Great Lakes Cities

[Steely Dan]

^ yeah, and it kinda continues on down into pittsburgh.

that's a pretty heavily developed corridor, at least for our region.

it's also interesting how you can see pittsburgh's more finger-like sprawl stretching through the valleys as opposed to the more "blobular" sprawl of the cities situated upon more mundane topography.

[subterranean]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

another cool thing that's clearly on display in that satellite image is the division of resource extraction vs. resource processing between the upper and lower lakes in terms of city development.

lake superior is nearly lost in the darkness, save for a handful of lonely, widely-spaced modest little cities (duluth, thunder bay, sault ste. marie, & marquette).

and upper lake michigan and most of lake huron are pretty sparse on the urban development front as well.

but then you go down into the lower lakes (lower michigan, erie, & ontario) and it's holy light show, batman!

if you want to build a mighty city, you should clearly base its economy on resource processing, not extraction.

The upper peninsula is a wonderful place to stargaze and see the northern lights. But neither of the state's 2 dark sky parks are up there. Those are in Cass and near Mackinaw City.

[Razor]

On that Satellite image above, I'm assuming that far the upper far left blob is Minnie, whereas the far upper right blob is Montreal?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Razor

On that Satellite image above, I'm assuming that far the upper far left blob is Minnie, whereas the far upper right blob is Montreal?

Twin Cities are on the far left.

Ottawa is on the far upper right.

Montreal is off the map, about 100 miles east of Ottawa.

[Razor]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Twin Cities are on the far left.

Ottawa is on the far upper right.

Montreal is off the map, about 100 miles east of Ottawa.

re: Ottawa Should of known! Forgot, that between the horseshoe and Montreal was my own town. My head went right to Montreal, because the blob looks more significant then I assumed Ottawa to be.There's that sprawl effect on the lighting again. Thanks!

[isaidso]

^^ I've always been surprised that there aren't any significant cities between Ottawa and Toronto. It's the big 'empty' stretch in the Quebec - Windsor/Detroit corridor.

Originally Posted by Docere

Rochester barely registers in the minds of Torontonians. I doubt most have ever been there or spent any time there.

Buffalo a bit, because of media, sports, historic ties etc.

Despite living in Toronto since 2001, I'm a little embarrassed to say that I've never been to either. I haven't been anywhere in New York state other then NYC.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by isaidso

^^ I've always been surprised that there aren't any significant cities between Ottawa and Toronto. It's the big 'empty' stretch in the Quebec - Windsor/Detroit corridor.

Seems like Kingston maybe could've become a bigger deal. A major port right at the start of the St. Lawrence; the location would have been appropriate for a bigger city. Not necessarily huge, but possibly Hamilton-sized, maybe even Milwaukee-sized.

[Docere]

Kingston really pulls above its weight for a city of roughly 150,000 or so and has a really vibrant downtown, so maybe it's for the best. It's more of a Canadian Burlington, Vermont than a Canadian Syracuse.

[Razor]

Yes Montreal became the defacto major port city..Not enough need for two sizeable ports on the St. Lawrence.Kingston carved out a nice diversified niche for itself anyways, and yes, it has a real vibrant downtown..I agree!
I've always thought, that it would of made a nice larger city as well, but it may of lost it's charm which Kingston has in spades.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Docere

Kingston really pulls above its weight for a city of roughly 150,000 or so and has a really vibrant downtown, so maybe it's for the best. It's more of a Canadian Burlington, Vermont than a Canadian Syracuse.

Yeah, I wasn't making a value judgement on whether Kingston would better or worse had it become a bigger city, just stating my opinion that if any of the smaller cities between Toronto and Ottawa had become a bigger deal, Kingston was probably set up with the best shot for it.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Buffalo is smaller than popular perception, Rochester bigger. They have almost the exact same population and economy, but Buffalo just registers as a somewhat large city, and Rochester registers as another random Syracuse-type city.

That perception probably comes from the fact that Rochester’s metropolitan area is considerably less urban and anchored by a smaller core city:

MSA—2018
Buffalo: 1.130 million
Rochester: 1.071 million
Albany: .883 million
Syracuse: .650 million

UA—2010
Buffalo: .936 million
Rochester: .721 million
Albany: .595 million
Syracuse: .412 million

City—2018
Buffalo: .256 million
Rochester: .205 million
Albany: .097 million
Syracuse: .143 million

Buffalo also anchors a CSA, a larger binational area, and is the largest city in a very cohesive regional sub identity (Western NY), all lending to its larger feel.

Wikipedia, however, also states that downtown Rochester is the largest employment core upstate at 50k so there’s that.

An difference can be seen in building heights within their urban cores, with the tallest in each city being:

Buffalo: 529’
Rochester: 443’
Albany: 589’
Syracuse: 311’

Going further, the breadth of height also shows difference (as measured by average height of 10 tallest buildings):

Buffalo: 345’
Rochester: 322’
Albany: 327’
Syracuse: 239’

Number of buildings over 200’ per city, irrespective of their location (within the core or not):

Buffalo: 28
Rochester: 16
Albany: 22
Syracuse: 10

Buffalo is, on a reading of the whole of the metrics, a larger place.

