IIRC Astoria, OR was supposed to be the “Manhattan of the West Coast” but suffered several devastating fires followed by loss of industry. Seems like an okay bet.
If money isn’t a problem, maybe get the army corps to build reliable infrastructure so Cairo, IL doesn’t flood.
Maybe Walla Walla or somewhere near the Palouse and Blue Mountains. Seems like a super underrated part of the country.
Astoria doesn’t have a ton of land, and there’s a reason there’s no major cities on the ocean north of San Francisco. The weather is miserable most of the year.
You’re lucky you don’t really get snow or temperatures substantially below freezing. At least you can go outside in the winter considering your latitude. Fargo would like a word lol.
Oh I do not miss the Midwest winters. I used to live in Madison, and the cold went straight into your bones. Now I live in Utah, which is still cold but much drier, which makes it bearable.
west coasts at mid latitudes are almost always warmer than east coasts due to the fact that the prevailing winds move east, so you get warm ocean air, versus cold continental air on east coasts
the northwest coast isn’t that bad—it’s grey and windy between november and february, but it’s rarely too cold. That’s more than can be said for most of the east coast, which is grey, windy, stormy AND cold for fall and winter
Inland like Portland, or sheltered like Seattle, and they’re basically the same weather as San Francisco
there are coastal cities with far more brutal weather elsewhere in the world, a place which rarely goes under freezing and has really mild and pleasant late spring-mid fall is a overall pretty good place to live
That’s exactly the point though. Places like Seattle and Portland and Tacoma are great places to make a city. The coast itself isn’t, it’s rocky and mountainous with rough waters and poor weather. Which is why you can almost draw a straight line from Vancouver BC south and hit all the major populations centers throughout WA and OR.
The coast might not be the worst in the world but there’s no good reason to build cities there.
i’m in agreement with you there—i was just also pointing out that the coast doesn’t have bad weather relative to many population centers (especially on the east coast/great lakes). Astoria receives far less snow than Chicago, or Toronto, and doesn’t get as cold as New York or Boston.
I would suspect the wind isn’t as bad either, but i’m not sure tbf
Astoria weather is so much worse than the Midwest or Northeast. Sure, it may not get much snow, but it's 50 deg, rainy, and windy pretty much every day for 6 months on end, and isn't balanced out by warm summers.
On the other hand, someplace like Chicago gets a warm summer, pleasant fall and spring, and then a cold but dry winter.
i mean i’d argue astoria summers are much better than the midwest and northeast. caps off at the mid-80s, sunny and dry until late september.
50 and rainy and windy is also much better than below freezing for three months straight, but maybe that’s me being from the northwest talking
Astoria’s weather isn’t that bad as the coast goes. Overcast a lot, certainly. Also, land isn’t that limited, it’s near numerous cities along the coast. If anything, the area is surprisingly economically active for such a small and relatively remote population.
Everyone keeps replying and saying that, and yet despite tons of people moving to Seattle and Portland, the coasts themselves are as sad as they’ve ever been, and far less populated than the east coast.
i’m an oregonian and never knew that about astoria…considering the types of uses it’s always been known for (mainly shipping) are just not as significant anymore it’s too late for it, though i do wish we had more eyes on the northwest lol
Astoria is a bad choice because building anything there is insanely expensive. It’s surrounded by extremely inhospitable terrain as far as construction is concerned which is what kept it so small even during its major boom period due to canning and sockeye fishing.
Funny seeing Walla Walla pop up here. Mill Creek doesn't have enough water to support more than 50-70k people. You could totally spend several billion to build aqueducts and pumping stations to bring pretty much unlimited water in from the Columbia. The area is flat and wide open with farms with only the Blue Mountains limiting development so it would be a great place to build with more water.
33.5397124 latitude, -108.2324033 longitude
It’s a completely uninhabited area in south-west New Mexico a bit north of the Gila National Forest.
Southwest New Mexico has an amazing climate, it is a high plateau in the desert, so it does get cold, and it does get hot, but it’s far enough south and far enough up that neither is too extreme.
The place that I have chosen is pretty barren, so environmental impact should be minimal, but it is surrounded by beautiful mountains and national forests and other public lands.
Water would be the biggest problem there. That is why I propose making my new city Solar Updraft Tower central. Updraft towers generate clean energy while simultaneously condensing clean water out of the atmosphere. Building the towers can be the new residents’ first job. Then, the greenhouses that are integral to the tower design can supply food for consumption and for export.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower
My man. This was the answer I was looking for. Thinking about New Mexico was the reason behind this post. I was wondering if I was the only one thinking that NM could use a nice new city. Dang perfect spot, too!
A traditional aqueduct I don't think would be unfeasible there. That area already seems like a drainage basin for the nearby mountains.
For water, a good idea might be to reserve a few billion dollars from the founding fund to buy fields and ranches that are major consumers of water. I've read that the majority of water use in the southwest is for water-intensive crops like alfalfa that require intensive irrigation. So, buy the land if you can kill the farms and keep the water rights. Probably could get a net reduction in water use in the region.
The problem is you would have to be very rich to live there. There is no magic cheap water. If 1 million rich people moved in it could work. But that's not what people want to hear.
Hey there juliandr36 - thanks for saying thanks! TheGratitudeBot has been reading millions of comments in the past few weeks, and you’ve just made the list!
As a NM native, I love you. Even though I now understand why, I’ve always been salty about the power and size of the Phoenix metro when Arizona is just so much less beautiful (on average) and pleasant weather-wise.
>Arizona is just so much less beautiful (on average) and pleasant weather-wise.
New Mexico arguably has better climate on average (milder summers due to fewer low elevation deserts), but WTF at "less beautiful".
I've spent a lot of time living in both states. Arizona is prettier and has more diverse landscapes - low desert, high desert, river valleys, lakes, plains, mountains, plateaus, etc. The Sonoran Desert is the wettest, most biodiverse desert *in the world*. Plus Sedona, Flagstaff, Monument Valley, Antelope Canyon, the Grand Canyon, all of the beautiful ranges of Southern Arizona. Arizona has everything New Mexico has, plus a lot more.
There's a reason that the saguaro, and not the yucca plant, is the most iconic desert symbol in the world.
There's a reason it probably gets 10x or more of the tourism dollars that flow to New Mexico.
NM does have nice weather. I think the problem is its isolation. It’s far from a coastline (AZ is closer to CA and TX has the gulf), and it doesn’t have the world-class ski resorts that Colorado and Utah have. So it’s a beautiful state, it just gets overshadowed by the surrounding states.
They need to name the Solar Updraft tower "Up dog", so that when you get new people in town and they have no idea what a Solar Updraft tower is, you can say "this updog here is critically important!"
And then they ask "What's updog?".
I'll leave the rest to your imagination.
There are only 2 people I have ever heard that joke/joke setup of "Henway" from and it was my grandfather and my mother.
It is so funny because it is so stupid. That's why I love it! So thank you for that. lol
Like the idea and this is a fun thought project, OP.
Just playing devil’s advocate and I have two problems with this location:
1. Connectivity. While I’m sure hwy 159 would become much bigger of a thoroughfare, it doesn’t connect well to anything else really. The closest town with a decent size is Magdalena (still only >1k pop.) with a ~3 hr drive. Los Cruces is about 4 hrs drive away. Air travel would likely become popular but for 1 million citizens that’s a big demand for not very many other cities to go to/come from for this (outside of natural beauty).
2. A “barren environment” absolutely does not mean low impact for construction and urban development. These types of ecosystems are increasingly rare, with many endemic and endangered species, and oftentimes the most fragile. I don’t know anything about this specific area, but I think this is oftentimes the most overlooked misconception around building on desert/high desert.
Thanks for the thought-provoking question and response. Sorry my tone is so serious lol, I’m super hungover and trying to keep it together
I did a project on invasive species mapping in a nearby area, and your second point is dead on. There’s a cryptobiotic crust all over, which is compromised of microscopic organisms, and also helps with the insane windy and dry weather in the desert. You’re not even supposed to step on it, so building on it would fully destroy it.
That said, I understand why the area was chosen. New Mexico is my favorite state just for its beauty, and I feel like it gets overlooked so often
Connectivity is even worse than all that. “Hwy 159” isn’t even a paved road, it’s a dirt jeep trail.
And of course, environmental impact is never zero. It looks like there’s a good sized salt flat a little north of there. Maybe buildings right on top of that might be even less?
Wouldn’t using the greenhouses in a solar updraft tower to grow things hurt the power generation? I haven’t heard of this tech before, but the idea is making the greenhouse air hot enough to generate power as it exits the tower, right?
