Skyscraper City Forum banner
1 - 20 of 65 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,194 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
A second delving into the world of magic and make believe:

You have the power to physically pick up any city (and its metropolitan area) and place it anywhere in the United States you like to create the ideal city (metro) in which to live.

Which city would you choose...and where would you place it on the new map?
 

·
Proud Torontonian
Joined
·
1,421 Posts
I'd put LA in New York's climate and see if it would still be the centre of cosmopolitanism and pop culture for the US.
 

·
EffSizzle
Joined
·
160 Posts
hmmm

Interesting thread.

Zachus22, great thought. I'd be willing to bet that if you put Los Angeles in NY's climate that it WOULDN'T even be half of wha LA is now. LA, in a lot of ways is "all climate".

Me, I'd put New York City in the Seattle area. A huge city like NY in the gorgeous Puget Sound area would be almost incomprehensably amazing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
I'd move Dallas / Fort Worth to where houston is, and move houston to where Dallas is... then wait and see if anyone notices.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,929 Posts
Interesting thread.

Zachus22, great thought. I'd be willing to bet that if you put Los Angeles in NY's climate that it WOULDN'T even be half of wha LA is now. LA, in a lot of ways is "all climate".

Me, I'd put New York City in the Seattle area. A huge city like NY in the gorgeous Puget Sound area would be almost incomprehensably amazing.
First, you single out LA and say it wouldn't be half of what it is now without it's climate (a function of it's location), then you say NYC would be great in the Puget Sound area? That's kinda funny. NYC would've never been what it is if it wasn't on the eastern seaboard, it owes it's entire existence to it's location, just like LA. Chicago would've never been Chicago unless it was exactly where it is on Lake Michigan. And so on and so on, so why single out LA?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
392 Posts
I like Milwaukee's location. However, If I had to move it....I would put it on Door County, ie. Wisconsin's peninsula.



I would then put Chicago near where Green Bay is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,929 Posts
that would awesome. How cool would it be having the MSP skyline on a Great Lake?
Not only would it be on a Great Lake, it would also have some pretty decent hills. It would have access to perhaps the greatest freshwater fishing of any city in the country, and it would have the most stunning setting of any city in the midwest.

Imagine Minneapolis right here:



And this could be the suburban "coastline":



There'd be problems though if Minneapolis was up there. It would spoil the unspoiled wilderness. It would be colder. There'd be Timberwolves and Moose to deal with.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
392 Posts
^maybe not to far north, but it would be in an awesome location where Duluth is. The San Francisco of the Upper Midwest!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,191 Posts
First, you single out LA and say it wouldn't be half of what it is now without it's climate (a function of it's location), then you say NYC would be great in the Puget Sound area? That's kinda funny. NYC would've never been what it is if it wasn't on the eastern seaboard, it owes it's entire existence to it's location, just like LA. Chicago would've never been Chicago unless it was exactly where it is on Lake Michigan. And so on and so on, so why single out LA?

He was simply saying that LA's growth was very dependent on its favorable climate and weather. Of course NYC wouldnt be what it is today if it were near the Puget Sound... it would be Seattle. He was talking about moving the present-day NYC to the Puget Sound, just like you were talking about moving MSP north.. They're two completely seperate observations by EffSizzle.

About location, LA could have theorically grown anywhere with nice weather, like Arizona or South Florida. However if South Cali had snowy cold winters NYC, LA probably wouldnt of grown there. Cities like Chicago and NYC were dependent on a very specific location and the surrounding geography.

This is all assuming that LA's growth is mostly because of it's weather, im not declaring that was.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,929 Posts
He was simply saying that LA's growth was very dependent on its favorable climate and weather.
And I said that LA's climate and weather is tied to it's SPECIFIC location. LA's warm weather is not like warm weather in the rest of the country, it's climate is very unique in the United States. LA's climate is specific to Southern California, and there isn't anything like it anywhere else in the country, not in Texas, not in Florida, not in Arizona, not anywhere in the US.

NYC is NYC because of it's location. Just like LA. So why single LA out?


About location, LA could have theorically grown anywhere with nice weather, like Arizona or South Florida.
Would it have the busiest port in the United States if it were developed anywhere with "nice" weather? Would it be the US gateway to Asia, if it were developed anywhere with nice weather?

However if South Cali had snowy cold winters NYC, LA probably wouldnt of grown there.
And if NYC was on the west coast, it wouldn't have "grown there".

Cities like Chicago and NYC were dependent on a very specific location and the surrounding geography.
Cities like LA were dependent on a very specific location--Southern California. See above.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
579 Posts
And I said that LA's climate and weather is tied to it's SPECIFIC location. LA's warm weather is not like warm weather in the rest of the country, it's climate is very unique in the United States. LA's climate is specific to Southern California, and there isn't anything like it anywhere else in the country, not in Texas, not in Florida, not in Arizona, not anywhere in the US.

NYC is NYC because of it's location. Just like LA. So why single LA out?




Would it have the busiest port in the United States if it were developed anywhere with "nice" weather? Would it be the US gateway to Asia, if it were developed anywhere with nice weather?



And if NYC was on the west coast, it wouldn't have "grown there".



Cities like LA were dependent on a very specific location--Southern California. See above.
wow why dont u move 2 LA since u like it so much
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
511 Posts
If I could, I would move Louisville (or Memphis) to where Cairo, Illinois now sits - at the intersection of the Ohio River and the Mississippi River. Saint Louis sits where (or at least near) the Missouri and the Mississippi (and the Illinois) all intersect, so it does not make sense to move it. But, Louisville could be moved downstream a little. It just makes sense to have cities where major geographic features come together. Cairo sits at a location that overlooks a 1/3 of all the water in the United States during the course of a year. Besides the obvious shipping importance, it would also be a nice tourist location. Just to the east is Kentucky Lake and Lake Barkley, and the Land between the Lakes. Paducah and Cape Girardeau would make nice mid-sized cities on the outskirts of the metro area. Cario used to be a very important city until after the civil war & Great Depression. I would like for there to be a significant city at that location again.
 

·
1981 Civic
Joined
·
2,911 Posts
It's fairly expensive to live in Greater LA. I'm sure if housing wasn't so expensive, there'd be even more people out there today.

And speaking of LA, today's banner features a nice skyline/mountains panorama.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
511 Posts
Damn. This one headed for the crapper fairly quickly.

In any event, I would place Indianapolis on Lake Michigan, opposite Chicago. :)
What does opposite mean? On the other side like where Michigan City is? Or closer, where Gary is? If you put it too close, no one would ever remember Indianapolis because it would be subsumed, like Oakland is into San Francisco. Look at Milwaukee. They are almost a suburb these days (kidding, kidding).

Otherwise, I like Indy's location. It would be nice if it were on a more important river. So, if you could move the Wabash to Indy or Indy to the Wabash at Terre Haute, that would be better.
 

·
1981 Civic
Joined
·
2,911 Posts
What does opposite mean? On the other side like where Michigan City is? Or closer, where Gary is? If you put it too close, no one would ever remember Indianapolis because it would be subsumed, like Oakland is into San Francisco. Look at Milwaukee. They are almost a suburb these days (kidding, kidding).

Otherwise, I like Indy's location. It would be nice if it were on a more important river. So, if you could move the Wabash to Indy or Indy to the Wabash at Terre Haute, that would be better.
Allegan County, Michigan.

Indy's current location is uninspiring. I'd rather put on a Great Lake, along the bluffs and white sand beaches. And, it gives better scenery than a river.
 
1 - 20 of 65 Posts
Top