Is Atlanta the most important city in the South?

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

But why not farther north or south? And why Miami over Fort Lauderdale, Fort Myers, or Tampa?

Site of where river empties into a bay protected by barrier islands. Further south along coast is much more marshy and not suitable for construction, plus no waterway inland. Not further north because of freeze potential... Miami doesn't freeze. Access to Bahamas and Cuba.

[Steely Dan]

^ was miami's smallish river ever actually used for port facilities like the similar small rivers in great lakes cities cleveland, chicago, milwaukee, buffalo, etc.? or has all of the port stuff down there always been out on the islands in the bay?

it's hard to tell from google maps today if the river itself was the actual port back in the day.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ was miami's smallish river ever actually used for port facilities like the similar small river in great lakes cities cleveland, chicago, mlwaukee, etc.? or has all of the port stuff down there always been out on the islands in the bay?

it's hard to tell from google maps today if the river itself was the actual port back in the day.

It was and is. Obviously nothing like massive container port stuff, but the Port of Miami River is still the 5th largest port by volume in Florida. It serves as the outlet for Miami's manufactured goods and for goods shipped to Miami for distribution via ocean-going vessels. Mainly foreign trade imports and exports to Caribbean, I think (not totally sure on that). A LOT of cocaine came in to the US via the Miami River.

There are a lot more bars and restaurants on the lower portion of the river (closest to downtown) in recent years, which make for nice drinking and boat watching. It's very active.

[cabasse]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Maybe, but they were located where they are for a compelling natural setting reason, whether it's along a river, lake, ocean, harbor, along a mountainous front/near a pass, etc.

I think most major cities in the US were strategically placed, as you say.

I know that both Chicago and Milwaukee were founded where rivers empty into Lake Michigan... and they're not far from each other, so maybe one could swap their locations and they would still have a similar feel. I don't know enough about either city to offer too much on that. But I do know that you couldn't just move them elsewhere along the lakefront and they would look the same. Chicago wouldn't have developed and look as it does if it were directly across the lake in Michigan, nor if it were 50 miles inland.

Philadelphia is located at a VERY specific point on broad plain between (and at the confluence of) two rivers. It would absolutely NOT be the same city if you moved it like you suggest.

are there many geographical differences between philadelphia and wilmington? they both seem to be in locations where a smaller river is meeting the delaware. i'm not saying they're identical, but would you be able to tell the difference without knowing (if they were both undeveloped spots of land)

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

milwaukee actually has decently sized bluffs along its lakeshore, interspersed with ravines, whereas chicago is utterly, relentlessly pancake flat. you don't see noticeable bluff/ravine formation in chicagoland until you get up into the northshore burbs.

and in a historical sense (which i think is what pj3000 was really driving at), that pancake flatness is a big reason why chicago became chicago - it lead to much of the area being marshy wetlands, and one of those wetlands, "mud lake", actually connected the great lakes and mississippi river watersheds with a portage-less crossing during periods of high water. that geographic quirk, a portage-less water connection from the great lakes all the way down to the gulf of mexico, is what first drew the attention of settlers to the area, and once that connection was made permanent with a relatively short and simple canal, it eventually led to chicago becoming the rail center of the continent a couple of decades later, and the rest all sprung forth from that.

such a great lakes-to-mississippi river water connection would not have been nearly as easily made at milwaukee (or anywhere else on the lakes) as it was in chicago.

that's true. i can't believe i forgot about that - i was kind of surprised last time i was in milwaukee and was headed from the third ward to the upper east side (i think? to an basement level minigolf work event thing) and was surprised to see bluffs along the water.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by pj3000

It was and is. Obviously nothing like massive container port stuff, but the Port of Miami River is still the 5th largest port by volume in Florida. It serves as the outlet for Miami's manufactured goods and for goods shipped to Miami for distribution via ocean-going vessels. Mainly foreign trade imports and exports to Caribbean, I think (not totally sure on that). A LOT of cocaine came in to the US via the Miami River.

