Great American cities and water

[SFBruin]

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

I think the Trinity River counts?

Yeah, I was wondering about that.

[edale]

If the LA River counts as a major body of water, then I can't imagine a city on earth that isn't developed 'on the water'. The LA river is little more than a creek, and it'd run dry for most of the year if not for irrigation run-off.

Yes, the initial settlement of LA was placed where it was because of the LA river. It provided drinking water and irrigation for the small pueblo at its founding. But Los Angeles didn't grow to become a large city because of water, just like Atlanta didn't. Rail was the early driver for both. Having a modicum of fresh water available for drinking and agricultural use is a requirement for any human development. But that's not really what this thread is about.

[iheartthed]

I think the Pacific Ocean counts as L.A.'s major body of water, lol. It's not freshwater, but humans could access the area via waterways prior to the railroad. Atlanta, on the other hand, was virtually unreachable prior to the railroad era.

[edale]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I think the Pacific Ocean counts as L.A.'s major body of water, lol. It's not freshwater, but humans could access the area via waterways prior to the railroad. Atlanta, on the other hand, was virtually unreachable prior to the railroad era.

Hm, possibly, but LA didn't touch the coast until it annexed Venice in 1926. It didn't grow up by the sea like San Francisco or San Diego. The port of LA/Long Beach isn't a natural harbor, and downtown LA and the early city is all ~15 miles inland from the Pacific.

Of course the Pacific has led to major growth and benefitted the LA region immensely over the past 100 years. I guess you could say that the proximity to the Pacific made the LA basin far more temperate than any other large, flat areas of the Southwest, and that led to the city taking off in its early days. More of a tangential argument there than a city that owes its existence to its location on a navigable waterway.

It's not as clear a case as Atlanta, I guess.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by edale

Hm, possibly, but LA didn't touch the coast until it annexed Venice in 1926. It didn't grow up by the sea like San Francisco or San Diego. The port of LA/Long Beach isn't a natural harbor, and downtown LA and the early city is all ~15 miles inland from the Pacific.

It's not as clear a case as Atlanta, I guess.

True. Downtown L.A. is situated along the L.A. river similar to how river cities developed, and not along a harbor like SF, NYC, Boston. It's kinda like Philadelphia, but with the ocean in much closer proximity.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by edale

Hm, possibly, but LA didn't touch the coast until it annexed Venice in 1926.

Actually, LA didn't touch the coast until 1909--when it annexed San Pedro, specifically to create the Port of Los Angeles. Not a natural harbor of course, but still the coast.

And to add, in early US California and even pre-US California, the Pacific was how people went between SF and Monterey and Los Angeles---by ship, before the railroads. It was faster to travel between northern and southern California by ship than by land pre-railroad. Stagecoaches came later, and weren't long distance.

[edale]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

Actually, LA didn't touch the coast until 1909--when it annexed San Pedro, specifically to create the Port of Los Angeles. Not a natural harbor of course, but still the coast.

And to add, in early US California and even pre-US California, the Pacific was how people went between SF and Monterey and Los Angeles---by ship, before the railroads. It was faster to travel between northern and southern California by ship than by land pre-railroad. Stagecoaches came later, and weren't long distance.

Appreciate the info! No doubt proximity to the ocean helped early Los Angeles, but the ocean isn't the reason for its existence. If that was the case, LA's historical heart would be in Long Beach or somewhere else along the coast.

[JManc]

Wasn't LA existence due to the missions along the LA river? Hence: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles del Río Porciúncula.

Houston started similarly but instead of Spanish missionaries, a couple of shyster real-estate speculators from Upstate New York set up shop on the buffalo Bayou near present day downtown.

[craigs]

Yes. The historic core of LA, downtown, is located inland because that is where the potable water was available to the early missionaries. There wasn't a reliable source of potable water along the coast.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by SFBruin

LA is built on a water source, though.

Yeah, but that's true of any major settlement. Who establishes a population center absent a water source?

I thought we were discussing cities that were established/grew primarily due to waterborne transport, not cities that needed water for drinking (i.e. all cities). In the pre-rail era, most cities were established along water transit/shipping routes, so LA (and a number of Sunbelt cities) were somewhat exceptional at the time.

Places like NY and SF specifically grew due to waterborne traffic. Not the case with LA.

[Thirteen Mile]

Houston is an interesting case if not for the great hurricane leveling the whole island Galveston could very well have developed as the main center of modern day Huston. Galveston was seen as the next great up and coming city in around 1900 it was one of the fastest growing cities in the country in no small part due to its great natural harbor. It was known as the Manhattan of the south unfortunately or perhaps fortunately looking forward to future storms the main center of development shifted inland to present day Houston.

LA as always is a strange case but might have a similar climate parallel with the notoriously fickle seasonal precip of So Cal demanding a center further inland closer to the precipitation rich San Gabriel Mountains to ensure a steady water supply during La Niña years. Once reclamation projects allowed for large amounts of water supply year round the game changed for western cities in general.

Seems to me the city was able to remain viable in the race for being the major southern city by rail close enough to the coast to get some benefits from the near by sea until modern technology allowed for it to grow into a major port.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by Thirteen Mile

LA as always is a strange case but might have a similar climate parallel with the notoriously fickle seasonal precip of So Cal demanding a center further inland closer to the precipitation rich San Gabriel Mountains to ensure a steady water supply during La Niña years. Once reclamation projects allowed for large amounts of water supply year round the game changed for western cities in general.

