Big economic problem

[Mr. Perfect]

Canada has no pattern other than proximity to the US border.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

For example Mexico is mostly inland.

Wonder how that aligns with geographic features?

I know that the Americas are easier [sans modern tech] to move north to south than east to west.

Mexican population probably maps really well with old Aztec+friends settlements. Starts on top of the mountain ranges (like Mexico City) and runs right down the mountain.

Canada is easier to explain- where is it easiest to get near the American border but not to so close that Ben Franklin may invade again!

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

Here's a question: how do you entice people to not congregate along the coasts/major bodies of water?

historically a gold rush or a industrial boom (detroit) springs to mind.

then that finishes and you stuck in the middle of nowhere with nothing to do surrounded by angry men and hookers.

the full rich complexity of cities does form organically and starting new ones has a pretty poor record.

even though roads and trains exist now, they are still expensive and require a reason to exist- the bounty of the worlds "stuff" still arrives by ship for the most part.

Right. That's exactly what I'm thinking.

And it's awfully hard to imagine an alternative.

================

I've had this topic stuck in my head for years, for reasons I don't know- can't even remember what raised it initially (or frankly, what purpose).

American 3rd and 4th tier cities are not doing well, and they are going out like how one goes bankrupt; slowly then suddenly.

[Mr. Perfect]

It's fascinating. It became more relevant because I am thinking of relocating for the first time in some 15 years. Now, it probably won't happen but I would like to make intelligent choices.

Idaho is a fantastic place with the gun laws and wide open spaces but Boise is the only proper city there, and I don't care for it. Hot in the summer cold in the winter on a fairly barren plane. You have to do some driving to get out of town.
Washington is amazing except for the mismanagement of the government and cities, and eastern parts have the inland intemperance.
Oregon is actually looking good, if you were to drive west of Portland it might be ideal, except I do like a few snowfalls per year.
There are a dozen places I would live in California except for the gun laws. Even with all the other leftist nonsense California is amazing if you stay away from the Democrat enclaves. But the gun laws are a no go.
MT, WY, UT, wonderful places but I think I'm too old for the cold winters now.
CO I have mixed feelings
AZ, NV, NM, don't like deserts anymore.
West Coast looks good except for the politics.

Maybe it's the harsh interior weather that drives people out. Maybe it's just weather. The midwest has better weather than the Rockies and Plains. Maybe it's just that.

[Mr. Perfect]

Also the Mexico thing is interesting with the illegal immigration thing, they give you the impression they own parts of the United States but very few of them have ever lived anywhere close.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

You can always head east.

I'll take your Mississippi comment and flip it; things aren't right west of the Mississippi.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

Brazil is a very interesting case.

Despite it's size, very little agricultural land; the Amazon is impossible to settle in and all the major cities are on the coast in between the mountains- making it difficult to get around.

[noddy]

maybe, on some primal level, we are all apocalypse hoarders and in the old time, being by large bodies of water is a guaranteed source of water and protein - the 2 hardest things to get when living wild.

even tho its not rational and new yorkers wont exactly live large on remnant poisoned oyster beds and 2 headed fish, the instinct is for that.

so - we have the weather, only a smaller subset of humanity chooses to live in super cold and/or super hot

add that to the economic benefits of cheaper trading and the high bar of competing with the existing cities levels of services and infrastructure and you have enough of that invisible hand... to my sense of things.

canada doesnt count, its more of a logging colony than a country ands its oceans are frozen hellholes, so the border with the USA is the only real option with half decent weather.

mexico is very skinny so being in the middle is still not far from the ocean, yet you are offered some protection from tropical storms which are constant in those parts ?



its pretty easy to spot the points in which the rivers hit the ocean and have deepwater ports

any spots of density inland are mining towns and will become ghost towns when the metal runs out.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

My mental map of Australia says that around 40% of Australia is either desert or areas that don't receive enough water to support human settlements.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

As for NYC waters; I know that they've been putting oysters back into the Bronx river, as part of the effort to clean the place up.

Heck, whales are regularly appearing for the first time in a century.

[noddy]

My mental map of Australia says that around 40% of Australia is either desert or areas that don't receive enough water to support human settlements.

we are like canada, not a real country - just some natural industry exports and cushy, safe, middle class retirement villages for asian corruption money.

[noddy]

As for NYC waters; I know that they've been putting oysters back into the Bronx river.

would you eat them ?

[Typhoon]

Here's a question: how do you entice people to not congregate along the coasts/major bodies of water?

historically a gold rush or a industrial boom (detroit) springs to mind.

then that finishes and you stuck in the middle of nowhere with nothing to do surrounded by angry men and hookers.

the full rich complexity of cities does form organically and starting new ones has a pretty poor record.

even though roads and trains exist now, they are still expensive and require a reason to exist- the bounty of the worlds "stuff" still arrives by ship for the most part.

technology only separates us from the old ways when it makes economic sense.

Quite. We still exist in the physical world.

A shipping company such as Maersk moves physical goods around the planet, but may use GPS to track its ships and implement a private blockchain for logistics tracking.

Two planned cities designed from the ground up come to mind.

Brasília, the capital of Brazil.
A failure by most measures. Like living in a giant modern art gallery and as sterile.