There are a lot more bars and restaurants on the lower portion of the river (closest to downtown) in recent years, which make for nice drinking and boat watching. It's very active.

huh, i guess i didn't peruse far enough upstream on gmaps.

everything along the river banks in and just west of downtown looks more oriented to pleasure craft, but when you get ~3 to 4 miles inland, sure enough there's port facilities along the banks for smaller scale commercial ships like the ones you posted pics of. interesting, i thought all of miami's port activity was out on dodge island now.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by cabasse

are there many geographical differences between philadelphia and wilmington? they both seem to be in locations where a smaller river is meeting the delaware. i'm not saying they're identical, but would you be able to tell the difference without knowing (if they were both undeveloped spots of land)

I'm not totally sure what you mean by geographical differences... but yeah, the Schuylkill River is a much more substantial body of water (reaching 150 miles inland into early agricultural and industrial heartland) than the Christina in Wilmington, and Philly's plain between the two rivers is massive.

Though I guess I don't get what your point here is anyway. Both Philadelphia and Wilmington were founded where they are because of their natural settings provided by the Delaware River and their smaller tributaries (Schuylkill, Cobbs, Christina, Brandywine). Moving either city 10 miles inland, or even moving along the Delaware to a point with no significant tributary, and obviously neither exits as they do.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

huh, i guess i didn't peruse far enough upstream on gmaps.

everything along the river banks in and just west of downtown looks more oriented to pleasure craft, but when you get ~3 to 4 miles inland, sure enough there's port facilities along the banks for smaller scale commercial ships like the ones you posted pics of. interesting, i thought all of miami's port activity was out on dodge island now.

Yeah, commercial port facilities mainly upstream due to the location of the airport and manufacturing/warehousing areas of Miami/Hialeah... basically Miami's "industrial" heart. Air and land cargo is moved to the river port and out to sea, and there are a lot of logistics and customs interests in the area. I think a lot of it exists to supply the Caribbean with goods, based on the ship registries I've seen, but I've never really studied the details too much.

[(four 0 four)]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Again, what I've been talking about is not about a city's "spectacular" setting, "dramatic" setting, "photo backdrop", nor "fabulousness". It's not a pretty city pissing contest. I'm don't care to get into any of that surface-level BS.

Hmmm, Ok. That's not how I interpreted your initial quote:

Originally Posted by pj3000 View Post
An extensive tree canopy is a great attribute for a city to have, but unless one is viewing aerial photos or in a plane, it will go unnoticed on the large scale. It’s impossible to perceive extensive, city-wide tree canopy when at one point on the ground.

On the contrary, it is more than evident to perceive a city’s setting on a vast harbor, on a lakeshore, at a river confluence, with a mountainous backdrop, in a river valley, on a plain leading to the ocean, etc.

Atlanta's was founded at the termination point for 2 rail lines...the zero mile post. It was first called Terminus, a name I'm grateful city leaders saw the benefit in changing. It is still a major transportation and logistics hub. And King of the South, I might add.

[brickell]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

But why not farther north or south? And why Miami over Fort Lauderdale, Fort Myers, or Tampa?

Really Miami was just a good place to put a winter hotel. Thanks Flagler.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Palm_Hotel_(Miami)

But the rest is true too. It's as far south as you can go on the mainland. The Miami Rock Ridge provided high and dry land to build on. It turns into mangrove wetlands further south. Combine that with the river and bay access it's a logical point to start. The miles of beaches certainly helped later on.

Originally Posted by pj3000

Yeah, commercial port facilities mainly upstream due to the location of the airport and manufacturing/warehousing areas of Miami/Hialeah... basically Miami's "industrial" heart. Air and land cargo is moved to the river port and out to sea, and there are a lot of logistics and customs interests in the area. I think a lot of it exists to supply the Caribbean with goods, based on the ship registries I've seen, but I've never really studied the details too much.

