Fantasy City/Urban Area Locations

[jbermingham123]

It is the 21st century now. Humans have the following capabilities:

–Production of artificial light, heat, and cooling
–Instant global communication
–Transportation of large volumes of water hundreds of kilometers
–Artificially-controlled environments that, in theory, allow any plant from anywhere on the planet to be grown anywhere else. (Sure building an aeroponic LED-illuminated greenhouse for a redwood tree would be difficult, especially after 500 years or so, but we could do it with present-day tech if we wanted to for some reason)
–Food preservation and packaging technology that allows us to eat fruit and vegetables in antarctica and seafood in Kansas City.
–Planetary multimodal transport network that allows travel between any two network nodes in less than 48 hours, any two points anywhere on the network in less than week, and any two arbitrary coordinates on the planet in less than a month.

We also have the technology –although not really the need, or the economic or political means– to build large, dense settlements anywhere we want, with minimal impact to all the land that isnt occupied by the city itself, and with minimal dependence on the land for resources. If, to use an American example, every building in phoenix, vegas, and LA implemented greywater recycling systems, and people stopped wasting water on lawns, fountains, swimming pools, etc, the desert southwest could remain habitable basically indefinitely (at least in terms of water, anyway), while retaining its current standards of living.

Given these capabilities, humans, for better or for worse, are no longer required to live in regions suitable for agriculture. And while many cities have historically emerged in locations which are strategic for manufacturing, transport, trade, or resource extraction, none of these activities today require large numbers of people, although high-volume cheap labor is still used instead of robots in some parts of the world, for political and economic reasons.

With the above in mind, where would you place a new city or urban area today? It can be anywhere on the planet. The only criterion is that the new city/urban area must have at least 500k residents.

[jbermingham123]

Some ideas so far:

US:
--Santa Maria, CA should be a ~5 million size urban area
--Eureka CA should be a ~3 million size ua
--The snake river valley should become a megaregion with 20+ million people (preferably built in a far less sprawly and destructive way than the arizona or socal megaregions
--Houghton, UP, MI could be a ~2 million size ua

Canada:
--This peninsula in a lake in Alberta (yes i know its a provincial park, but how cool would that be) https://earth.google.com/web/@56.073...ATA?authuser=0

Other:
--This spot in russian far east, a penninsula between the amur river and the pacific ocean https://earth.google.com/web/@53.149...ATA?authuser=0
--Tromsø, Norway could be a lot bigger
--Kerguelen Island, in the southern Indian ocean

[SIGSEGV]

I can tell you that you can't really eat fruit and vegetables in Antarctica (or Greenland) other than for a short period after a resupply flight, or the very small amount you can grow.

Anyway, rather than Houghton, I can imagine a large urban area in easternmost reaches of the UP, between the St. Mary's River and the Mackinac Straits.

[Steely Dan]

As the westernmost interior reach of the great lakes waterway system (and gifted with a great natural harbor to boot), I always thought Duluth had a chance to grow into something much bigger than it did, but the twin cities became the main event up that way instead.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Anyway, rather than Houghton, I can imagine a large urban area in easternmost reaches of the UP, between the St. Mary's River and the Mackinac Straits.

Yeah, maybe. Sault Ste. Marie, MI, is one of the oldest towns in North America; it was founded just a couple decades after Boston, and 14 years before Philadelphia. And SSM has similar weather to Montreal, so that shouldn't be a deterrent.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Yeah, maybe. Sault Ste. Marie, MI, is one of the oldest towns in North America; it was founded just a couple decades after Boston, and 14 years before Philadelphia. And SSM has similar weather to Montreal, so that shouldn't be a deterrent.

Yeah, it has slightly better weather than Houghton at least . And already an oversized airport (thanks to a defunct military base) for the current population.

But I would put the center a theoretical planned large climate refugee city a bit south, maybe closer to where Pickford is, as Downtown Sault Ste. Marie doesn't really have enough room/access to anchor a large city.

[Camelback]

There's a bunch of small cities (river cities) in the Great Plains that could grown into something bigger if the US continues to grow.

Wichita, Fargo, Omaha (already somewhat big), Sioux City, Pierre, Bismarck, Grand Island.

[ChiSoxRox]

I'm a bit surprised a San Francisco-type trading port didn't develop around Ushuaia, especially pre-Panama Canal. You would have had so much commerce passing through the Straits of Magellan, and a city there would be a natural refueling/rest/commerce stop. Maybe the weather is too cold and damp to support a larger city in the pre-globalization era.

Likewise, if Panama was too wide for a canal (say more like the Mexico isthmus) and the round-the-Horn routes continued, would we have gotten a Magellanic metropolis?

[jbermingham123]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

I can imagine a large urban area in easternmost reaches of the UP, between the St. Mary's River and the Mackinac Straits.

that would be a cool idea.. and on the topic of michigan, I also think that the traverse bay area could be a really cool megacity if the center peninsula developed like manhattan and the outer peninsula developed like san francisco:
https://earth.google.com/web/@44.938...ATA?authuser=0

[jbermingham123]

Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox

I'm a bit surprised a San Francisco-type trading port didn't develop around Ushuaia, especially pre-Panama Canal. You would have had so much commerce passing through the Straits of Magellan, and a city there would be a natural refueling/rest/commerce stop. Maybe the weather is too cold and damp to support a larger city in the pre-globalization era.

