Why are many major cities at or near an extreme location in each state?

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Are there any examples of cities being founded specifically based on their centrality within a state that have since become major cities because of it? In and of itself it's not really a compelling reason for a city to succeed. Most cities also pre-date the modern iteration of their state anyway.

Washington DC is a result of The Compromise of 1790.

The Residence Act resulted in the permanent U.S. capital being located in the agrarian states of Maryland and Virginia, the demographic center of the country at the time, rather than in a metropolitan and financial center such as New York City or Philadelphia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise_of_1790

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by dubu

im talking new times. why do you think the whole west cost is legal for mj.

the west cast formed into one

Maybe California should absorb those smaller states to the north of it?

Welcome to Seattle, California!

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Washington DC is a result of The Compromise of 1790.

DC isn't in the centre of a state though.


Indianapolis and Columbus are good examples (even if Columbus isn't quite the largest metro in Ohio yet - today I learned that that's actually Cincinnati, which I'd always assumed was the 3rd city...). Austin and Tallahassee work as examples as well, but both are still overshadowed by multiple other cities in their respective states with locations that are a bit more strategic than just being in the centre.

[the urban politician]

This thread is asking the wrong question.

The issue isn’t why cities are located in the corners of States. Cities are going to get built where they are going to get built, regardless of the geopolitical entity that surrounds them.

The issue is why State lines weren’t drawn with their largest and most productive cities at their geographic center.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

today I learned that that's actually Cincinnati, which I'd always assumed was the 3rd city...)

it all depends on how you slice and dice things.



by Urban Area (2010):

cleveland: 1,780,673
cincinnati: 1,624,827
columbus: 1,368,035

(as the fastest growing of the 3, columbus has almost certainly closed this gap a bit over the past 9 years)




by MSA (2018):

cincinnati: 2,190,209
columbus: 2,106,541
cleveland: 2,057,009



by CSA (2018):

cleveland: 3,599,264
columbus: 2,509,850
cincinnati: 2,272,152



cincy is either 1st, 2nd, or 3rd depending on metric.

in reality, these three cities are all extremely comparable to each other size-wise, which is pretty remarkable.

cleveland only jumps way ahead at the CSA level because it pulls in Akron and Canton, roughly 30 and 50 miles south of the city.

i can't think of another state whose 3 alpha cities are all that closely bunched together size-wise at the MSA level.

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by cabasse

outside: madrid, milan, mexico city, joburg, probably others

Beijing and Xi'an. Both cities of over 10 million people, and among the very few of China's large cities that aren't either coastal or along one of China's three major river systems (Yellow, Yangtze, and Pearl / Xi).

[IrishIllini]

Surprised Cleveland is relatively small today given the city was just shy of 1m in 1950.

Nature’s Metropolis is a very interesting book on urban development. It’s focused on Chicago but a lot being discussed in this thread is covered in the book.

[jd3189]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

This thread is asking the wrong question.

The issue isn’t why cities are located in the corners of States. Cities are going to get built where they are going to get built, regardless of the geopolitical entity that surrounds them.

The issue is why State lines weren’t drawn with their largest and most productive cities at their geographic center.

If you want to phrase it that way. I think both questions are getting into why our cities are where they are. A lot of history is being shared that I wouldn't have known otherwise.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

it all depends on how you slice and dice things.



by Urban Area (2010):

cleveland: 1,780,673
cincinnati: 1,624,827
columbus: 1,368,035

(as the fastest growing of the 3, columbus has almost certainly closed this gap a bit over the past 9 years)




by MSA (2018):

cincinnati: 2,190,209
columbus: 2,106,541
cleveland: 2,057,009



by CSA (2018):

cleveland: 3,599,264
columbus: 2,509,850
cincinnati: 2,272,152



cincy is either 1st, 2nd, or 3rd depending on metric.

in reality, these three cities are all extremely comparable to each other size-wise, which is pretty remarkable.

cleveland only jumps way ahead at the CSA level because it pulls in Akron and Canton, roughly 30 and 50 miles south of the city.

i can't think of another state whose 3 alpha cities are all that closely bunched together size-wise at the MSA level.

The thing with the MSA numbers here though is that separating Akron (and all of Summit and Portage Counties) out of the Cleveland MSA makes zero practical sense. Summit and Portage Counties are just as much, if not more, Cleveland's suburban and exurban areas than they are Akron's... the northern portions specifically for Cleveland. I mean, the Cavs used to play in in Richfield (much more so a Cleveland suburb) in Summit County... Sea World Ohio was in Aurora (Cleveland suburb) in Portage County... Cleveland's major outdoor concert venue where the summer tours and the Cleveland Symphony play is in Summit County. Yet somehow, both of those counties are all Akron's when it comes to the numbers -- that's just not reality.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by xzmattzx

Isn't it obvious? Water is the reason for their existence, either for travel or as a drinking supply, or both.