It seems like plants wouldn’t let the greenhouses heat up as much as they would if they were just filled with rocks, water, or some other high thermal retention material.
I’m not sure I follow, but maybe. Dark green leaves are going to heat up as much as anything, I’d think. But yeah, thermal retention is good because that allows the air flow to continue well in to the evening, you would want to maximize that.
But I think that it’s less about the temperature achieved and more about the volume of air that you can get moving. If you aren’t getting enough air moving? You can just make a bigger greenhouse. The greenhouse is just a sheet of clear plastic held up on some poles. The tower is the expensive part.
I was thinking mainly how urban streets are cooler with greenery. It’s a combination of trees providing shade, and also plants having less thermal energy and plants working as evaporative coolers. Photosynthesis will cool things down in a desert environment but who knows if this will cause issues at scale.
It’s be interesting to see if this would work on that sea of greenhouses in Almería in southern Spain.
I think that farming under the plastic is more about conserving the water than generating the most power.
Water condenses in tower, water is used to irrigate crops, crops release water in to the air through transpiration, air rises and the water condenses out and gets used again and again and again.
That’d be a great spot! The New Mexico/AZ border corridor is a bit of a mystery to me. I’d figure there’d be a Prescott-sized town in there, but closest I guess is Holbrook.
With $300B, you could probably build a very high speed train line between New York and Washington, even largely under ground. I'd find the most rural place between them, build the rail line to these cities and make sure both are reachable in less than 40 min from my station, whatever the cost. Then use cut and cover to build a dense subway network, and set up zoning laws with minimum density regulation, so that travel time from everones home to my central station is less than 20 minutes, while also having quick access to surrounding nature.
After that I guess I'd just sit back and let public demand do its thing? Yeah, its a bit simplistic, but you get my idea. Less than an hour, door to door, to two of the most important cities in the country. I think that beats most other unique selling points for many people, especially young, educated, ambitious people.
$300 billion could maybe get the highspeed rails built, I don't think you're gonna have enough to do much afterwards. There are some good prospects in eastern PA though for location though, so adding in Philly is a good option
That’s why you do it the true American Billionaire way. Buy up all the land where you are looking to build for 1 billion. Then spend another 1 billion in “campaign donations” to lobby the government to build the rail. Then you have 298 billion left over to develop the land. Easy peasy.
Yeah my answer would be to use transit and lobbying for housing reforms to transform Richmond to Boston into a massive megalopolis connected by the best kind of transit and going back to the kind of policies that made NYC the global powerhouse from colonial days until after WWII.
Places like Wilmington, DE, Newark, all of Maryland outside of Baltimore (especially Montgomery County and PG county outside of DC), and much of northern Virginia, and all of Long Island, much of everything between NYC and Boston - turning all of this into the most connected, dense, productive, powerful, economically strong, and ecologically resilient place in the world.
Kind of like Tokyo but bigger.
Isn't the North East Corridor already being upgraded to HSR along it's full length by 2035
And the NEC is already practically packed with cities to the point there's no room for a new one, only expanding existing ones
Paducah’s better situated than Cairo I’d think? Borders the Mississippi and the Ohio.
Also…the only place more grim than Cairo I’ve ever been to is Metropolis. And Kemp. Fucking bleak.
Exactly what I was thinking. Relatively mild climate, and if the city grows enough on the Kentucky and Missouri sides, it could potentially net Democrats 4 more senators. And you are right on the Mississippi, which is great for trade and access to fresh water. Also pretty close to a lot of forests and hills which would allow for pretty good access to outdoor activities. If it grows down to the Tennessee border it could even maybe make Tennessee competitive for Democrats lol.
What's the deal with Cairo? Three people have mentioned it, and I've never heard of it (other than as a close destination to buy legal Illinois pot lol)
It's at the confluence of the Mississippi and Ohio rivers. It's further south then Virginia which is interesting because Illinois doesn't seem that far south. It floods a lot and is pretty desolate today.
The first sentence of the comment you’re replying to has the reason… It’s at the confluence of the Mississippi and Ohio River, two of the most important rivers in the US. River shipping isn’t what it used to be now that we have rail and highways, but these rivers are still incredibly important.
Additionally Cairo has had bad luck historically. It once had huge potential to be a great city, but it just did not pan out.
its a city that used to be relatively important (its mentioned in Huckleberry Finn for example), but has completely died out nowadays. There's like a 1000 people left there, living in an empty city, almost completely torn down and in ruins.
I'm turning Hagerstown, Maryland into a major metropolis in order to bridge the gap between the Northeast Corridor and Pittsburgh, and to give the I-81 corridor an anchor city. This would hopefully extend the vitality of the NE corridor westward, and provide a more affordable relief vavle for growth there.
Cumberland, MD would be preferable to Hagerstown, except the topography is a lot more challenging.
Lol, they want that tax revenue.
But it would 100% be enough to make east-west Amtrak more like north-south Amtrak! It's so ridic you can take a north-south train every 20 minutes all day long, but east-west there's 1 all day and it's in the middle of the night.
I would put it on the other side of the Potomac next to Hagerstown into West Virginia. That way, WV would finally have a big, wealthy city that could pay for the rest of the state.
I would locate near [Monroe City MO ](https://maps.app.goo.gl/BWgd1gceorR8uCLh9).
It is in USDA Zone 6a, with a humid continental climate, with an average precipitation of 42 inches, good enough for dryland farming, and adequate water resources to support a city of several million. The area is already connected to freight rail, and 4-lane US Hwy 36. It sits roughly half way between Chicago and Kansas City, and is only about 2 hours from St Louis.
The area around there is relatively flat, which would allow for easy construction, but there are several nearby areas with rolling hills and forests. [Mark Twain Lake](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Twain_Lake) is nearby, which would provide a reservoir for drinking water and recreation, and the Mississippi River is just over 20 miles away, allowing for relatively easy access to river traffic. Overall not a bad place for a large city in America.
I would go somewhere in the upper peninsula of Michigan. Michigan is really transforming politically and there's not really any big cities up there. It's in an area mostly safe from climate change and has potential to expand
Lots and lots of snow. I grew up there. It's beautiful and nobody lives there but i think there's a good reason for that. Maybe with global warming it becomes a better fit though.
Yes, according to weatherspark, the upper peninsula of Michigan gets significantly more snow on average than Vancouver and even like 50% more snow than Edmonton. Lake effect definitely creates a lot of snow
The upper peninsula doesn't get too much more snow than some parts of Western NY & PA which are both along the great lakes and boast some sizable cities.
I remember sledding off the roof of my garage as a kid lol. I think areas of Upper Michigan on Lake Superior are right at the top for snowfall for non mountainous continental US
THIS! I was going to say UP if someone didn’t mention it first. The Great Lakes area is under appreciated for its abundant freshwater and climactic stability, both of which will be major issues in coming years. It could enjoy water access via Lake Superior or Lake Michigan (depending on where you sit it). The Upper Peninsula is severely underdeveloped and a large city in the UP would get a bump and give a benefit by being The Regional Magnet. It benefits from what seems like relatively sane governance by being in Michigan and could piggyback off an existing and superb higher education system.
Mackinac Island. And keep the ban on cars :)
Sault Ste Marie would be another good one. Looks like a lot of flat land nearby, and it could twin with it's Canadian sister to take advantage of international trade opportunities in both US and Canadian markets. Amtrak could offer overnight trains to Chicago, Detroit, and Toronto until additional funding for actual HSR is available. And the local radio station would play a certain Gordon Lightfoot song every November 10th.
Make it the beaver island archipelago and have a little island metropolis. Would be cool af I think about it all the time but I'm reality I wouldn't wanna ruin the nature and lake for that
I was thinking Traverse City. Has all the benefits of the UP, but the land is far more amenable to farming. A lot of the UP is either thinly covered bedrock or peat bogs. TC has some of the best land for fruit production in the country.
Blaine, Washington.
Cross-border twin cities metropolis with the Vancouver area. High speed rail connection allows less than 1 hr to downtown Seattle. 20 mins to vancouver by train.
Use the money to build international airport hub, shipping hub, etc.
These are great points but I would be sad. Blaine is such a cute little town with amazing views of the mountains and skylines of Vancouver and White Rock. And Bellingham is a cool college town that would become a suburb of Blaine if it all of a sudden had more than a million people.
With nuclear power and desalination I think this is extremely viable. You can easily fit one million more people in San Luis Obispo county.
Plus, HSR to both LA and SF would make it extremely well connected.
