Just got insanely curious about this today, wondering if any of the LetsRun geography experts could help me out here. Any big cities that aren't connected by navigable water?
Just got insanely curious about this today, wondering if any of the LetsRun geography experts could help me out here. Any big cities that aren't connected by navigable water?
Las Vegas, there's one.
Atlanta
Seattle--no river or ocean.
Mexico city.
(But it's a bit of cheating there. When founded by the Aztecs and conquered by the Spaniards it was connected by water.)
Tehran
Northwest Apprentice wrote:
Seattle--no river or ocean.
Okay, that's basically the ocean, I said nothing that's navigable
Okay dude wrote:
Northwest Apprentice wrote:Seattle--no river or ocean.
Okay, that's basically the ocean, I said nothing that's navigable
Navigable, yes. Far from the ocean, however. We've got lakes, too.
Phoenix. Tucson.
Denver. There are some lakes and reservoirs, but no navigable waters.
Mecca.
Johannesburg, South-Africa
The city is one of the 50 largest urban agglomerations in the world, and is also the world's largest city not situated on a river, lake, or coastline.
New Orleans
No city has an Ocean going through it.
Phoenix, Arizona...
Atlanta, Georgia...
No wonder guys always overestimate the size of their Johnson's. He said huge cities. Las Vegas isn't a huge city.
place is kind of miserable
Jhb wrote:
Johannesburg, South-Africa
Dallas has the Trinity River but it is nothing more than a creek and not a navigable body of water.
I'm sure it's obvious to the OP that a water transport was essential for commerce prior to railroads, airports and truck transport. Dallas is one of those places that was not much more than a post office until the railroad came along. They pride themselves on having created a city out of nothing.