Great Lakes Cities

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Yeah, as I said earlier in the thread, the bills and sabres are definitely one of the big reasons why Buffalo lives so much larger in the national consciousness than Rochester, despite only being marginally bigger.
Major league sports absolutely matter for city brand building. Not so much for alpha dogs like NYC or LA, but for smaller cities that might be on the edge of falling off into relative obscurity, they are huge.

And I also mentioned Buffalo's historical prominence as the western gateway port city for the erie canal, which speaks to your second point, which I very much agree with. I think Buffalo's city fathers did indeed expect it to become much more than it became. That's obviously true for an innumerable amount of places, but Buffalo really did "build big" as though a multi-million person metro was on its way.

And lastly, we must also mention the enduring and ubiquitous "buffalo wing" and its "buffalo sauce". It may seem silly, but that kinda thing also makes a difference.

I think most SSPers know by now that Buffalo was a Top 10 city at some point. (I know I learned that here, and that I find it pretty fascinating.)

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

I still maintain that if any city between Toronto and Ottawa would have become a bigger deal, Kingston would have been well situated for becoming so.

But Kingston didn't become a bigger deal, just as no other cities between Toronto and Ottawa did, so geography alone never preordains these things. Cities are also works of the trade and commerce of man.

Interesting to realize that the only reason Ottawa exists (as anything more than a remote tiny lumber town) is that the Yankees were perceived as too aggressive for capitals near the border to be acceptable anymore.

It is really not a very logical location for a city, and that is the reason why it's not part of continuous population corridors - it pretty much shouldn't be there.

Even Montreal-Ottawa (which I've recently done a few times on both shores - the Quebec shore has improved lately, Freeway 50 is decent now) will give you the impression you're totally in the middle of nowhere for most of the trip, on both the QC and ON routes.

[Razor]

re: Buffalo.

I agree with others. Even though, Buffalo is only marginally larger then Rochester, it seems to play the Alpha city role for Upstate NY. Having two pro teams certainly attributes to this. As long as I can remember, I've always known of Buffalo, but it was only when our cable feed switched from Buffalo to Rochester, is when I actually heard of this city. Then of course I got introduced to those whacky "Great House of Guitars "commercials. I was maybe a pre teen at that point. Sports was the same deal for Syracuse. Those great years they had for NCAA hoops and March madness, is when I learned about that city. I must say, both Buffalo and Syracuse has some real great old architecture. It's true, Buffalo was meant to become something more. I honestly don't remember anything standing out in Rochester building wise when we did our road swing through. Buffalo for sure. Also, Buffalo has a larger market to tap into. I'm sure it benefits from having Hamilton and Niagara Falls right there. If anything, for concerts, games , and shopping. The border is only a minor hindrance.

[Crawford]

I think folks are selling Rochester a bit short relative to Buffalo. Yes, historically, Buffalo is a much bigger and important city, so much better bones. And more prominent in the popular consciousness due to Bills, buffalo wings and legacy. Buffalo has heavyweight museums, concert halls, FL Wright, parks, monuments, etc.

But in 2020, the cities are rough equals. Rochester has advantages too. Far better universities (UofR, RIT and Eastman), stronger corporate base, nicer hinterlands, generally more progressive/cosmopolitan. Pittsford is probably the most prestigious town anywhere in Upstate NY. Upscale retailers often land in Rochester first, indicative of more favorable demographics.

Also, from an NYC perspective, there is no alpha city upstate. Buffalo, Rochester and Syracuse are the big dogs, and Albany is something else, kinda transitional, from upstate to downstate. Albany-Saratoga is kinda grouped in with the Adirondacks and Vermont (considered Up North and woodsy), while Western and Central NY are considered something else, more like PA (more industrial and Midwest-transitional).

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I think folks are selling Rochester a bit short relative to Buffalo.

I don't see many in this thread selling Rochester short. Just about everyone has acknowledged that the two cities are pretty simar in size these days.

All that most people are saying is that between the two of them, Buffalo has a much bigger national profile, and the main drivers of that are historical legacy, major league sports, and wings.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by lio45

Interesting to realize that the only reason Ottawa exists (as anything more than a remote tiny lumber town) is that the Yankees were perceived as too aggressive for capitals near the border to be acceptable anymore.

It is really not a very logical location for a city, and that is the reason why it's not part of continuous population corridors - it pretty much shouldn't be there.

Even Montreal-Ottawa (which I've recently done a few times on both shores - the Quebec shore has improved lately, Freeway 50 is decent now) will give you the impression you're totally in the middle of nowhere for most of the trip, on both the QC and ON routes.

I don't think your assessment of Ottawa's existence is totally accurate.

Yes, to some degree it was an artificial creation, but not entirely. I believe a city would have been built at this location regardless.

Here are the reasons why Ottawa exists:

1. The War of 1812 and the aftermath when the British government deemed it important to build a transportation route north of the American border and therefore north of the St. Lawrence River. They built the Rideau Canal between 1826 and 1832 linking Lake Ontario at Kingston to the Ottawa River and then via the Ottawa River to Montreal. Ottawa was founded as Bytown in 1826. It should be noted that Wright's Town, now the City of Gatineau was founded in 1800 immediately across the river. A town had already begun to develop.

2. The naming of Ottawa as capital of Canada in 1857. This was to settle arguments between various cities and was a compromise by placing it on the boundary between English Upper Canada (Ontario) and French Lower Canada (Quebec). By this time, relations with the USA were much improved and this was not a primary consideration. This decision was the main reason why Ottawa is today's size.

But there were natural reasons for a city at this location. Two are compelling.

1. Ottawa has much larger agricultural hinterland than Kingston. A city of significant size would have developed along the Ottawa River somewhere.
2. The Ottawa River valley and surrounding highlands had some of the best pine stands in the world. Why? Long snowy winters, substantial spring run off, followed by humid summers. This produced good growing conditions for timber and suppressed forest fire risks allowing timber to reach very large proportions.
3. The confluence of three major rivers, the Ottawa, Gatineau and Rideau Rivers. #2 and #3 resulted in Ottawa having the largest sawmills in the world during its lumber heyday. The log runs on the Ottawa and Gatineau Rivers continued until the 1980s and there was a substantial lumber industry opposite Parliament Hill until the 1970s.
4. The most important factor of all was that Ottawa was at the head of navigation on the Ottawa River, with Chaudiere Falls right in the centre of the city. This also provided water power and later hydro-electricity to operate a city and its mills.

Without the existence of the federal government, Ottawa would be a lot smaller but it would still be a city likely at least the size of Kingston.

Ottawa developed substantially later than nearby Montreal because of the harsh climate, it was not on the main trade route (St. Lawrence and Great Lakes) into the North American interior and because it remained indigenous territory much later, in fact, there was never a proper treaty with the local tribes, something that remains to this day.

[Razor]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Ottawa developed substantially later than nearby Montreal because of the harsh climate.

Probably not worth mentioning this, but Montreal's climate is equally as harsh, or if anything the difference is negligible. Other then that, I agree with everything you stated..Well put. As far as climate goes, while the winters can be harsh, both Montreal and Ottawa can do worse in Canada using Canadian standards of what is harsh.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by lio45

Actually, the fact that navigation on the St. Lawrence pretty much stopped at those is the reason that location, as far inland as the ships would go (present-day Montreal), eventually became the NYC of Canada.

(It did throw away this role to Toronto in the 20th century, but that has no bearing on the fact that its location at the start of the St. Lawrence is why it became a major port and Canada's top city.)

So, the location that has the advantage you mistakenly attributed to Kingston did become what you think Kingston should have become so you're both wrong and right at the same time.

That still doesn't explain why additional sizeable cities didn't sprout up in what is Canada's most significant population corridor. The Ottawa - Toronto stretch is eerily empty for such a prime (in the Canadian context) location. You'd expect at least 3-4 metros over 300,000; possibly one over 1 million but there's nothing close to that size anywhere along its length. And there aren't very many towns either.

Perhaps that region of southern Ontario will be a late bloomer and won't take off till people get priced out of other southern Ontario regions.

[Razor]

Originally Posted by isaidso

That still doesn't explain why additional sizeable cities didn't sprout up in what is Canada's most significant population corridor. The Ottawa - Toronto stretch is eerily empty for such a prime (in the Canadian context) location. You'd expect at least 3-4 metros over 300,000; possibly one over 1 million but there's nothing close to that size anywhere along its length. And there aren't very many towns either.