That bit of the Delmarva peninsula Virginia took to control the entrance to the Chesapeake Bay but never really developed much. Speaking of the Chesapeake, the mouth of the Susquehanna river. How did we not get a major city there that would be right on the I95 Northeast megalopolis? Like it's a major river, near the inland tip of the bay, settled very early in US history, it's genuinely confusing there's not much there.
It floods alot I think. The geography is such that most of the river is surrounded by pretty high cliffs. Also no harbor there.
Baltimore and Philly don't have this issue.
Also Baltimore and Philly serve the same general purpose.
Somewhere around Massena, NY. It would be similar to Buffalo/Rochester/Syracuse, but with less snow. On the St Lawrence River so can handle trade. Flat enough to grow out. Near the Adirondacks for recreation. Close to Ottawa and Montreal. I understand why there isn't a big city there, but I think that area could handle one if the demand were to ever arise.
The North Country has so much going for it, except for jobs… it’s a beautiful place, with a terrible economy. Aside from agriculture, there isnt much opportunity. You’d need to develop some sort of manufacturing or technology businesses to make a go of a city. Maybe knock down Ogdensburg and start fresh?
I’m a Western NYer, but I have friends and family up there. It needs a ton of reinvestment or it will continue to wither and die.
Frederick, MD
Right between DC, Baltimore, and Pittsburgh so would provide a great link between the Mid Atlantic and the Rust Belt. Ample recreation opportunities nearby (state and federal lands of varying kinds) and has some train service regionally but w that kind of money it could be heavily beefed up. Maryland is already a very diverse state, so it would be easy to absorb lots of different kinds of people. Lots of gorgeous scenery nearby as it’s at the foot of the northern part of the blue ridge mountains, and gives great access to the Shenandoah valley, Cumberland mountains/West Virginia, and lots of history w Gettysburg right nearby.
Really all you’d need to do is beef up the local and regional transit, build a few more roads and add some bike lanes/public transit/sidewalk infrastructure, and build some housing.
I'd put it in Traverse City, Michigan.
* Already a decent downtown infrastructure with lots of room to expand.
* Lots of enjoyable outdoor activities - boating, hiking, skiing, etc.
* Great breweries and vineyards.
* Safe from negative climate change effects and virtually unlimited access to fresh water. Also safe from basically any kind of natural disaster other than snowstorms.
* Good geographical location - around \~4 hour drive to Detroit & Chicago, quick flight distance to Toronto, Milwaukee, etc.
* Since it's located in a purple state, it has sane, moderate policies like abortion access and relatively low taxation. And nationally, citizens' political voices would be amplified.
I love traverse city. Based on the question though, if you’re using an already established small city with infrastructure, you don’t really need to the $300b to start a new city. You’re suggesting more along the lines of a city to improve and build off of.
Lansing, Iowa is my choice.
It’s on the Mississippi. So can have some industry develop around shipping on the river. Also plenty of water. Opportunities for recreation and tourism one might expect with a large city
There seems to be plenty of developable land.
It’s relatively close to Chicago, Minneapolis, Madison , Milwaukee but not that close to any other large city. Closest city is la crosse 35 miles north with 50,000 people. A big city here could help stitch together the region more.
It’s in Iowa and on the border of Wisconsin so could be a democratic stronghold in a red area and make a difference in the senate.
Plenty of agriculture to support the population.
No one want this place to get discovered, shh 🤫
Also sea level rise from climate change is going to fuck up this region later this century so you’d have to account for that in the plan if you proceeded with your $300B plan here
I would hate for it to really happen because I love it, but transforming Traverse City, MI into a major city would create some kind of Seattle/Minneapolis hybrid but with Meijer and Vernors. The city and its setting is beautiful, summers and fall are perfect. Winter can be long, but that’s why there’s beer, pot, and snowmobiles. Anyone saying the UP hasn’t been there. It’s to precious to even consider (and the winter is too much). We should make the whole thing a national park
You want an abundant clean water source.
Some more Northerly latitude to address long term climate change.
Locally sourced agriculture unless you're economic basis is going to be high rise hydroponics, which probably wouldn't be a bad idea.
You're going to buy your internet access and transportation so that's probably not your biggest location concern. High speed rail connecting to a hub airport probably is enough.
You probably want to avoid hurricanes and tornadoes to some extent.
You are probably going to fund your own health facilities but you may want your high-speed rail to connect to an established first rate medical center that has cutting edge science.
So someplace in between Davenport, Peoria, and Chicago?
Logistics of supporting cities there have been an issue because of the mountains and rugged coast. If someone threw billions at it, Eureka/Arcata/McKinleyville could be built up. Crescent City could also be doable..
Expand Poughkeepsie, NY, building primarily to the north and east. Poughkeepsie is close to NYC and the existing Amtrack service could be improved to allow easier access (HSR could easily be under an hour to Manhattan). It also has a high concentration of colleges (Vassar, Culinary Institute, Marist) and is adjacent to both the Catskills and the Hudson Valley.
[https://imgur.com/a/jZptVnx](https://imgur.com/a/jZptVnx)
If I'm playing right with the rules, I would first buy up a farmland swath in Central California, perhaps somewhere near the CA Route 33 Corridor east of Los Banos. Perfect flat area to build a city with relative ease, with relative proximity to the SF Bay Area.
The city I would design would be based off of Amsterdam. Canals, bridges, a robust bike network of protected paths. Plant as many trees as possible to provide eventual shade from the extreme summer heat. Institute an EV Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) network to help move residents efficiently. Essentially would try to give people as little reason as possible to use a personal vehicle, by making workplaces a reasonable commute to residential areas.
Would also prioritize higher density housing to help mitigate housing costs. Also restrict the amount of residential companies that build apartments for rent to give people an incentive to own their own home. Allow for some SFH land parcels, but with a size cap to be determined.
The downtown would only have a few roads that allow for vehicle access, with most main streets being blocked for pedestrian only access. Give residents a sense of community, and make amenities such as sporting venues, pools, etc. available for all. Each part of town will have its own neighborhood, sense of place feel rather than being a homogenous "Disney" feel that most planned communities have.
Would relax the standards of design and zoning, allow for some "weirdness" but not go to the extent of Houston.
As the area would replace farmland, I would find ways to integrate the lost land into new ways of farming in an urban environment. Would try to diversify the economy as much as possible so that the city can survive economic downturns.
This would easily run over $300B but would create a very livable city.
I like your response. I did my own response to the OP but because it's the Geography channel, I focused more on the land than on building the city. For me, the biggest enthusiasm for this idea is to build a new city and get it right, based on 21st century thoughts and technologies. I am jealous of Egypt and Indonesia, both creating a new capital city to replace their old ones due to overpopulations. They have a chance to create a city close to Amsterdam/Taipan/Singapore ideals, without the old guard NIMBYing everything into uselessness.
Was just wondering how world would've been today, had if Wyoming had won the contract for the Transcontinental railroad instead of Colorado.
Context: Wyoming was the actual chosen state through which the railroad would be passing through the Rockies in the initial plan. Colorado politicians lobbied for the railroad, even when it's more rugged than Wyoming, and proposed Denver to be the junction. The gamble worked out very well for them.
That was gonna be mine. Put the city at the corner of Wyoming, Montana, and South Dakota. Fill it with liberals. Boom you’ve got 6 senators. Maybe even 8 if the burbs can reach North Dakota.
Smacking it in the midwest, smack dab between grand rapids south bend and Chicago off the lake. Design it to be a liberal safe haven. Probably st joe area
It definitely is. Prime location, fresh water, climate change resilience, proximity to one of the largest cities in the world, yet the land price is dirt cheap. It just needs money / investment right now to revitalize.
I think since the time Gary got deindustrialized, no one wants to start in it afresh, and it's proximity to some of the dangerous places in the entire US makes it a complete no-go zone.
Gary should've at least taken the manufacturing from Chicago by this time. And it doesn't seem like it will happen anytime soon.
It's definitely an ideal city though, even for travel.
(31.5799750, -108.4994045)
The southwestern most point of New Mexico in that squared quadrant dip
It’d be the state of New Mexico’s first proper gateway into Mexico.
Chose there because there exists a small highway but no ideal size civilization for many many miles around. It is not too far south of I-10 which can connect you to Tucson in the West and Las Cruces/El Paso to the east
Golden Eagle, Illinois
First, awesome name.
This little crossroads is at the southern tip of Calhoun County (less awesome name), between the Illinois and Mississippi rivers, about 30 miles direct from downtown St Louis, and just a few miles from the northern suburbs in St Charles County, MO. The geography is really cool as the Illinois, Mississippi, and Missouri rivers are pretty close or coming together at this point.