There's a constant struggle between developers and ship operators on the river. Closer to downtown the developers won out. Even further upstream, some are selling out and leaving town. Some are staying (https://www.miamitodaynews.com/2019/...rrill-stevens/) And Like PJ300, I don't have any hard info, but visually it appears to be mostly Caribbean based shipping. Not uncommon to see a boat loaded with used bicycles and appliances and a couple of cars. A lot of it appears to be Haitian registered or based.

It's also one of the most "Miami Vice" prone areas too. I know those boats don't come here empty.

[atlantaguy]

Originally Posted by (four 0 four)

Atlanta's was founded at the termination point for 2 rail lines...the zero mile post. It was first called Terminus, a name I'm grateful city leaders saw the benefit in changing. It is still a major transportation and logistics hub. And King of the South, I might add.

Exactly. And to pj3000: the only logical spot to tie rail lines together from Savannah, Augusta and points south so they could reach the Northeast and Midwest without going over or through the Appalachians was where we were founded. Blame the railroads civil engineers, I guess. Too bad the banks of the Chattahoochee weren't workable for that all important water adjacent view.

Now you know.

[Buckeye Native 001]

Originally Posted by brickell

It's also one of the most "Miami Vice" prone areas too. I know those boats don't come here empty.

Not entirely coincidental, but I remember quite a few episodes with scenes set along the Miami River.

[ChiSoxRox]

While on the subject of city locations, my understanding is that the key property of New York City that turned it into the national powerhouse isn't so much its own location (although its useful harbor helped). NYC's ace in the hole was the Hudson and Mohawk valleys giving a nearly flat path around the Appalachians, a valley that allowed the Erie Canal and the NY Central's Water Level Route, forming the most natural funneling point for the continental interior to the Atlantic and the world.

[L41A]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Again, what I've been talking about is not about a city's "spectacular" setting, "dramatic" setting, "photo backdrop", nor "fabulousness". It's not a pretty city pissing contest. I'm don't care to get into any of that surface-level BS.

It is much more about a city's reason for settlement and existence in a particular area due to the natural setting... which shapes the very structure, history, fucntion, and feel of the place. I'll say it yet again... Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston could be moved 100 miles in any direction (it's a generalization) and it wouldn't make much difference in how the city looks or functions. There was no major compelling reason to locate any of these cities where they are. Most other major cities in the US have very specific reasons (i.e., natural setting/natural resources) for their founding at their particular locations.

Look who's talking. You are the one that's seemingly making it a contest.

A couple folk mentioned Atlanta's tree canopy as being its most prevalent geographical feature after YOU brought up geographical and topography backdrops. But because those couple folk appreciated the forested nature of Atlanta you are the one that is dominating the thread by trying to fit your round hypothesis into a square generalization.

It's ok for you to like oceans, mountains, rivers as backdrops and locations of cities.
And it's ok for the couple of folk to like trees and forests, etc.
And its ok for folk like me who appreciate the location and geographical backdrops of any place.

And your hypothesis that Atlanta would function (or even look the same) if it was located 100 miles in any direction is faulty.
Atlanta is located where it is because it is in the Piedmont in a central location compelled by the railroads to distribute products and travel.

If Atlanta was 100 miles anywhere to the south (SE, S, SW), it would be in the Coastal Plain (which is more flat and agricultural) or near the Fall Line which would defeat the purpose of (or function like) the Fall Line cities in Georgia (Augusta, Macon, Columbus).

So Atlanta would look and/or function differently if it was located 100 miles elsewhere.

[pj3000]

Damn, you Atlanta guys like to use that bold.

Rail lines ended... delay until more track was laid... settlement sprung up while waiting... Atlanta... awesome.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by (four 0 four)

Hmmm, Ok. That's not how I interpreted your initial quote:




Atlanta's was founded at the termination point for 2 rail lines...the zero mile post. It was first called Terminus, a name I'm grateful city leaders saw the benefit in changing. It is still a major transportation and logistics hub. And King of the South, I might add.