Perhaps that region of southern Ontario will be a late bloomer and won't take off till people get priced out of other southern Ontario regions.

There's only so much population to go around. Perhaps if Toronto wasn't the large magnet it is, and if there was more economic activity in Eastern Ontario there would of been more dispersal. Toronto should shed 2 million and give some to Kingston. Ottawa, and a new city along that stretch.

[suburbanite]

Ya I think it's already been described why Belleville, Kingston, Trenton, etc. didn't become some larger hub in between Ottawa and Toronto. There isn't a ton a of agricultural land in Eastern Ontario and Toronto (and to a lesser extent London and maybe Kitchener/Waterloo) was better positioned to act as the hub for the more productive areas in the the Southwest. People don't move somewhere just because looking at a map it may seem like there's too big of a gap between the next two largest cities. Usually it's an economic or political reason, but in Kingston's case it was strategic from a military perspective. Once the war of 1812 was over and the U.S. was set to become a perpetual ally and not a threat, the city didn't really have much too offer over other larger immigration hubs. When Shipping between the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence blossomed, there was little point in detouring from the established grain hubs further inland. There aren't any large American population centers across the river to warrant a Windsor-type city. The city benefits from having great bones that reflect it's larger importance in the 19th century though.

Also fun Kingston fact. It was home to the largest warship ever built and entirely constrained to freshwater during its service. The HMS St. Lawrence was built in 1814 at the Kingston Royal Navy Dockyard to counter the growing American military presence on Lake Ontario. It was one of only approximately five first-rate ships-of-the-line ever commissioned by the Royal Navy. With 112 guns, it's possible it was among the top 10 most heavily armed warships in the world when it was completed. However, given that it didn't need to be constructed to survive long oceanic voyages, storage decks were removed and the draft would have been quite lower than a similarly armed ocean-going vessel like the HMS Victory (the only surviving first-rate). The shipbuilders actually believed they were making a ship larger than the Victory given the size of the first gun deck.

It never actually saw combat, as once it was completed it instantaneously granted control of Lake Ontario as there were no ships to counter it. It's a shame that it didn't survive to modern times, it would have been amazing to have it dry-docked in Kingston as a museum like they have in Portsmouth. Unfortunately, without the historical value of Admiral Nelson's aforementioned HMS Victory, once the war was over its guns and materials were better served elsewhere and it was decommissioned and stripped. It's wreck now lies in fairly shallow water near Kingston.


from:wikipedia

[suburbanite]

On the vein of Great Lakes shipbuilding. Marinette, Wisconsin still produces a large number of ocean-going littoral combat ships (LCS) for the U.S. Navy. I think they've made about 10 or so of the current iteration. I always thought it was pretty cool that a military vessel would be constructed so far inland. Would love to catch one moving through the locks on its way out to sea but that would be very rare and probably not well-publicized.




from: wikipedia

[Razor]

^ What a cool fact..Ship yards on the Great Lakes for building ocean going ships..Hard to wrap my head around that Cleveland and Milwaukee can potentially have major ship yards for smaller ocean vessels.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

On the vein of Great Lakes shipbuilding. Marinette, Wisconsin still produces a large number of ocean-going littoral combat ships (LCS) for the U.S. Navy. I think they've made about 10 or so of the current iteration. I always thought it was pretty cool that a military vessel would be constructed so far inland.

the US navy's only basic training facility is also located on the shores great lakes in the northern suburbs of chicago.

Naval Station Great Lakes

it might seem odd that all US navy recruits have to first travel to chicagoland, 600 miles from the nearest drop of salt water, to go to boot camp, but along with awarding the LCS ship-building contracts to wisconsin, i think it's a way for the navy to build political support among non-coastal states that obviously don't have ship bases. the base trains about 40,000 recruits per year and is the largest military installation in the state of illinois.

it is not at all uncommon to see groups of US navy sailors in uniform on leave walking around the streets of downtown chicago. it's an easy ride from the base to downtown on metra (the base literally has its own train station on the UP-N line).