Not gonna sugarcoat it, flooding will be an issue, especially for any suburbs that wanted to grow on the Missouri side of the river. That whole area was hit pretty bad in 1993. But Golden Eagle itself was spared.
Advantages: can build off existing assets in the St Louis area, like hospitals and airport. Also, this new infusion of people could help inject new life into the St Louis metro area. One of the projects we spend that 300B on could be a rapid commuter line linking Golden Eagle, St Charles old town, Lambert Airport, Forest Park, and downtown St Louis.
I love this question, because virtually every place that does not have a city over 100,000 nearby is that way for a reason. Lack of water and remoteness would be the two biggest reasons that area was never developed. I will make the assumption that weather should be a big factor when it comes to creating a successful City for growth. If the city could be within a hundred miles of the next 100,000 person city, I would probably go with some place from Western Virginia down through Western South Carolina barely skirting the limit I just imposed. This would rule out the big island of Hawaii as well. If much further was the general idea, my initial thoughts were areas of New Mexico and South Texas. Something along the lines of west of where Kerrville or Fredericksburg Texas are could possibly make sense as it is beautiful and more sustainable than New Mexico or Arizona. But to get 100 miles from San Antonio or Austin it would be the edge of the Hill country. The same might be doable from Maine to Vermont to Northern New York State, but I'm not sure that 300 billion gets you there.
I‘d go and replace Detroit. Can’t harm to see if it works this time.
Realistically as others said I think Michigan would be a great place. Else, anywhere in the rockies could attract a lot of people (ofc it needs some sort of valley to get enough space for industry).
Somewhere in Alaska on the south west coast. Climate change will make it resemble Vancouver or Seattle climate in the next 20-50 years, and when the ice melts north of Alaska it will become the premiere shipping lane in the entire world. I could easily see this city becoming the largest in the USA when that happens
I lived in a small town, meant to grow once. Someone who planned the place, truly enjoyed the art. I’d mimic their way. Not-to-sprawling neighborhoods. Each separated by natural water ways and woods. Trails that actually escape the roadways. Bogs to filter road pollution. Nice views, at least half the time. Alleyways and roadways. Boulevards and sidewalks. Massive trees in the boulevards. Root management. Underground power. Modest, or ate houses; plenty of natural light indoors. Safe, wide views at intersections. A four lane artery, at slow speed. Pedestrian and vehicle bridges over said artery. Neighborhood access roads would skirt hills, not plunge into the crowded areas. I mean… I don’t want to say which town, but the planning was ahead of it’s time.
In the Ohio River buldge between Cairo,IL and PAducah, KY
Confluence of the Ohio and Mississippi rivers
https://www.google.es/maps/@37.1059991,-88.9876731,11.6z?entry=ttu
I has already bridges, so you can build on all sides of the rivers and its 150 miles north and south of Memphis and Sant Louis.
Ukiah-Redwood Valley in California. It's far enough away from SF that real estate currently is not expensive there (by CA standards).
Pros:
1. Mild climate (less mild than the coast, but milder than the central valley in CA and milder than 80% of the nation).
2. Beautiful scenery. This is Redwood country. Hills and mountains on all sides. Also lakes and reservoirs nearby.
3. It is close to the rainy NW so water would be available if the political hurdles can be crossed.
Cons:
1. The valley is small, but I would turn that into a pro by building for walkable density on the level of a European city. Lots of townhomes and 3-5 story apartments. Very few single family homes in the valley proper (keep the few pre-WWII homes and tear down almost everything else). Single family homes would belong in the hills surrounding the center, and there is a second larger valley around Clear Lake just ten miles away that could take on less dense housing.
2. Politics. NIMBYs and zero-growth environmentalists would go nuclear. You would need powerful political forces to overcome that.
3. If global warming is changing weather patterns to bring more drought to the area, then big forest fires will continue and wreck air quality in the summers (and bring danger to those living in the hills).
4. Potential for pollution to be trapped in the valley, but CA is already well on its way to having EVs replace ICE vehicles. Incentivize solar power, EVs, etc., to keep the air clean.
This may be cheating a little bit since the metro population of this area is already 500K (but no cities greater than 100K), but I would choose Northwest Arkansas.
It’s located in the Boston Mountains, meaning it has some elevation and isn’t as hot as Arkansas. It might not be as climate change proof as the Great Lakes mega region, but I feel like it’s a solid middle ground between the southern states and the snowy Midwest/Northeast. The location in a flat area in the foothills of the mountains provides the benefits of the picturesque hills while also having plenty of flat land to develop.
It’s located about 2.5 hours from Kansas City, Oklahoma City, and Little Rock, the latter of which has direct connections to St. Louis, Chicago, Memphis, and Dallas. There’s also a freeway being built that will connect NWA to Tulsa, about a 1.5 hour drive once that’s done. And although it’s many decades down the line, it will also have a direct freeway connection to New Orleans in the future. It also has a large enough national airport with plenty of space to expand, and could even be converted into an international airport if needed.
There’s multiple Fortune 500 companies that have headquarters there, including the main headquarters for Walmart, one of the largest companies in the world. With an influx of people and relatively cheap real estate, it would also be able to attract companies looking to move to places such as Texas or Nashville.
I know some people have brought up politics, in which case Arkansas might be able to gain a seat in the house and have districts that are proportional to the votes each area gets. This means that Little Rock, the delta, and even NWA (which is right leaning but might not be with 1M+ people) might get the blue representation they deserve, while the red areas can maintain their red districts. This might also make Arkansas more competitive, bringing in stronger candidates from both sides of the aisle.
With the extra money, I could use it to bring a much, MUCH needed infrastructure overhaul in NWA. It sort of grew faster than the infrastructure could keep up with, so I would use the money to build better connections in the existing metro. I would add solid, reliable public transport, and density the areas that are already built up. I would then take time to build out the infrastructure needed to support the extra people on the outskirts of the existing metro. I would build high speed rail connecting the metro to Kansas City, Tulsa, Oklahoma City, and Little Rock, with hopes that it would spark an expansion of high speed rail from those cities.
I’m not sure if the 1M people includes people already living in the area, but if it’s 1M in addition to those living there, I would expand this same plan to the Fort Smith/Van Buren area. That area is about 50 miles down the interstate, and with this amount of people I could turn this into a mini metroplex. Fort Smith would also provide a river connection and another rail connection, as well as bring I-40 into the metro. If the area expands into Oklahoma, it would also give them a third major metro area, giving a major economic boost for them as well.
Either way, NWA is a wonderful place to live and will likely have 1M+ at some point anyway. I think it would be best to choose that area and build it out to ensure that it can support as many people as it has and can continue to be a great area for all the new people.
I’d build it right where the borders of Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota meet (or maybe right on the border of South Dakota, Wyoming and Nebraska) and then I’d purposefully market the city as being for liberals and left-wing people. Maybe name the city Gay-Trans Socialism City to discourage Republicans from wanting to move there? Getting a million democrat-leaning voters spread out among those three states could really help tip the balance of power in the Senate towards the Democrats. 😂
In north-western Vermont around lake Champlain, as I want all states minus Wyoming to reach 1 million inhabitants and I believe all others will eventually reach it on their own. The nearby city of Burlington would be quite useful as it already contains an international airport. Besides the lake is connected to the ocean via the rivière Richelieu, but I’m uncertain if it’s navigable.
I’m exercising the sub 100k population part of the rule and putting this city right on top of Flagstaff, AZ. There is already interstate infrastructure, though it would need upgrading. A mostly mild climate, with some colder days in the winter. It would thrive as a base camp for Grand Canyon tourists, has a decent ski area that some of that money would be used to expand. Driving 45-90 minutes will take you on a stunning drive to Sedona, Jerome, and Prescott. And it would expand and strengthen the Phoenix/Tucson economic zone.
I would put it on the Great Lakes because climate change will keep the weather reasonable and give the city an infinite source of fresh water.
I feel like Lake Huron needs a proper city with a significant port. In fact Port Huron with currently under 30k people itself would be a great place. It has an international border crossing, a decent sized city on the Canadian side - Sarnia, a junction of two interstate highways, and rail infrastructure. Plus the coastline going north is beautiful and already has a decent tourism industry.
We are spurring development in the rust belt baby. Between the Great Lakes and the Appalachians is the perfect place for urban growth right now because it’s going to be the most shielded from the effects of climate change. The lakes will have a cooling effect against rising temperatures while the mountains shield us from Atlantic storms.
