also, I think the regional commuter rail lines were still operational then, which terminated downtown. Just about everybody had/has to cross through most of the metro area to reach JLA. But people came despite that because the team was the draw. Same for nearby Tiger Stadium.

The Pistons also had the option of playing at Joe Louis Arena, but Bill Davidson decided to follow the Lions to the Silverdome in the late 70s. The obvious reason is that he saw how much money there was to be made in controlling parking, which he wouldn't control at the Joe. And he couldn't have gotten enough land to build the massive parking lots for the Palace anywhere south of Big Beaver Road in the 1980s.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Yes, Joe Louis Arena completely rebuts the point about the Palace being successful because it was located in proximity to some affluent Oakland County suburbs.

Joe Louis Arena was a huge failure. The second the Palace opened, it took almost all events from JLA. From that point, JLA was basically strictly a hockey-only arena. The Red Wings built JLA to be a multipurpose arena, not a hockey-specific arena. The Pistons could play there, the Rolling Stones could play there.

And again, the Palace was never planned for concerts and other events. It was strictly planned as a basketball-only arena. It was Bill Davidson's playground. The concert business was totally unexpected, but speaks to its market dominance. Hockey couldn't be played at the Palace, at least not without bizarre seating configurations.

The Palace opened in 1988, same year as the Townsend Hotel, giving stars a nearby luxury hotel. From that point, practically every major touring act made the switch.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

The topic of a lack of any cities of any real consequence on the Ontario shore of Lake Erie has come up before.

IIRC, the lack of any serviceable harbors was given as one theory, but if you look at what a "harborless" city like Chicago did with its humble and lazy little prairie marsh stream, A LOT can be accomplished with very little, if there's a will/need.

In the case of lake Erie's northern shore, I think it's more of a lack of will/need for the reason why there aren't any significant cities.

Also the main Canadian rail lines (East West) are well north of the SW Ontario peninsula.

e.g., CP rail,


Granted, freight lines extend towards Detroit and Port Huron, however, the bulk of the freight traffic was and is on the CP/CNR main lines, which don't approach Lake Erie. Unlike the story for Chicago, which was built by the railways.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Joe Louis Arena was a huge failure. The second the Palace opened, it took almost all events from JLA. From that point, JLA was basically strictly a hockey-only arena. The Red Wings built JLA to be a multipurpose arena, not a hockey-specific arena. The Pistons could play there, the Rolling Stones could play there.

And again, the Palace was never planned for concerts and other events. It was strictly planned as a basketball-only arena. It was Bill Davidson's playground. The concert business was totally unexpected, but speaks to its market dominance. Hockey couldn't be played at the Palace, at least not without bizarre seating configurations.

The Palace opened in 1988, same year as the Townsend Hotel, giving stars a nearby luxury hotel. From that point, practically every major touring act made the switch.

That's because JLA was a dump and Cobo Arena was too small. Cobo Arena being too small was pretty much the only reason the Palace and JLA were built.