Seems to me the city was able to remain viable in the race for being the major southern city by rail close enough to the coast to get some benefits from the near by sea until modern technology allowed for it to grow into a major port.

A minor point, but the headwaters of the Los Angeles River are actually in the Santa Susana Mountains and the LA river flows east through the San Fernando Valley before eventually receiving some tributaries from the western edge of the San Gabriels starting around Burbank.

The LA River isn't why Los Angeles is a huge city today, but it did determine where LA would first be settled. The railroads were more influential in growing LA, and then came the seaport complex which solidified its role as a global hub.

[SFBruin]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Yeah, but that's true of any major settlement. Who establishes a population center absent a water source?

Possibly nobody. I could see a desert or otherwise arid city somewhere importing water from somewhere else in order to exist in a economically advantageous location, though I can't point to any specific examples.

Obviously, a city can't exist without getting a certain amount of water from SOMEWHERE, which was not my original point, but it is still technically a point that could be made.

I thought we were discussing cities that were established/grew primarily due to waterborne transport, not cities that needed water for drinking (i.e. all cities). In the pre-rail era, most cities were established along water transit/shipping routes, so LA (and a number of Sunbelt cities) were somewhat exceptional at the time.

Interesting, yeah, I would agree.

Places like NY and SF specifically grew due to waterborne traffic. Not the case with LA.

True. Although, I have to imagine that there were some pre-WWII cities somewhere that existed absent major trade routes. Is the river on which Moscow lies navigable? Does Sao Paulo have any major navigable water routes?

Idk, just some food for thought.

[ChiMIchael]

I know this is limited to the US, but I've wondered how Milan became so successful without being on a river or a major body of water.

[edale]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

True. Downtown L.A. is situated along the L.A. river similar to how river cities developed, and not along a harbor like SF, NYC, Boston. It's kinda like Philadelphia, but with the ocean in much closer proximity.

It didn't develop similar to how river cities developed. Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Cincinnati, New Orleans...those are river cities, and they grew up around their river ports. The river was the way goods and people came and went.

That's obviously not the case with the LA river. It's not deep enough to be navigable by anything but a kayak in non-rainy times, and it doesn't really connect anywhere. So it was never a 'working river' like the Mississippi, Ohio, etc. Totally different pattern and history of development in LA than a traditional river city.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by The North One

Yeah, geography is the #1 reason the US became the richest country in the would. And the navigable waterways is a big part of that.

The United States/Canada are also very flat places, with the exception of the Rocky/Sierra Mountains. The Appalachians are pretty small-time and do not seriously affect weather patterns, specifically the huge amount of moisture that is blown north from the Gulf of Mexico over what is, as a result, some of the richest farmland on the planet.

The flatness and constant rainfall means the Mississippi River is navigable, year-round, without a single lock & dam between its mouth and St. Louis, MO. The only other rivers on the planet that boast that sort of run are the Nile, Amazon, Yangtze, and maybe a few more. The Ohio River, the system's #2 tributary, has a pair of 1200-ft locks at almost every dam between the confluence and Pittsburgh. This means a towboat with 15 barges can run with almost no interruption.

[proghousehead]

Is Mexico City the largest city not on navigable body of water?

[sopas ej]

Just for shits and giggles, here's an animated map that shows how the city limits of Los Angeles grew from the time it became an American city (1850) to the present; you can see when it actually started touching the coast.

[brian_b]

Originally Posted by craigs

The LA River isn't why Los Angeles is a huge city today, but it did determine where LA would first be settled. The railroads were more influential in growing LA, and then came the seaport complex which solidified its role as a global hub.

Ocean shipping (the export of cattle hides) definitely played a large role in the early development of Los Angeles! San Diego and San Francisco had great natural harbors, but merchant ships had little reason to visit.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4277

The fourteenth of August (1834) was the day fixed upon for the sailing of the brig Pilgrim, on her voyage from Boston, round Cape Horn, to the Western coast of North America. As she was to get under way early in the afternoon, I made my appearance on board at twelve o'clock, in full sea-rig, with my chest, containing an outfit for a two or three years' voyage, which I had undertaken from a determination to cure, if possible, by an entire change of life, and by a long absence from books, with a plenty of hard work, plain food, and open air, a weakness of the eyes, which had obliged me to give up my studies, and which no medical aid seemed likely to remedy.

The change from the tight frock-coat, silk cap, and kid gloves of an undergraduate at Harvard, to the loose duck trousers, checked shirt, and tarpaulin hat of a sailor, though somewhat of a transformation, was soon made; and I supposed that I should pass very well for a Jack tar. But it is impossible to deceive the practised eye in these matters...

...

I also learned, to my surprise, that the desolate-looking place we were in furnished more hides than any port on the coast. It was the only port for a distance of eighty miles, and about thirty miles in the interior was a fine plane country, filled with herds of cattle, in the centre of which was the Pueblo de los Angeles, -- the largest town in California, -- and several of the wealthiest missions; to all of which San Pedro was the seaport.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by brian_b

San Diego and San Francisco had great natural harbors, but merchant ships had little reason to visit.

Keep in mind that the natural west coast harbors dictated the paths of the transcontinental railroads. The Civil War kept the eastern end of the first transcontinental north of Missouri but the same path is followed in Wyoming and all points west. It's likely that Kansas City would have grown into a much larger metropolis if not for the Civil War motivating the adjustment of the route northward to Omaha/Council Bluffs.