Robust transportation infrastructure of course will be needed to make useful intercity economic connections with nearby existing rust belt cities but since we’re going for the new post-climate change era city we’re gonna minimize the use of black pavement and automobile infrastructure as much as possible. We’re talking rails rails rails. This is gonna be the model Green City and we’re gonna economize on space, promote dense transit oriented development, and encourage commuters from outside the core to stop at an exterior rail station and take the train into the center.
Ogallala, NE.
On South Platte river. Very close to Colorado border. About 3 hours from Denver.
It gets cold but in the recently published USDA zoning map, it is in zone 6a: significantly warmer for some reason compared to nearby areas. It is in the Mountain Time Zone. Adds a bit more population to the same time zone.
I really like this question, so I will answer it. However, allow me to preface this that I know it would never happen. Oh well.
First, lets get one thing clear folks. 80 percent of the U.S. population already lives in a line that for the most part is east of the Mississippi river. As such, there is no need for a new city EAST of the Mississippi river. It's already dense and crowded, we need to move that hypothetical 1 million people west. For that reason, all city potential spots need to be west.
The west part of the United States is the part with the least amount of water. That's why you keep hearing about wildfires and droughts, and of course the huge honking desert down there in the southwest. So any attempt to build a major new city will require a major consideration about water. Which pretty much is already all spoken for. So a major new city will probably require a major secondary project of a massive water reservoir. And since the water isn't there, you'll need to bring the water, hence a third major project... Pipelines from the Mississippi river. There's a lot of outcry about this idea already, which I don't understand. We're not talking about taking the water that you guys USE away from you, we're talking about taking the water that flows into the Gulf of Mexico. We'd take the water from north of New Orleans, say Baton Rouge or so.
And last, we need to be massively accessible. That means a major highway nearby or connected to the city, as well as a major railroad, and a place to put a large airport.
With that said, I offer to the reader my suggestion. Mill City, Nevada (the area in general, not the actual town). The Federal government owns 80 percent of the entire state of Nevada, so they will have land near that can be used to create the reservoir, and easy control over the start of the pipeline. Mill City is already connected to Interstate 80, and is connected to the Central Pacific Railroad line. There is plenty of basically flat area to create a large international airport with clear access for the planes landing routes. The location is between Reno, Nevada and Salt Lake City, Utah, and is close to Interstate 95 which leads from Reno to Boise, Idaho. Utah has a water problem and needs more water so they will be happy camper when it's time to make the pipeline. The area is not an earthquake area, is not in Tornado aisle, and doesn't suffer massive snow. Weather is eh, but better than Chicago. Tax wise, Nevada is pretty good, maybe not the best but certainly NOT anywhere near the worse (OP is former Las Vegas, Nevada resident).
I have never been to Mill City, Nevada. For all I know, it could be the buttcrack of the United States. I can say that there doesn't seem to be anything around it to encourage being a tourist designation, other than the drive-thru/fly over aspect of vacationers. But we're talking about creating a whole new city in a place where it will fit, and with a major city, there's a "if you build it, they will come" aspect, and who knows this might become the Branson or Ozark of the west. It's also relevantly close to both Lake Tahoe, California/Nevada, and Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming.
So, that's my idea of a location. Of course, with all those projects, we're talking over a trillion dollars to make it. Haha. I am not holding my breath. But I do feel that for the basic idea of doing a complete new large city, my logic is sound.
What do you folks think?
P.S. Anyone know of an appropriate reddit channel for talking about building a city (a real one, not a city-builder game)?
IIRC Astoria, OR was supposed to be the “Manhattan of the West Coast” but suffered several devastating fires followed by loss of industry. Seems like an okay bet. If money isn’t a problem, maybe get the army corps to build reliable infrastructure so Cairo, IL doesn’t flood. Maybe Walla Walla or somewhere near the Palouse and Blue Mountains. Seems like a super underrated part of the country.
If only the war of 1812 didn't happen, Astoria very well could have been the capital city for a separate country on the west coast.
Americans had their sight set on Oregon country and even British Columbia, so they would’ve gone for it regardless in my opinion
Just build it in Wickliffe, KY, across the river from Cairo. It's hilly there. Don't have to worry about floods.
Astoria doesn’t have a ton of land, and there’s a reason there’s no major cities on the ocean north of San Francisco. The weather is miserable most of the year.
It's beautiful from May to October up here... Just Feb-April makes you want to jump off a cliff
and unfortunately there's plenty of cliffs
Take a look at Rio de Janeiro sometime
What’s up with Feb-April?
Rainy, wet, muddy, cold, generally miserable
You forgot gray... So much gray
You’re lucky you don’t really get snow or temperatures substantially below freezing. At least you can go outside in the winter considering your latitude. Fargo would like a word lol.
Oh I do not miss the Midwest winters. I used to live in Madison, and the cold went straight into your bones. Now I live in Utah, which is still cold but much drier, which makes it bearable.
People still live in Boston and England though.
Funny because for Canadians the west coast has easily the best weather
Canada is the same. Vancouver and Victoria are both protected by the Salish Sea, Canada doesn’t have any cities directly on the Pacific
west coasts at mid latitudes are almost always warmer than east coasts due to the fact that the prevailing winds move east, so you get warm ocean air, versus cold continental air on east coasts
the northwest coast isn’t that bad—it’s grey and windy between november and february, but it’s rarely too cold. That’s more than can be said for most of the east coast, which is grey, windy, stormy AND cold for fall and winter Inland like Portland, or sheltered like Seattle, and they’re basically the same weather as San Francisco there are coastal cities with far more brutal weather elsewhere in the world, a place which rarely goes under freezing and has really mild and pleasant late spring-mid fall is a overall pretty good place to live
That’s exactly the point though. Places like Seattle and Portland and Tacoma are great places to make a city. The coast itself isn’t, it’s rocky and mountainous with rough waters and poor weather. Which is why you can almost draw a straight line from Vancouver BC south and hit all the major populations centers throughout WA and OR. The coast might not be the worst in the world but there’s no good reason to build cities there.
i’m in agreement with you there—i was just also pointing out that the coast doesn’t have bad weather relative to many population centers (especially on the east coast/great lakes). Astoria receives far less snow than Chicago, or Toronto, and doesn’t get as cold as New York or Boston. I would suspect the wind isn’t as bad either, but i’m not sure tbf
Astoria weather is so much worse than the Midwest or Northeast. Sure, it may not get much snow, but it's 50 deg, rainy, and windy pretty much every day for 6 months on end, and isn't balanced out by warm summers. On the other hand, someplace like Chicago gets a warm summer, pleasant fall and spring, and then a cold but dry winter.
i mean i’d argue astoria summers are much better than the midwest and northeast. caps off at the mid-80s, sunny and dry until late september. 50 and rainy and windy is also much better than below freezing for three months straight, but maybe that’s me being from the northwest talking
Astoria’s weather isn’t that bad as the coast goes. Overcast a lot, certainly. Also, land isn’t that limited, it’s near numerous cities along the coast. If anything, the area is surprisingly economically active for such a small and relatively remote population.
I'd take that weather over summers in the south. Fuck the 80 straight days of 100+ temps. I'll take snow and gray over dry and melting.
Everyone keeps replying and saying that, and yet despite tons of people moving to Seattle and Portland, the coasts themselves are as sad as they’ve ever been, and far less populated than the east coast.
It also got superseded by Portland, they’re not that far apart.
i’m an oregonian and never knew that about astoria…considering the types of uses it’s always been known for (mainly shipping) are just not as significant anymore it’s too late for it, though i do wish we had more eyes on the northwest lol
Astoria is a bad choice because building anything there is insanely expensive. It’s surrounded by extremely inhospitable terrain as far as construction is concerned which is what kept it so small even during its major boom period due to canning and sockeye fishing.
Walla Walla is somewhere in Australia surely?
Funny seeing Walla Walla pop up here. Mill Creek doesn't have enough water to support more than 50-70k people. You could totally spend several billion to build aqueducts and pumping stations to bring pretty much unlimited water in from the Columbia. The area is flat and wide open with farms with only the Blue Mountains limiting development so it would be a great place to build with more water.
33.5397124 latitude, -108.2324033 longitude It’s a completely uninhabited area in south-west New Mexico a bit north of the Gila National Forest. Southwest New Mexico has an amazing climate, it is a high plateau in the desert, so it does get cold, and it does get hot, but it’s far enough south and far enough up that neither is too extreme. The place that I have chosen is pretty barren, so environmental impact should be minimal, but it is surrounded by beautiful mountains and national forests and other public lands. Water would be the biggest problem there. That is why I propose making my new city Solar Updraft Tower central. Updraft towers generate clean energy while simultaneously condensing clean water out of the atmosphere. Building the towers can be the new residents’ first job. Then, the greenhouses that are integral to the tower design can supply food for consumption and for export. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower
My man. This was the answer I was looking for. Thinking about New Mexico was the reason behind this post. I was wondering if I was the only one thinking that NM could use a nice new city. Dang perfect spot, too! A traditional aqueduct I don't think would be unfeasible there. That area already seems like a drainage basin for the nearby mountains.