That’s not my initial quote. And we all know about good ol’ Terminus (which tells you plain as day that no grand city was ever planned there... because you wouldn’t name it fucking Terminus if it was). What’s notable is how Terminus grew into the major city that it is given its lack of natural advantages (aside from that tree canopy of course).

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by galleyfox

In the Midwest, you become hyperaware of how slight natural and man made geographic variances can completely change a neighborhood’s destiny.

Here’s one fun series about how Chicago and St. Louis differed in bridge building expertise, all the while each city tried to sabotage the other’s transportation links.

https://www.semissourian.com/blogs/p...ds/entry/42601
https://www.semissourian.com/blogs/p...ds/entry/42701
https://www.semissourian.com/blogs/p...ds/entry/42774
https://www.semissourian.com/blogs/p...ds/entry/42852
https://www.semissourian.com/blogs/p...ds/entry/42947

i know theres other instances (usually adjacent states not cities) of almost pre-modern style city-state conflict (below the level of civil war) in the united states but the alleged physical sabatoge of chicago-oriented infrastructure is notable.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

i know theres other instances (usually adjacent states not cities) of almost pre-modern style city-state conflict (below the level of civil war) in the united states but the alleged physical sabatoge of chicago-oriented infrastructure is notable.

This is fascinating. The Chicago-St Louis rivalry is famous but I didn't know it was so... Mozart-Salieri. With every move intended to salvage the city's economy, St Louis ended up hoist by its own petard.

Which is a shame, because St Louis is a truly beautiful and unique city, with great architecture and urbanism that should be the envy of other American cities, and excellent infrastructure.

It's wild how the brainworm of "one more bridge will fix it" has reigned supreme for 150 years and continues to hold sway with the opening of the Musial Bridge just a few years ago.

[lio45]

It's pretty obvious that Atlanta did not have to be exactly where it is. Unlike NYC, Chicago, SF, etc. (and Montreal, Quebec City, etc.)

There's a little town in Quebec that has a totally oversized rail yard and could have grown much bigger had railways taken off more than they did; it's the spot where the rail lines to Montreal, Quebec City and New England meet. Exactly like Atlanta, it didn't have to be exactly there. It's there because of choices made at the time those rail paths were decided. It could have been somewhere else - though not that far from its current spot, and not anywhere other than Southeastern Quebec, obviously.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by lio45

It's pretty obvious that Atlanta did not have to be exactly where it is. Unlike NYC, Chicago, SF, etc. (and Montreal, Quebec City, etc.)

There's a little town in Quebec that has a totally oversized rail yard and could have grown much bigger had railways taken o more than they did; it's the spot where the rail lines to Montreal, Quebec City and New England meet. Exactly like Atlanta, it didn't have to be exactly there. It's there because of choices made at the time those rail paths were decided. It could have been somewhere else - though not that far from its current spot, and not anywhere other than Southeastern Quebec, obviously.

houston is more complex but this i think is the jist of it for atlanta, the metroplex, and others.

i think it becomes a bit more interesting with the places that sprung up around missions along the camino real and other places in the former Virreinato de Nueva España.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by ardecila

This is fascinating. The Chicago-St Louis rivalry is famous but I didn't know it was so... Mozart-Salieri. With every move intended to salvage the city's economy, St Louis ended up hoist by its own petard.

Which is a shame, because St Louis is a truly beautiful and unique city, with great architecture and urbanism that should be the envy of other American cities, and excellent infrastructure.

It's wild how the brainworm of "one more bridge will fix it" has reigned supreme for 150 years and continues to hold sway with the opening of the Musial Bridge just a few years ago.

st. louis is where it is because it actually makes sense as much as any settlement in the new world. i mean it’s a real keystone spot at every level, down to being on the perfect, gentle limestone saddle above the floodplains of multiple key rivers at or near the conjunction of multiple regions. a completely unforced location.

yet, you’re certainly right about the raging self-destructive streak.