[Docere]

Monroe County's population increased from 488,000 in 1950 to 742,000 now. Erie County's population hasn't really budged from the 900,000 in 1950.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

That perception probably comes from the fact that Rochester’s metropolitan area is considerably less urban and anchored by a smaller core city:

MSA—2018
Buffalo: 1.130 million
Rochester: 1.071 million
Albany: .883 million
Syracuse: .650 million

UA—2010
Buffalo: .936 million
Rochester: .721 million
Albany: .595 million
Syracuse: .412 million

City—2018
Buffalo: .256 million
Rochester: .205 million
Albany: .097 million
Syracuse: .143 million

Buffalo also anchors a CSA, a larger binational area, and is the largest city in a very cohesive regional sub identity (Western NY), all lending to its larger feel.

Wikipedia, however, also states that downtown Rochester is the largest employment core upstate at 50k so there’s that.

An difference can be seen in building heights within their urban cores, with the tallest in each city being:

Buffalo: 529’
Rochester: 443’
Albany: 589’
Syracuse: 311’

Going further, the breadth of height also shows difference (as measured by average height of 10 tallest buildings):

Buffalo: 345’
Rochester: 322’
Albany: 327’
Syracuse: 239’

Number of buildings over 200’ per city, irrespective of their location (within the core or not):

Buffalo: 28
Rochester: 16
Albany: 22
Syracuse: 10

Buffalo is, on a reading of the whole of the metrics, a larger place.

Great post.

Buffalo also has light rail and the Bills and Sabres, the only major league teams in all of upstate New York, things which tend to be associated with larger metros, at least in the public mind.

Looking at the grand layout of the central city and the monumentality of some of its towers, I get the sense Buffalo was intended to be the largest and most outward-facing upstate city, like there was the hope and expectation it would grow into a Detroit or Cleveland (at their respective peaks) and anchor a major metropolis.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Razor

On that Satellite image above, I'm assuming that far the upper far left blob is Minnie, whereas the far upper right blob is Montreal?

Seemed crystal clear to me that the upper right blob was Ottawa; Montreal's not in that view. You don't recognize your own city from above?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Seems like Kingston maybe could've become a bigger deal. A major port right at the start of the St. Lawrence; the location would have been appropriate for a bigger city. Not necessarily huge, but possibly Hamilton-sized, maybe even Milwaukee-sized.

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.




* Relevant wikipedia quote:
In the past these represented a considerable barrier to maritime traffic. Until the construction of the Lachine Canal through Montreal, the rapids had to be portaged. Even with the canal, the difficulty was such that it was usually more convenient to ship goods by rail to Montreal, where they could be loaded at the city's port. Montreal remains a major rail hub and one of Canada's largest ports for that reason.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Seems like Kingston maybe could've become a bigger deal. A major port right at the start of the St. Lawrence; the location would have been appropriate for a bigger city. Not necessarily huge, but possibly Hamilton-sized, maybe even Milwaukee-sized.

Kingston was historically limited because of the small agricultural hinterland. The rocky Canadian Shield comes down to the American border just east of Kingston at the Thousand Islands. There isn't much good land north of Kingston either. That and the fact that the St. Lawrence seaway didn't open shipping until 1959 and by that time, the bigger agricultural centred lake ports had already been well established elsewhere. It had already missed the boat on that opportunity. A very nice institutional and tourist town.

[Razor]

Originally Posted by lio45

Seemed crystal clear to me that the upper right blob was Ottawa; Montreal's not in that view. You don't recognize your own city from above?

That was at a very quick first glance smart ass!,,You are right though, I should of known..It just looked bigger then I thought it should.

[Steely Dan]

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.

I'm aware of the lachine rapids and why they led to Montreal becoming a major sea port.

My comment about Kingston had to do with it being a great lakes port city at the start of the opposite end of the St. Lawrence. It has a good "control point" location, where the great lakes end and the St. Lawrence begins. Sometimes those control points on the lakes became big cities (Detroit, Buffalo), sometimes they did not (Sault Ste. Marie, Mackinac), but none-the-less, 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.

And lrt's point about the less than ideal hinterland to the north of Kingston no doubt plays a role in why Kingston never became more of a thing.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by craigs

Great post.

Buffalo also has light rail and the Bills and Sabres, the only major league teams in all of upstate New York, things which tend to be associated with larger metros, at least in the public mind.

Looking at the grand layout of the central city and the monumentality of some of its towers, I get the sense Buffalo was intended to be the largest and most outward-facing upstate city, like there was the hope and expectation it would grow into a Detroit or Cleveland (at their respective peaks) and anchor a major metropolis.

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.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

I'm aware of the lachine rapids and why they led to Montreal becoming a major sea port.

My comment about Kingston had to do with it being a great lakes port city at the start of the opposite end of the St. Lawrence. It has a good "control point" location, where the great lakes end and the St. Lawrence begins. Sometimes those control points on the lakes became big cities (Detroit, Buffalo), sometimes they did not (Sault Ste. Marie, Mackinac), but none-the-less, 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.

And lrt's point about the less than ideal hinterland to the north of Kingston no doubt plays a role in why Kingston never became more of a thing.

It's also a factor, for sure. "Northernness" in Canada its at its very southernmost latitude in that area of Ontario (the point where the Canadian Shield is as far south as it gets). You're close to the River, sure, but you don't have the same quality and area of lowlands that you do in Quebec or in points southwest in Ontario.

A crow flying from Toronto to Ottawa would be passing over some spots of total wilderness.

(The equivalent would be to have the Adirondacks located on a straight line between NYC and DC. You wouldn't have anywhere near a continuous population corridor then.)

So, yeah, in an alternate world, if you swapped the Canadian Shield just north of Kingston for at least a few hundred square miles of good agricultural land, you'd probably have Kingston London-sized at the moment. (The Ontario one, not the England one.) Would still not be a major port, though.