Canberra, the capital of Australia.
A success by most measures. Although some Aussies might disagree

Both are inland cities.

[noddy]

highly successful at keeping the politicians away from the 2 real cities - Melbourne and Sydney

It is also considered sterile against the hustle and bustle of those two neighbours - as is Perth, another created city which was moved 20km inland from the natural city of Fremantle at the river mouth.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

As for NYC waters; I know that they've been putting oysters back into the Bronx river.

would you eat them ?

We're gettin' there.

When I was a boy, you couldn't even go near the water without growing a second head. Now you're able to stand in it, maybe even swim a bit...

[noddy]

good place to start - if you find you have an affinity for it then I would recommend moving away from javascript sooner or later.

What would you use instead? I am working on a web based project. I started with html and css for basic layouts, but was recommended javascript. I don't know enough about other languages to know what I would use instead.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=38&p=130035#p130035

[Simple Minded]

As for NYC waters; I know that they've been putting oysters back into the Bronx river.

would you eat them ?

We're gettin' there.

When I was a boy, you couldn't even go near the water without growing a second head. Now you're able to stand in it, maybe even swim a bit...

I've had two heads for as far back as I can remember.... and I never swam in the polluted waste water of NYC......

[Simple Minded]

noddy has the most accurate assessment so far IMSMO.

Water, food, transport, transportation, farm land, weather (as one who moved from NY to TX to VA and worked in Saudi Arabia in the summer, and Kuparuc AK in the winter, climate can not be underestimated), and economic opportunity are yuge factors.

Don't forget the innate drive to mate. Women tend to wear less clothing near large bodies of water.

People also develop emotional ties to places and relatives. As someone famous noted (Straus & Howe?), even in the modern era, most people live within a couple days walking distance from where they were born.

Infrastructure cost is also an anchor. New Orleans? Below sea level. NYC? Imagine maintaining the bridges. Logical, nope, but neither is abandoning a yuge stationary capital investment.

Tech is the great insulator/protector from nature. But we humans are a slow changing lot and cling to our primal fears. Urban street lighting for example.

[Mr. Perfect]

I should reiterate that economics is obviously a multivariable system, and how where when why cities develop is too.

So all other things being equal; we have inland cities and coastals.

Problem being places on the West Coast like Seattle, SF, LA and SD are far too population dense for my tastes, so I would look for alternatives, but there are not too many.

[Mr. Perfect]

People also develop emotional ties to places and relatives.

Yes, endlessly fascinating. I've lived in several places in the western US, but currently live in the same zip code I grew up in. A homing beacon brought me back. It was always in the back of my mind.

[Simple Minded]

People also develop emotional ties to places and relatives.

Yes, endlessly fascinating. I've lived in several places in the western US, but currently live in the same zip code I grew up in. A homing beacon brought me back. It was always in the back of my mind.

Yep. Millions of cultures out there.

Climate and family were both big motivators to go elsewhere for me. Close (or not so close, as the case may be) families seems both due to genetic programming, and childhood conditioning. Perhaps also local culture and population density, but not as much.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

Here's a question:

How far do cities have to be apart from each other to be successful? What sort of proximity make sense?

I guess 'still standing' is a kind of success.

But I think of all sorts of second and third tier cities around New York City of varying success.

Like White Plains, NY; Stamford and Danbury CT do alright but Poughkeepsie+Yonkers, NY; New Haven/Norwalk/Bridgeport CT, and Jersey City+Newark NJ seem to struggle mightily, in part, due to their proximity to New York City proper.

The famous American example is, of course, San Francisco and Oakland.

I do not know what shape Oakland is in currently, but last I read, its growth is due to overspill from San Francisco. I know it's being sold as the "cool alternative" to San Francisco. But it remains barring disaster the runner-up in proximate cities.

How much is Detroit affected by it's neighbor to the north, Windsor?

What about the relationship between LA and San Diego? Would San Diego even be a thing if not for the military and great weather?

[noddy]

the rule of thumb I heard from planners in australia is 1 to 2 hrs travel is the max.

less than 1 being ideal, 2 being the very edges for lifestyle or budget reasons.

in my city they have started 3 satellite cities in the 1 hr arc, all but one of them appears to be succeeding - it fails because it only has the government and retail jobs and is largely residential, real cities need industrial areas and/or more varied career offerings.

melbourne and sydney (the big boys) are not as planned and grew to the 2+ hr limit or even worse in some cases and sydney spills into its satellites forming a megacity.

[Simple Minded]

Good question Napster. What about China? IIRC, they have very large cities that aren't even connected to each other. Perhaps more like the City-States of Ancient Greece than any current Western parallels.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

Right now New York City's city limits make up approximately 45% of the actual metropolitan settlement density.

Comparatively, Baltimore and Chicago's current city limits only reflect something like a quarter to a third of the actual settlement density. And Detroit is even less than that.

A number of these places would do well to reincorporate borders that reflect the actual settlements.

At the same time, there is such a thing as too big; and the frontier of places like New York and Chicago cross county& state borders. I'm not sure Indiana would be keen on giving up their financial backdoor to Illinois, even if it would better ameliorate depressed and slum areas.

The same thing goes for New York; Connecticut and New Jersey aren't giving up their gold coasts just because they have to deal with Bridgeport and Jersey City.