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by Razor

^ What a cool fact..Ship yards on the Great Lakes for building ocean going ships..Hard to wrap my head around that Cleveland and Milwaukee can potentially have major ship yards for smaller ocean vessels.

Commercial shipbuilding is long past its heyday on the Great Lakes. I believe the only active ones are in Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin and St. Catharines, Ontario. The steel industry in Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo, etc. that used to draw massive amounts of iron ore from Minnesota and Wisconsin via Duluth obviously isn't nearly the size it used to be. The industry has trended towards consolidation to larger vessels. The largest ships on the Lakes are monster 1000-footers which take advantage of the locks relatively longer length compared to width and draft limitations. There isn't really the need to pump out tons of smaller vessels anymore. This has its consequences as the massive water displacement from these larger ships can wreak havoc on some of the narrower waterways like the St. Clair river where it meets Lake St. Clair.


from:http://dlund.20m.com/rbl5.html

• Video Link


Back in the day, Lorain, Ohio would've been one of the busiest shipyards in the U.S., producing large numbers of ships to carry said iron ore.



from: http://towns-and-nature.blogspot.com...cleveland.html

[subterranean]

^That Youtube video is wild. I had no idea.

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

the US navy's only basic training facility is also located on the shores great lakes in the northern suburbs of chicago.

Naval Station Great Lakes

it might seem odd that all US navy recruits have to first travel to chicagoland, 600 miles from the nearest drop of salt water, to go to boot camp, but along with awarding the LCS ship-building contracts to wisconsin, i think it's a way for the navy to build political support among non-coastal states that obviously don't have ship bases. the base trains about 40,000 recruits per year and is the largest military installation in the state of illinois.

Ya it is cool that such a large active naval base is so far inland. Definitely to the Navy's benefit to spread some of that military spending around to different voting groups.

Canada has the Royal Military College (our version of West Point) in Kingston as well. Although I don't think they do much active training there.

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by subterranean

^That Youtube video is wild. I had no idea.

While I am fascinated with the Industrial history of the Great Lakes, I'd be lying if I said a big part of me also didn't wish that we had a more naturalized version of the world's greatest freshwater system. My grandfather (born in 1944 in Hamilton) has told me a story about how when he was a kid he met this old man who must've been at least 70. He told him about how he remembered going fishing in Burlington Bay, which is now the most industrialized part of lake Ontario, before the the turn of the 20th century. He may have been stretching the tale a little as fishermen have been known to do, but he said the fish would practically jump into your boat. You could take a net out on a rowboat and fill your bucket in three sweeps. These were all actual native, good eating fish too, not Asian Carp like nowadays.

We've gotten much better about industrial waste since the 80's but still, since the Seaway opened we've decimated the waterways with invasive species like Carp and Zebra Mussels. The larger ships destroy the riverbeds with their water displacement. The massive sturgeon that used to roam the lakes are all but gone due to overfishing and blocked waterways.

If I could go back in time it would be a my dream to take a trip all the way through the lakes (minus going over the falls) before any European contact. Hopefully going forward we continue to put a better balance on commercial and environmental interests.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I don't think your assessment of Ottawa's existence is totally accurate.

Yes, to some degree it was an artificial creation, but not entirely. I believe a city would have been built at this location regardless.

Here are the reasons why Ottawa exists:

1. The War of 1812 and the aftermath when the British government deemed it important to build a transportation route north of the American border and therefore north of the St. Lawrence River. They built the Rideau Canal between 1826 and 1832 linking Lake Ontario at Kingston to the Ottawa River and then via the Ottawa River to Montreal. Ottawa was founded as Bytown in 1826. It should be noted that Wright's Town, now the City of Gatineau was founded in 1800 immediately across the river. A town had already begun to develop.

2. The naming of Ottawa as capital of Canada in 1857. This was to settle arguments between various cities and was a compromise by placing it on the boundary between English Upper Canada (Ontario) and French Lower Canada (Quebec). By this time, relations with the USA were much improved and this was not a primary consideration. This decision was the main reason why Ottawa is today's size.

But there were natural reasons for a city at this location. Two are compelling.