Oh wow thats a great idea! And actually i dont think its very cold.. from the perspective of early european explorers the winters there might even seem mild.. and as far as dampness, northern europeans would've found themselves right at home. I think that area's problem is its isolation; theres really not much to connect to, so building a settlement down there would be, for all intents and purposes, akin to building a settlement on an island. To this day, south america is practically empty down there, which is a shame.

Another area that i feel should've developed into a san francisco of sorts is rhode island. around the turn of the 18th century it had literally everything going for it.. good harbours, rich farmland, plentiful fresh water, poximity to two other large cities, and an established international trading economy.
Basically I think this: https://earth.google.com/web/@41.596...ATA?authuser=0
ought to look like this: https://earth.google.com/web/@-33.84...ATA?authuser=0

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox

I'm a bit surprised a San Francisco-type trading port didn't develop around Ushuaia, especially pre-Panama Canal. You would have had so much commerce passing through the Straits of Magellan, and a city there would be a natural refueling/rest/commerce stop. Maybe the weather is too cold and damp to support a larger city in the pre-globalization era.

Likewise, if Panama was too wide for a canal (say more like the Mexico isthmus) and the round-the-Horn routes continued, would we have gotten a Magellanic metropolis?

Punta Arenas is better situated, no?

[jbermingham123]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Punta Arenas is better situated, no?

that flat area north of punta arenas is literally the perfect site for a shipping canal and a large city

[ChiSoxRox]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Punta Arenas is better situated, no?

Yeah, the Strait of Magellan is what I had in mind and that would be Punta Arenas.

[CaliNative]

With global warming, the Arctic Ocean ("Northwest Passage") will be a viable site for an export/import port city. Railroads and highways will come in from the south, to bring in grains, forest products and other goods from southern Canada and the U.S., for export to Asia and Europe, and Asian/European products will come in. This city will probably also become a military center for defense of the northern areas bordering the Arctic, and for support of oil drilling and mining activities in the Artic. Don't get me wrong, I prefer the ice, but it is dwindling. So a city like this is probably inevitable, sort of a Canadian/North American Murmansk. Existing towns like Yellowknife and Whitehorse will also continue to grow, as will Alaskan cities. Churchill on Hudsons Bay could also grow substantially (poor polar bears).

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

With global warming, the Arctic Ocean ("Northwest passage") will be a viable site for an export/import port city. Railroads and highways will come in from the south, to bring in grains and other products from southern Canada and the U.S., for export to Asia and Europe, and Asian/European products will come in. This city will probably also become a military center for defense of the northern areas bordering the Arctic, and possibly for oil drilling activities in the Artic. Don't get me wrong, I prefer the ice, but it is dwindling.

Churchill already has the railroad!

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Churchill already has the railroad!

True, but a city on the actual Arctic Ocean coast, perhaps near the Mackenzie delta, also seems likely.

[jbermingham123]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

True, but a city on the actual Arctic Ocean coast, perhaps near the Mackenzie delta, also seems likely.

The canadian arctic archipelago is one of the coolest (both senses of the word) places on the planet. Looking at it on a map it would seem like it'd just be flat and barren like the canadian shield, but it's quite rugged... It amazes me that theres basically a region of islands and mountain ranges the size of mexico at the top of north america and few people are even aware of its existence

And youre absolutely right the mackenzie delta would be the best spot in north america for an arctic city. Its the northernmost point on the continent where trees grow, and the only point in north america where trees meet the arctic ocean (not counting hudson bay). I think generally, the barrenness of the arctic tundra landscape is a huge deterrent for people who would otherwise enjoy it and move there. The Mackenzie river delta is the perfect exception

[mind field]

Originally Posted by jbermingham123

Some ideas so far:

US:
--Santa Maria, CA should be a ~5 million size urban area
--Eureka CA should be a ~3 million size ua
--The snake river valley should become a megaregion with 20+ million people (preferably built in a far less sprawly and destructive way than the arizona or socal megaregions
--Houghton, UP, MI could be a ~2 million size ua

Canada:
--This peninsula in a lake in Alberta (yes i know its a provincial park, but how cool would that be) https://earth.google.com/web/@56.073...ATA?authuser=0

Other:
--This spot in russian far east, a penninsula between the amur river and the pacific ocean https://earth.google.com/web/@53.149...ATA?authuser=0
--Tromsø, Norway could be a lot bigger
--Kerguelen Island, in the southern Indian ocean

Hellll no, leave crowds out of Michigan's Upper Peninsula, it's much better suited for sparsely populated wild lands than the trash, noise, traffic, and pollution that would inevitably happen with the development of a large city. Why not invest in densifying our existing cities?

[jbermingham123]

Originally Posted by mind field

Hellll no, leave crowds out of Michigan's Upper Peninsula, it's much better suited for sparsely populated wild lands than the trash, noise, traffic, and pollution that would inevitably happen with the development of a large city. Why not invest in densifying our existing cities?

i agree wholeheartedly that we should focus on densifying existing cities instead of building new ones. The point of this thread is just to fantasize about cool locations for cities... thats why i put the example in BC thats in a provincial park

its also fun to play with the idea of a hypothetical perfect city that has zero impact on its environment.. with that in mind, what would be the coolest place for a settlement?

[Tom In Chicago]

Winnipeg should be the largest city in Canada. . . possibly the whole of North America. . . I'll see myself out. . .

. . .