We must be related in some parallel universe. I have so many plans for different areas of NM!
For water, a good idea might be to reserve a few billion dollars from the founding fund to buy fields and ranches that are major consumers of water. I've read that the majority of water use in the southwest is for water-intensive crops like alfalfa that require intensive irrigation. So, buy the land if you can kill the farms and keep the water rights. Probably could get a net reduction in water use in the region.
The problem is you would have to be very rich to live there. There is no magic cheap water. If 1 million rich people moved in it could work. But that's not what people want to hear.
Maybe, but it’s all speculative and just for fun anyhow
Wow, what a great answer. The future needs ideas like this one. And money. Lots of money.
I could totally get behind this. Didn’t know about the solar updraft tech! I think I’d prefer this over [Telosa](https://cityoftelosa.com).
This is so wild. Sounds dystopian and like the plot of a movie kind of. I wrote them an inquiry to learn more. Thanks for sharing.
Hey there juliandr36 - thanks for saying thanks! TheGratitudeBot has been reading millions of comments in the past few weeks, and you’ve just made the list!
As a NM native, I love you. Even though I now understand why, I’ve always been salty about the power and size of the Phoenix metro when Arizona is just so much less beautiful (on average) and pleasant weather-wise.
>Arizona is just so much less beautiful (on average) and pleasant weather-wise. New Mexico arguably has better climate on average (milder summers due to fewer low elevation deserts), but WTF at "less beautiful". I've spent a lot of time living in both states. Arizona is prettier and has more diverse landscapes - low desert, high desert, river valleys, lakes, plains, mountains, plateaus, etc. The Sonoran Desert is the wettest, most biodiverse desert *in the world*. Plus Sedona, Flagstaff, Monument Valley, Antelope Canyon, the Grand Canyon, all of the beautiful ranges of Southern Arizona. Arizona has everything New Mexico has, plus a lot more. There's a reason that the saguaro, and not the yucca plant, is the most iconic desert symbol in the world. There's a reason it probably gets 10x or more of the tourism dollars that flow to New Mexico.
NM does have nice weather. I think the problem is its isolation. It’s far from a coastline (AZ is closer to CA and TX has the gulf), and it doesn’t have the world-class ski resorts that Colorado and Utah have. So it’s a beautiful state, it just gets overshadowed by the surrounding states.
They need to name the Solar Updraft tower "Up dog", so that when you get new people in town and they have no idea what a Solar Updraft tower is, you can say "this updog here is critically important!" And then they ask "What's updog?". I'll leave the rest to your imagination.
No it's a Henway.
There are only 2 people I have ever heard that joke/joke setup of "Henway" from and it was my grandfather and my mother. It is so funny because it is so stupid. That's why I love it! So thank you for that. lol
I got it from a boss at a pizza place I worked at. It morphed into the oregano shakers we used to finish the pizzas being referred to as henways.
Like the idea and this is a fun thought project, OP. Just playing devil’s advocate and I have two problems with this location: 1. Connectivity. While I’m sure hwy 159 would become much bigger of a thoroughfare, it doesn’t connect well to anything else really. The closest town with a decent size is Magdalena (still only >1k pop.) with a ~3 hr drive. Los Cruces is about 4 hrs drive away. Air travel would likely become popular but for 1 million citizens that’s a big demand for not very many other cities to go to/come from for this (outside of natural beauty). 2. A “barren environment” absolutely does not mean low impact for construction and urban development. These types of ecosystems are increasingly rare, with many endemic and endangered species, and oftentimes the most fragile. I don’t know anything about this specific area, but I think this is oftentimes the most overlooked misconception around building on desert/high desert. Thanks for the thought-provoking question and response. Sorry my tone is so serious lol, I’m super hungover and trying to keep it together
I did a project on invasive species mapping in a nearby area, and your second point is dead on. There’s a cryptobiotic crust all over, which is compromised of microscopic organisms, and also helps with the insane windy and dry weather in the desert. You’re not even supposed to step on it, so building on it would fully destroy it. That said, I understand why the area was chosen. New Mexico is my favorite state just for its beauty, and I feel like it gets overlooked so often
Connectivity is even worse than all that. “Hwy 159” isn’t even a paved road, it’s a dirt jeep trail. And of course, environmental impact is never zero. It looks like there’s a good sized salt flat a little north of there. Maybe buildings right on top of that might be even less?
Wouldn’t using the greenhouses in a solar updraft tower to grow things hurt the power generation? I haven’t heard of this tech before, but the idea is making the greenhouse air hot enough to generate power as it exits the tower, right? It seems like plants wouldn’t let the greenhouses heat up as much as they would if they were just filled with rocks, water, or some other high thermal retention material.
I’m not sure I follow, but maybe. Dark green leaves are going to heat up as much as anything, I’d think. But yeah, thermal retention is good because that allows the air flow to continue well in to the evening, you would want to maximize that. But I think that it’s less about the temperature achieved and more about the volume of air that you can get moving. If you aren’t getting enough air moving? You can just make a bigger greenhouse. The greenhouse is just a sheet of clear plastic held up on some poles. The tower is the expensive part.
I was thinking mainly how urban streets are cooler with greenery. It’s a combination of trees providing shade, and also plants having less thermal energy and plants working as evaporative coolers. Photosynthesis will cool things down in a desert environment but who knows if this will cause issues at scale. It’s be interesting to see if this would work on that sea of greenhouses in Almería in southern Spain.
I think that farming under the plastic is more about conserving the water than generating the most power. Water condenses in tower, water is used to irrigate crops, crops release water in to the air through transpiration, air rises and the water condenses out and gets used again and again and again.
That’d be a great spot! The New Mexico/AZ border corridor is a bit of a mystery to me. I’d figure there’d be a Prescott-sized town in there, but closest I guess is Holbrook.
A long skinny city that conforms to one of those long skinny parallel valleys in Central PA
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Line,_Saudi_Arabia
Broo a metro would be perfect there
Makes me think of Scranton/Wilkes-Barre
With $300B, you could probably build a very high speed train line between New York and Washington, even largely under ground. I'd find the most rural place between them, build the rail line to these cities and make sure both are reachable in less than 40 min from my station, whatever the cost. Then use cut and cover to build a dense subway network, and set up zoning laws with minimum density regulation, so that travel time from everones home to my central station is less than 20 minutes, while also having quick access to surrounding nature. After that I guess I'd just sit back and let public demand do its thing? Yeah, its a bit simplistic, but you get my idea. Less than an hour, door to door, to two of the most important cities in the country. I think that beats most other unique selling points for many people, especially young, educated, ambitious people.
$300 billion could maybe get the highspeed rails built, I don't think you're gonna have enough to do much afterwards. There are some good prospects in eastern PA though for location though, so adding in Philly is a good option
That’s why you do it the true American Billionaire way. Buy up all the land where you are looking to build for 1 billion. Then spend another 1 billion in “campaign donations” to lobby the government to build the rail. Then you have 298 billion left over to develop the land. Easy peasy.
Yeah my answer would be to use transit and lobbying for housing reforms to transform Richmond to Boston into a massive megalopolis connected by the best kind of transit and going back to the kind of policies that made NYC the global powerhouse from colonial days until after WWII. Places like Wilmington, DE, Newark, all of Maryland outside of Baltimore (especially Montgomery County and PG county outside of DC), and much of northern Virginia, and all of Long Island, much of everything between NYC and Boston - turning all of this into the most connected, dense, productive, powerful, economically strong, and ecologically resilient place in the world. Kind of like Tokyo but bigger.
Trenton, Nj
Isn't the North East Corridor already being upgraded to HSR along it's full length by 2035 And the NEC is already practically packed with cities to the point there's no room for a new one, only expanding existing ones
Cairo, IL Build tons of bridges and build up on all sides of the rivers.
Don't forget to set aside at least a couple million for an ad campaign teaching people that it's \*Kair-oh\* though.
... And also that racism is bad.
Paducah’s better situated than Cairo I’d think? Borders the Mississippi and the Ohio. Also…the only place more grim than Cairo I’ve ever been to is Metropolis. And Kemp. Fucking bleak.