Name the biggest city you can that is not its size because of water. Now that's a tough question.

In the US, probably Denver.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

it all depends on how you slice and dice things.



by Urban Area (2010):

cleveland: 1,780,673
cincinnati: 1,624,827
columbus: 1,368,035

(as the fastest growing of the 3, columbus has almost certainly closed this gap a bit over the past 9 years)




by MSA (2018):

cincinnati: 2,190,209
columbus: 2,106,541
cleveland: 2,057,009



by CSA (2018):

cleveland: 3,599,264
columbus: 2,509,850
cincinnati: 2,272,152



cincy is either 1st, 2nd, or 3rd depending on metric.

in reality, these three cities are all extremely comparable to each other size-wise, which is pretty remarkable.

cleveland only jumps way ahead at the CSA level because it pulls in Akron and Canton, roughly 30 and 50 miles south of the city.

i can't think of another state whose 3 alpha cities are all that closely bunched together size-wise at the MSA level.

South Carolina, on a smaller scale:

By city limits (2018):

Charleston: 136,208
Columbia: 133,451
Greenville: 68,563


By urban area (2010):

Columbia: 549,777
Charleston: 548,404
Greenville: 400,492


By MSA (2018):

Greenville: 906,626
Columbia: 832,666
Charleston: 787,643


By CSA (2018):

Greenville: 1,478,658
Columbia: 958,120
Charleston: 784,376

Like Cleveland, Greenville jumps far ahead on CSA because of the addition of Spartanburg. Funnily enough, Myrtle Beach is catching up fast to the other three.

[SteveD]

Georgia's capital was originally Milledgeville which is much more centrally located in the state. A lot of people think Atlanta is central GA but it's not, it's in the NW part of the state. Also, others have already noted, Atlanta is not on a body of water. Atlanta had an original name of "Terminus", as it was at the crossroads of rail tracks.

The nation's two largest metropolitan areas that are not considered to be on water are 1) the Dallas Ft Worth Metroplex and 2) Metro Atlanta.

Another way to say it is Dallas is the nation's largest inland metropolitan area and Atlanta is the nation's second largest inland metropolitan area.

[pj3000]

Dallas technically is on water... the Trinity River, which was an early transportation route, but is generally what we would call a “creek” around here.

But Texas calls pretty much everything a “river”, even if it’s basically a drainage ditch. ‘Cause everything is big in Texas... except peen size it seems.

[SteveD]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Dallas technically is on water... the Trinity River, which was an early transportation route, but is generally what we would call a “creek” around here.

But Texas calls pretty much everything a “river”, even if it’s basically a drainage ditch. ‘Cause everything is big in Texas... except peen size it seems.

Yes, and Atlanta has the Chattahoochee River flowing through it, but the river is not how and why Atlanta grew and prospered. The "inland" moniker refers to not coastal or on a Great Lake. Houston is not included because it's a Gulf of Mexico port.

[pj3000]

Yeah, they’re not considered to be on navigable waterways.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by SteveD

Yes, and Atlanta has the Chattahoochee River flowing through it, but the river is not how and why Atlanta grew and prospered. The "inland" moniker refers to not coastal or on a Great Lake. Houston is not included because it's a Gulf of Mexico port.

Houston borders a body of water that flows into Galveston Bay, which in turn flows into the Gulf, which in turn flows into the Carribbean and Atlantic Ocean.

[SFBruin]

Originally Posted by SteveD

The nation's two largest metropolitan areas that are not considered to be on water are 1) the Dallas Ft Worth Metroplex and 2) Metro Atlanta.

I always wondered how Dallas-Fort Worth got to be so big. It seems to be in a fairly random spot. On a river, but not a particularly major one.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by SFBruin

I always wondered how Dallas-Fort Worth got to be so big. It seems to be in a fairly random spot. On a river, but not a particularly major one.

Not a major river at all. The Trinity isn’t navigable. It was an early transportation route, but only for short distances. Dallas developed as a trading post at the best place to cross it, an area that was the intersection of early Indian prairie and forest trails. Which then became where railroads converged and Dallas developed into a major commerce center for shipping agricultural products (largest inland cotton market) to the developed Northern and Eastern areas of the country. So the location seems kinda random, but it was just a good place for transportation/trade. Very similar to Atlanta in that they were crossroads.

[10023]

Because American state boundaries generally make little practical sense. They’re arbitrary lines and yet remain the means by which we apportion political influence.

[ThePhun1]

Minnesota ought to just give that little thing up to Canada. Same to Washington and Point Roberts.