Major cities not situated on water

Jennifat · August 14th, 2005, 04:22 AM

Are there any major cities in America that are not situated on bodies of water, as in the ocean, a lake, or a river?

If so, are there any that don't have man-made bodies of water, such as canals, reservoirs, or aquaducts?

United-States-of-America · August 14th, 2005, 04:24 AM

I'm thinking about Mexico City, but I'm not sure.

Sounder · August 14th, 2005, 04:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NewYorker1

I'm thinking about Mexico City, but I'm not sure.

Mexico City was built on a lake.

Lmichigan · August 14th, 2005, 04:39 AM

By America, I'm quite sure she means the United States of America.

Sounder · August 14th, 2005, 04:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jennifat

Are there any major cities in America that are not situated on bodies of water, as in the ocean, a lake, or a river?

Phoenix perhaps, though a river runs thorugh it occasionally if it rains enough. Las Vegas doesn't have much for water, of the permanent natural variety, either.

CrazyCanuck · August 14th, 2005, 05:01 AM

What about Atlanta?

sequoias · August 14th, 2005, 05:40 AM

I can't think of a city in the United states that don't even have water nearby, most cities need reserviors, lakes, etc for the population to survive.

Fiddlerontheruf · August 14th, 2005, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sequoias

I can't think of a city in the United states that don't even have water nearby, most cities need reserviors, lakes, etc for the population to survive.

Atlanta doesn't really have a substantial body of water for miles from downtown.

***xzmattzx*** · August 14th, 2005, 07:06 PM

las vegas isn't on any body of water. lake mead is nearby, on the other side of a couple mountains.

i believe phoenix is on the rio salado. i've never been to phoenix, so i don't know exactly how close the river is to downtown or the original part of the city.

other than that, pretty much every city is situated on a river, lake, etc of some sort. people need water to live, and so living far away from water is a bad idea. large cities didn't just pop up in the last 20 years; they have been around for decades. so cities needed to be near water because transportation of water or people was much slower and inefficient than it is today. moreover, water was a form of transportation. so living away from water meant isolating yourself from the rest of the world.

ironchapman · August 15th, 2005, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fiddlerontheruf

Atlanta doesn't really have a substantial body of water for miles from downtown.

Exactly...unless you consider the Chattahoochee a usable body of water (which it isn't).

SDfan · August 14th, 2005, 05:55 AM

I can think of cities that have imported water supplies from once minimal resources.

Azn_chi_boi · August 14th, 2005, 03:05 PM

what about FT. Wayne, In or Lansing, MI?

Maybe Reno, NV, San Beridino, CA, Tuson, and Phoenix?

TexasBoi · August 14th, 2005, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azn_chi_boi

what about FT. Wayne, In or Lansing, MI?

Maybe Reno, NV, San Beridino, CA, Tuson, and Phoenix?

with the exception of Phoenix. Neither one of those are actually major cities. I would say Las Vegas though.

Azn_chi_boi · August 15th, 2005, 03:58 AM

Isnt San Jose on the SF Bay?

KM1410 · August 15th, 2005, 04:03 AM

what about Denver

hauntedheadnc · August 15th, 2005, 08:05 AM

The Triad and Triangle metros of North Carolina, each with a population of more than a million, are not located on a major body of water. Their only waterways are small creeks and some large manmade lakes that, of course, did not exist at their founding. Charlotte, NC, meanwhile, is closer to a natural body of water, but is still many miles from the Catawba River. Like the Triad (Winston-Salem, Greensboro, and High Point) and the Triangle (Raleigh, Durham, and Chapel Hill), the only bodies of water within Charlotte proper are some small creeks.

cwilson758 · August 17th, 2005, 07:55 PM

ATL, Indy, Denver immediately come to mind

kavok · August 20th, 2005, 03:46 AM

Indy = White River
Denver = Platte River
Lansing = Grand River
Ft Wayne = Maumee River

cwilson758 · August 20th, 2005, 05:24 AM

I was focused on "navigable," which wasn't even mentioned...duh

Lmichigan · August 20th, 2005, 08:54 PM

Yeah, we could list every little city in the United States if we want to get technical. lol

August 14th, 2005, 04:22 AM	#1
Jennifat Midwest Diva Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States Posts: 1,274 Likes (Received): 83	Major cities not situated on water Are there any major cities in America that are not situated on bodies of water, as in the ocean, a lake, or a river? If so, are there any that don't have man-made bodies of water, such as canals, reservoirs, or aquaducts?