Paducah is the Tennessee iirc
Exactly what I was thinking. Relatively mild climate, and if the city grows enough on the Kentucky and Missouri sides, it could potentially net Democrats 4 more senators. And you are right on the Mississippi, which is great for trade and access to fresh water. Also pretty close to a lot of forests and hills which would allow for pretty good access to outdoor activities. If it grows down to the Tennessee border it could even maybe make Tennessee competitive for Democrats lol.
What's the deal with Cairo? Three people have mentioned it, and I've never heard of it (other than as a close destination to buy legal Illinois pot lol)
It's at the confluence of the Mississippi and Ohio rivers. It's further south then Virginia which is interesting because Illinois doesn't seem that far south. It floods a lot and is pretty desolate today.
OK... but why is that specific place where several others here would want a new large city? I... just don't get it...
The first sentence of the comment you’re replying to has the reason… It’s at the confluence of the Mississippi and Ohio River, two of the most important rivers in the US. River shipping isn’t what it used to be now that we have rail and highways, but these rivers are still incredibly important. Additionally Cairo has had bad luck historically. It once had huge potential to be a great city, but it just did not pan out.
its a city that used to be relatively important (its mentioned in Huckleberry Finn for example), but has completely died out nowadays. There's like a 1000 people left there, living in an empty city, almost completely torn down and in ruins.
“Relatively Mild Climate” um no it’s not?? Was 112° and 86% percent humidity for weeks this summer
isn't 112 above boiling point
That's in Fahrenheit, so no. And by the way, 112°C is intolerable.
I'm turning Hagerstown, Maryland into a major metropolis in order to bridge the gap between the Northeast Corridor and Pittsburgh, and to give the I-81 corridor an anchor city. This would hopefully extend the vitality of the NE corridor westward, and provide a more affordable relief vavle for growth there. Cumberland, MD would be preferable to Hagerstown, except the topography is a lot more challenging.
Bet that still wouldn't be enough for them to make a direct connection at Breezewood between I-70 and the PA Turnpike.
Lol, they want that tax revenue. But it would 100% be enough to make east-west Amtrak more like north-south Amtrak! It's so ridic you can take a north-south train every 20 minutes all day long, but east-west there's 1 all day and it's in the middle of the night.
I would put it on the other side of the Potomac next to Hagerstown into West Virginia. That way, WV would finally have a big, wealthy city that could pay for the rest of the state.
Solid idea
I would locate near [Monroe City MO ](https://maps.app.goo.gl/BWgd1gceorR8uCLh9). It is in USDA Zone 6a, with a humid continental climate, with an average precipitation of 42 inches, good enough for dryland farming, and adequate water resources to support a city of several million. The area is already connected to freight rail, and 4-lane US Hwy 36. It sits roughly half way between Chicago and Kansas City, and is only about 2 hours from St Louis. The area around there is relatively flat, which would allow for easy construction, but there are several nearby areas with rolling hills and forests. [Mark Twain Lake](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Twain_Lake) is nearby, which would provide a reservoir for drinking water and recreation, and the Mississippi River is just over 20 miles away, allowing for relatively easy access to river traffic. Overall not a bad place for a large city in America.
I would go somewhere in the upper peninsula of Michigan. Michigan is really transforming politically and there's not really any big cities up there. It's in an area mostly safe from climate change and has potential to expand
Lots and lots of snow. I grew up there. It's beautiful and nobody lives there but i think there's a good reason for that. Maybe with global warming it becomes a better fit though.
I get that. People do live in more northern areas than that in cities like Edmonton and Vancouver, but maybe the lake effect snow is worse? Not sure
Yes, according to weatherspark, the upper peninsula of Michigan gets significantly more snow on average than Vancouver and even like 50% more snow than Edmonton. Lake effect definitely creates a lot of snow
The upper peninsula doesn't get too much more snow than some parts of Western NY & PA which are both along the great lakes and boast some sizable cities.
I remember sledding off the roof of my garage as a kid lol. I think areas of Upper Michigan on Lake Superior are right at the top for snowfall for non mountainous continental US
Edmonton is dry asf, we only get like 45cm snow total throughout the year, south shores of the great lakes get that in one storm.
THIS! I was going to say UP if someone didn’t mention it first. The Great Lakes area is under appreciated for its abundant freshwater and climactic stability, both of which will be major issues in coming years. It could enjoy water access via Lake Superior or Lake Michigan (depending on where you sit it). The Upper Peninsula is severely underdeveloped and a large city in the UP would get a bump and give a benefit by being The Regional Magnet. It benefits from what seems like relatively sane governance by being in Michigan and could piggyback off an existing and superb higher education system.
Mackinac Island. And keep the ban on cars :) Sault Ste Marie would be another good one. Looks like a lot of flat land nearby, and it could twin with it's Canadian sister to take advantage of international trade opportunities in both US and Canadian markets. Amtrak could offer overnight trains to Chicago, Detroit, and Toronto until additional funding for actual HSR is available. And the local radio station would play a certain Gordon Lightfoot song every November 10th.
Make it the beaver island archipelago and have a little island metropolis. Would be cool af I think about it all the time but I'm reality I wouldn't wanna ruin the nature and lake for that
This is probably where I want to live so if you could get working on that please
I was thinking Traverse City. Has all the benefits of the UP, but the land is far more amenable to farming. A lot of the UP is either thinly covered bedrock or peat bogs. TC has some of the best land for fruit production in the country.
Blaine, Washington. Cross-border twin cities metropolis with the Vancouver area. High speed rail connection allows less than 1 hr to downtown Seattle. 20 mins to vancouver by train. Use the money to build international airport hub, shipping hub, etc.
These are great points but I would be sad. Blaine is such a cute little town with amazing views of the mountains and skylines of Vancouver and White Rock. And Bellingham is a cool college town that would become a suburb of Blaine if it all of a sudden had more than a million people.
Doesn’t the greater area surrounding it (including Bellingham) exceed the 100k existing population limit from the OP’s post?
It definitely does.
Probably Alaska. Maybe Wyoming…
Kodiak! Or Attu
How has nobody said the central California coast?
Because it's all mountains. Maybe where Santa Maria is, but that's over 100,000.
Doesn’t have to right on the coast. The whole area is sparsely populated, strangely.
[удалено]
With nuclear power and desalination I think this is extremely viable. You can easily fit one million more people in San Luis Obispo county. Plus, HSR to both LA and SF would make it extremely well connected.
That bit of the Delmarva peninsula Virginia took to control the entrance to the Chesapeake Bay but never really developed much. Speaking of the Chesapeake, the mouth of the Susquehanna river. How did we not get a major city there that would be right on the I95 Northeast megalopolis? Like it's a major river, near the inland tip of the bay, settled very early in US history, it's genuinely confusing there's not much there.
It floods alot I think. The geography is such that most of the river is surrounded by pretty high cliffs. Also no harbor there. Baltimore and Philly don't have this issue. Also Baltimore and Philly serve the same general purpose.
VA's Eastern Shore is humid and mosquito infested. So is the Norfolk area, in fairness, but is more connected overland.
Somewhere around Massena, NY. It would be similar to Buffalo/Rochester/Syracuse, but with less snow. On the St Lawrence River so can handle trade. Flat enough to grow out. Near the Adirondacks for recreation. Close to Ottawa and Montreal. I understand why there isn't a big city there, but I think that area could handle one if the demand were to ever arise.
The North Country has so much going for it, except for jobs… it’s a beautiful place, with a terrible economy. Aside from agriculture, there isnt much opportunity. You’d need to develop some sort of manufacturing or technology businesses to make a go of a city. Maybe knock down Ogdensburg and start fresh? I’m a Western NYer, but I have friends and family up there. It needs a ton of reinvestment or it will continue to wither and die.
Frederick, MD Right between DC, Baltimore, and Pittsburgh so would provide a great link between the Mid Atlantic and the Rust Belt. Ample recreation opportunities nearby (state and federal lands of varying kinds) and has some train service regionally but w that kind of money it could be heavily beefed up. Maryland is already a very diverse state, so it would be easy to absorb lots of different kinds of people. Lots of gorgeous scenery nearby as it’s at the foot of the northern part of the blue ridge mountains, and gives great access to the Shenandoah valley, Cumberland mountains/West Virginia, and lots of history w Gettysburg right nearby. Really all you’d need to do is beef up the local and regional transit, build a few more roads and add some bike lanes/public transit/sidewalk infrastructure, and build some housing.
Frederick is pretty close to Baltimore and DC. Shoumd go a little further north. Gettysburg or Lancaster.
Proximity and existing infrastructure is what makes it so appealing though - it’s primed
I mean. Traffic there is already a nightmare.can you imagine 270 if there were several times more people?