1. Ottawa has much larger agricultural hinterland than Kingston. A city of significant size would have developed along the Ottawa River somewhere.
2. The Ottawa River valley and surrounding highlands had some of the best pine stands in the world. Why? Long snowy winters, substantial spring run off, followed by humid summers. This produced good growing conditions for timber and suppressed forest fire risks allowing timber to reach very large proportions.
3. The confluence of three major rivers, the Ottawa, Gatineau and Rideau Rivers. #2 and #3 resulted in Ottawa having the largest sawmills in the world during its lumber heyday. The log runs on the Ottawa and Gatineau Rivers continued until the 1980s and there was a substantial lumber industry opposite Parliament Hill until the 1970s.
4. The most important factor of all was that Ottawa was at the head of navigation on the Ottawa River, with Chaudiere Falls right in the centre of the city. This also provided water power and later hydro-electricity to operate a city and its mills.

Without the existence of the federal government, Ottawa would be a lot smaller but it would still be a city likely at least the size of Kingston.

Ottawa developed substantially later than nearby Montreal because of the harsh climate, it was not on the main trade route (St. Lawrence and Great Lakes) into the North American interior and because it remained indigenous territory much later, in fact, there was never a proper treaty with the local tribes, something that remains to this day.

Well, we're on nearly the same page then (when I meant "tiny" lumber town, I really meant "much, much smaller than what it currently is"; our only disagreement here is how small exactly Ottawa-as-Lumber-Town would be in 2020).

I disagree it would be Kingston-sized, though. I think Shawinigan would be a better comparable for a modern lumber city with nice falls/energy sources but without Queen's or the Military College and also without a location on a major freeway and railway / on the Montreal-Toronto axis.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

While I am fascinated with the Industrial history of the Great Lakes, I'd be lying if I said a big part of me also didn't wish that we had a more naturalized version of the world's greatest freshwater system. My grandfather (born in 1944 in Hamilton) has told me a story about how when he was a kid he met this old man who must've been at least 70. He told him about how he remembered going fishing in Burlington Bay, which is now the most industrialized part of lake Ontario, before the the turn of the 20th century. He may have been stretching the tale a little as fishermen have been known to do, but he said the fish would practically jump into your boat. You could take a net out on a rowboat and fill your bucket in three sweeps. These were all actual native, good eating fish too, not Asian Carp like nowadays.

We've gotten much better about industrial waste since the 80's but still, since the Seaway opened we've decimated the waterways with invasive species like Carp and Zebra Mussels. The larger ships destroy the riverbeds with their water displacement. The massive sturgeon that used to roam the lakes are all but gone due to overfishing and blocked waterways.

If I could go back in time it would be a my dream to take a trip all the way through the lakes (minus going over the falls) before any European contact. Hopefully going forward we continue to put a better balance on commercial and environmental interests.

i hear you.

here's my fish tales having mostly grown up on or very near lake erie.

it just so happened the lake never froze over much when i was a little kid, far as i knew, but once it totally did during a prolonged infamous freeze and blizzard streak. we had off school for like a week or so. so we walked out on the lake as we did sometimes. it was a clear day and so with nothing else to do this time we kept walking and walking, i am talking for miles, until we could not see the shore anymore. there were gigantic frozen waves way out there, frozen running cracks, fish frozen in place looking up at you ... and it was just the craziest experience. we were gone all day and followed our footsteps to get back. nothing happened, in fact we all thought it was a very cool thing to do, and it was in a way for jr high kids, but i still have nightmares about it sometimes because it was such a stupid kid thing to do.

later on in hs, we were running across the ice near the shoreline and in front of me the ice breaks and my friend goes under and disappears for what seemed like forever. we were speechless and frozen in terror, but then suddenly he shot up entirely out of the water and back onto the ice like a rocket. we howled with laughter, but that was yet more stupid teen adventures on the great lakes.

of course i have been out ice fishing and stuff and it was fine, but i tell ya it ain't wise to fool around out there!

[Steely Dan]

^ i grew up several blocks from lake michigan, and i had it POUNDED into my head by my parents from the earliest age that "no matter what, NEVER go out on the lake ice for any reason!"

the paranoia around the unpredictability of lake ice was such that having unprotected sex while smoking crack on the railroad tracks would have likely been deemed a safer activity than setting foot on lake michigan ice.