August 14th, 2005, 07:06 PM	#9
*xzmattzx* Philly sports fan Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Wilmington, Delaware Posts: 12,618 Likes (Received): 56	las vegas isn't on any body of water. lake mead is nearby, on the other side of a couple mountains. i believe phoenix is on the rio salado. i've never been to phoenix, so i don't know exactly how close the river is to downtown or the original part of the city. other than that, pretty much every city is situated on a river, lake, etc of some sort. people need water to live, and so living far away from water is a bad idea. large cities didn't just pop up in the last 20 years; they have been around for decades. so cities needed to be near water because transportation of water or people was much slower and inefficient than it is today. moreover, water was a form of transportation. so living away from water meant isolating yourself from the rest of the world. __________________ The great state of Delaware; My daily Delaware photo; My urban photo blog Riverfront Wilmington construction photos; Center City Wilmington construction photos

August 14th, 2005, 05:55 AM	#11
SDfan Registered User Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: San Diego Posts: 1,688 Likes (Received): 0	I can think of cities that have imported water supplies from once minimal resources. __________________ Boo!

August 14th, 2005, 03:05 PM	#12
Azn_chi_boi BANNED Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Bridgeport + Chinatown, Chicago Posts: 4,269 Likes (Received): 0	what about FT. Wayne, In or Lansing, MI? Maybe Reno, NV, San Beridino, CA, Tuson, and Phoenix? Last edited by Azn_chi_boi; August 14th, 2005 at 05:45 PM.

August 15th, 2005, 08:05 AM	#16
hauntedheadnc ...wolf in cheap clothing Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Asheville, North Carolina Posts: 675 Likes (Received): 0	The Triad and Triangle metros of North Carolina, each with a population of more than a million, are not located on a major body of water. Their only waterways are small creeks and some large manmade lakes that, of course, did not exist at their founding. Charlotte, NC, meanwhile, is closer to a natural body of water, but is still many miles from the Catawba River. Like the Triad (Winston-Salem, Greensboro, and High Point) and the Triangle (Raleigh, Durham, and Chapel Hill), the only bodies of water within Charlotte proper are some small creeks. __________________ Bring me the head of Strawberry Shortcake!!

August 14th, 2005, 04:24 AM	#2
United-States-of-America BANNED Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Baltimore, MD Posts: 763 Likes (Received): 0	I'm thinking about Mexico City, but I'm not sure.

August 14th, 2005, 04:39 AM	#4
Lmichigan Registered User Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Mid-Michigan Posts: 2,722 Likes (Received): 5	By America, I'm quite sure she means the United States of America.

August 14th, 2005, 05:01 AM	#6
CrazyCanuck MOD SQUAD Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Toronto Posts: 3,722 Likes (Received): 0	What about Atlanta?

August 14th, 2005, 05:40 AM	#7
sequoias Registered User Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Midwest US Posts: 1,601 Likes (Received): 0	I can't think of a city in the United states that don't even have water nearby, most cities need reserviors, lakes, etc for the population to survive.

August 15th, 2005, 03:58 AM	#14
Azn_chi_boi BANNED Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Bridgeport + Chinatown, Chicago Posts: 4,269 Likes (Received): 0	Isnt San Jose on the SF Bay?

August 15th, 2005, 04:03 AM	#15
KM1410 Registered User Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Broad Ripple, Indianapolis, IN Posts: 959 Likes (Received): 0	what about Denver

August 17th, 2005, 07:55 PM	#17
cwilson758 Cory Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Cleveland via Indianapolis Posts: 3,409 Likes (Received): 3	ATL, Indy, Denver immediately come to mind

August 20th, 2005, 03:46 AM	#18
kavok Registered User Join Date: May 2005 Location: Lansing Posts: 121 Likes (Received): 0	Indy = White River Denver = Platte River Lansing = Grand River Ft Wayne = Maumee River

August 20th, 2005, 05:24 AM	#19
cwilson758 Cory Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Cleveland via Indianapolis Posts: 3,409 Likes (Received): 3	I was focused on "navigable," which wasn't even mentioned...duh

August 20th, 2005, 08:54 PM	#20
Lmichigan Registered User Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Mid-Michigan Posts: 2,722 Likes (Received): 5	Yeah, we could list every little city in the United States if we want to get technical. lol

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode