Best City Locations?

[srv fan]

Based on all relevant factors, which current or historical city locations are the best?
Some factors to judge by:

- ease of defense
- access to trade routes
- access to agricultural areas
- access to fresh water
- port capabilities
- access to key resources (iron, timber, etc.)
- proximity to other centres of power

Feel free to include cities that were perfect for one era, but have lost relevance in the modern age. As an example, many Central Asian Silk Road cities used to be metropolises, before their trade route disappeared. Conversely, you can also put down cities that are not currently booming, that you expect to thrive in the future due to location.

 

[Hendryk]

I think that, in any TL in which a sedentary civilization colonizes North America, a major city will be founded near the San Francisco bay. It's a great location, though I'm not sure about its defensibility, and of course the earthquakes are a bit of a bummer.

 

[Flocculencio]

I'd think that the Bay Area is quite defensible- it's surrounded by reasonably rugged hills.

As for the original question, Singapore is, of course a great location for a city. Constantinople too.

 

[jolo]

Hills with surrounding fertile lands used to be the best places for cities - ease of defense, safe against some flooding, and so on. If a harbor is near, that adds a lot of trade and technology bonus (to use gaming terms). But such riches can also attract enemies.

Today, the prospering cities are nearly all located at harbors - the cheapest large scale transport. Other factors appear to have become minor. I'd still see advantages for cities on higher ground (fewer floodings), at a bay or river with ocean access (less tides, therefore easier shipping), away from fault lines and volcanos, away from flooding areas, and so on. I'd also prefer lots of farming ground nearby, to have some degree of self sufficiency in case of economic crisis, war, or whatever.

As ever increasing mobility makes more and more factors unimportant, I suppose people will simply live wherever they want whenever they want in the future. Expect booming cities in the middle of mountaineous areas (like Aspen, but with more people), in deserts (like Las Vegas), and so on.

Still, there should always be lots of water in reach (even if only by desalination or the likes).

 

[srv fan]

To be honest, Constantinople was the back of my head the entire time I was making the topic. I'm not sure a city location can get any better. It's really easy to defend. It sits on top of a huge trade route. It has complete naval and trade control of the Black Sea and Aegean. Its a great deepwater port. It has no ecological disasters waiting to happen. It is close enough to other major power centres to communicate easily, but has enough strategic depth for power projection. It has great agricultural land on all sides. It has plenty of natural resources. I really can't think of many cities to top it.

 

[Othniel]

Anywhere two rivers are joined is bound to gain a trading city of types.

 

[President Ledyard]

Vicksburg, Mississippi would have made a great pre-modern city location.

 

[srv fan]

Vicksburg, Mississippi would have made a great pre-modern city location.

How so? Its kind of boring if people list cities and don't explain them.

 

[President Ledyard]

Oops, sorry about that. I hate that too.

Vicksburg is located on large bluff overlooking the Mississippi River between the Delta of Blues fame and the actual delta in Lousiana. Prior to some changes in the course of the Mississippi, Vicksburg was in a prime position to intercept traffic along the river and was very defensible. It was even known as the "Gibraltar of America" or something similar and held up Grant for some time in 1863 during the American Civil War.

 

[TechRat]

Muddy Waters

Anywhere two rivers are joined is bound to gain a trading city of types.

I nominate Winnipeg, Canada's gateway to the west.
Too bad it suffers from blizzards and floods.

 

[HelloLegend]

Based on all relevant factors, which current or historical city locations are the best?
Some factors to judge by:

- ease of defense
- access to trade routes
- access to agricultural areas
- access to fresh water
- port capabilities
- access to key resources (iron, timber, etc.)
- proximity to other centres of power

Feel free to include cities that were perfect for one era, but have lost relevance in the modern age. As an example, many Central Asian Silk Road cities used to be metropolises, before their trade route disappeared. Conversely, you can also put down cities that are not currently booming, that you expect to thrive in the future due to location.

Where Shanghai is now.

 

[john]

New York City will always grow to a major metropolis. great harbor, manhattan + the other harbor islands, and there used to be quite a bit of farmland

Rio de Janeiro for similar rasons

 

[DuQuense]

To be honest, Constantinople was the back of my head the entire time I was making the topic. I'm not sure a city location can get any better. It's really easy to defend. It sits on top of a huge trade route. It has complete naval and trade control of the Black Sea and Aegean. Its a great deepwater port. It has no ecological disasters waiting to happen. It is close enough to other major power centres to communicate easily, but has enough strategic depth for power projection. It has great agricultural land on all sides. It has plenty of natural resources. I really can't think of many cities to top it.

Not quite true-- The current Earthquake storm moving across the eastern Med is due to hit Istanbul with a 9.5+ Quake sometime in the next twenty years.

Tampa Bay, Florida, has the protentail to Surpass Miami in the near Future.

 

[Max Sinister]

9.5? That'd be one of the biggest quakes in history! In the next twenty years? Can you show me the source?

 

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

Chicago, Hamburg, Basra, Canton, Recife, Belgrade, Zanzibar (not a city, though), Riga, Buenos Aires, San Diego, Copenhagen, Aleppo, Odessa, Cape Town, Tunis, Bordeaux, Milan, Cairo.

And the ones already mentioned.

 

[Nicole]

Boston, especially before the landfill projects, is a highly defensible location, connected only to the mainland by an isthmus but also in a prime location for a trading port with Europe.

 

[Anaxagoras]

I've always wondered why the Tanger-Gibralter location never became a major strategic city, controlling access into and out of the Mediterranean and having quite a nice port, too.

 

[Chengar Qordath]

I've always wondered why the Tanger-Gibralter location never became a major strategic city, controlling access into and out of the Mediterranean and having quite a nice port, too.

As I recall the terrain is not very good for city-building in that area; I believe the area is rather mountainous.

 

[Mike Stearns]

Montreal. A city on that site was inevitable, I think. It sits on the only sea route into the heart of North America, is seismically and it close to other major business centers and port cities: Toronto, New York, Boston, etc.

 

[galanx]

Vancouver- though a pre-modern Stanley Park would have been the Citadel.