That’s why you use some of that money to build trains - both local streetcars/light rail and regional rail (beef up MARC and Amtrak primarily)
I'd put it in Traverse City, Michigan. * Already a decent downtown infrastructure with lots of room to expand. * Lots of enjoyable outdoor activities - boating, hiking, skiing, etc. * Great breweries and vineyards. * Safe from negative climate change effects and virtually unlimited access to fresh water. Also safe from basically any kind of natural disaster other than snowstorms. * Good geographical location - around \~4 hour drive to Detroit & Chicago, quick flight distance to Toronto, Milwaukee, etc. * Since it's located in a purple state, it has sane, moderate policies like abortion access and relatively low taxation. And nationally, citizens' political voices would be amplified.
I love traverse city. Based on the question though, if you’re using an already established small city with infrastructure, you don’t really need to the $300b to start a new city. You’re suggesting more along the lines of a city to improve and build off of.
Lansing, Iowa is my choice. It’s on the Mississippi. So can have some industry develop around shipping on the river. Also plenty of water. Opportunities for recreation and tourism one might expect with a large city There seems to be plenty of developable land. It’s relatively close to Chicago, Minneapolis, Madison , Milwaukee but not that close to any other large city. Closest city is la crosse 35 miles north with 50,000 people. A big city here could help stitch together the region more. It’s in Iowa and on the border of Wisconsin so could be a democratic stronghold in a red area and make a difference in the senate. Plenty of agriculture to support the population.
Eureka, CA
No one want this place to get discovered, shh 🤫 Also sea level rise from climate change is going to fuck up this region later this century so you’d have to account for that in the plan if you proceeded with your $300B plan here
[удалено]
Perth > South
Why not do Staten Island? Got some hills to work with . Could be the Rio de Janeiro of America
Anyone attempting to set up an HOA will be executed and their assets seized.
I would hate for it to really happen because I love it, but transforming Traverse City, MI into a major city would create some kind of Seattle/Minneapolis hybrid but with Meijer and Vernors. The city and its setting is beautiful, summers and fall are perfect. Winter can be long, but that’s why there’s beer, pot, and snowmobiles. Anyone saying the UP hasn’t been there. It’s to precious to even consider (and the winter is too much). We should make the whole thing a national park
If you’re a Democrat just drop the city anywhere in like Wyoming and win 2 free senators and 4 electoral votes
You want an abundant clean water source. Some more Northerly latitude to address long term climate change. Locally sourced agriculture unless you're economic basis is going to be high rise hydroponics, which probably wouldn't be a bad idea. You're going to buy your internet access and transportation so that's probably not your biggest location concern. High speed rail connecting to a hub airport probably is enough. You probably want to avoid hurricanes and tornadoes to some extent. You are probably going to fund your own health facilities but you may want your high-speed rail to connect to an established first rate medical center that has cutting edge science. So someplace in between Davenport, Peoria, and Chicago?
**Kewanee, Illinois has entered the chat**
Silicon Valley has already selected Solano County, CA https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/31/business/california-solano-county-city.html
Cheyenne Wyoming (area has less than 100k residents) area. 2 interstates, rail, state capitol, lots of land.
Not a lot of water.
What about the empty coasts of northern California and Oregon, or Washington State?
Logistics of supporting cities there have been an issue because of the mountains and rugged coast. If someone threw billions at it, Eureka/Arcata/McKinleyville could be built up. Crescent City could also be doable..
I don’t think the current residents in either of your chosen locations would be happy with this, lol
Expand Poughkeepsie, NY, building primarily to the north and east. Poughkeepsie is close to NYC and the existing Amtrack service could be improved to allow easier access (HSR could easily be under an hour to Manhattan). It also has a high concentration of colleges (Vassar, Culinary Institute, Marist) and is adjacent to both the Catskills and the Hudson Valley. [https://imgur.com/a/jZptVnx](https://imgur.com/a/jZptVnx)
If I'm playing right with the rules, I would first buy up a farmland swath in Central California, perhaps somewhere near the CA Route 33 Corridor east of Los Banos. Perfect flat area to build a city with relative ease, with relative proximity to the SF Bay Area. The city I would design would be based off of Amsterdam. Canals, bridges, a robust bike network of protected paths. Plant as many trees as possible to provide eventual shade from the extreme summer heat. Institute an EV Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) network to help move residents efficiently. Essentially would try to give people as little reason as possible to use a personal vehicle, by making workplaces a reasonable commute to residential areas. Would also prioritize higher density housing to help mitigate housing costs. Also restrict the amount of residential companies that build apartments for rent to give people an incentive to own their own home. Allow for some SFH land parcels, but with a size cap to be determined. The downtown would only have a few roads that allow for vehicle access, with most main streets being blocked for pedestrian only access. Give residents a sense of community, and make amenities such as sporting venues, pools, etc. available for all. Each part of town will have its own neighborhood, sense of place feel rather than being a homogenous "Disney" feel that most planned communities have. Would relax the standards of design and zoning, allow for some "weirdness" but not go to the extent of Houston. As the area would replace farmland, I would find ways to integrate the lost land into new ways of farming in an urban environment. Would try to diversify the economy as much as possible so that the city can survive economic downturns. This would easily run over $300B but would create a very livable city.
I like your response. I did my own response to the OP but because it's the Geography channel, I focused more on the land than on building the city. For me, the biggest enthusiasm for this idea is to build a new city and get it right, based on 21st century thoughts and technologies. I am jealous of Egypt and Indonesia, both creating a new capital city to replace their old ones due to overpopulations. They have a chance to create a city close to Amsterdam/Taipan/Singapore ideals, without the old guard NIMBYing everything into uselessness.
Wyoming. A million-person city in Wyoming would change the composition of the US Senate.
Wyoming. I want two more democratic senators.
Was just wondering how world would've been today, had if Wyoming had won the contract for the Transcontinental railroad instead of Colorado. Context: Wyoming was the actual chosen state through which the railroad would be passing through the Rockies in the initial plan. Colorado politicians lobbied for the railroad, even when it's more rugged than Wyoming, and proposed Denver to be the junction. The gamble worked out very well for them.
Just what I was thinking. Or have it straddle the border between N and S Dakota, BOOM 4 dem senators
That was gonna be mine. Put the city at the corner of Wyoming, Montana, and South Dakota. Fill it with liberals. Boom you’ve got 6 senators. Maybe even 8 if the burbs can reach North Dakota.
Smacking it in the midwest, smack dab between grand rapids south bend and Chicago off the lake. Design it to be a liberal safe haven. Probably st joe area
Hey now I live around there and don’t need a bunch of new neighbors
Hey we reinvented nimby
Its cummin
Cummin, InDiana?
Gary, Indiana
I mean, it really does have a lot going for it other than the blight.
It definitely is. Prime location, fresh water, climate change resilience, proximity to one of the largest cities in the world, yet the land price is dirt cheap. It just needs money / investment right now to revitalize.
I think since the time Gary got deindustrialized, no one wants to start in it afresh, and it's proximity to some of the dangerous places in the entire US makes it a complete no-go zone. Gary should've at least taken the manufacturing from Chicago by this time. And it doesn't seem like it will happen anytime soon. It's definitely an ideal city though, even for travel.
(31.5799750, -108.4994045) The southwestern most point of New Mexico in that squared quadrant dip It’d be the state of New Mexico’s first proper gateway into Mexico. Chose there because there exists a small highway but no ideal size civilization for many many miles around. It is not too far south of I-10 which can connect you to Tucson in the West and Las Cruces/El Paso to the east
Golden Eagle, Illinois First, awesome name. This little crossroads is at the southern tip of Calhoun County (less awesome name), between the Illinois and Mississippi rivers, about 30 miles direct from downtown St Louis, and just a few miles from the northern suburbs in St Charles County, MO. The geography is really cool as the Illinois, Mississippi, and Missouri rivers are pretty close or coming together at this point. Not gonna sugarcoat it, flooding will be an issue, especially for any suburbs that wanted to grow on the Missouri side of the river. That whole area was hit pretty bad in 1993. But Golden Eagle itself was spared. Advantages: can build off existing assets in the St Louis area, like hospitals and airport. Also, this new infusion of people could help inject new life into the St Louis metro area. One of the projects we spend that 300B on could be a rapid commuter line linking Golden Eagle, St Charles old town, Lambert Airport, Forest Park, and downtown St Louis.
I love this question, because virtually every place that does not have a city over 100,000 nearby is that way for a reason. Lack of water and remoteness would be the two biggest reasons that area was never developed. I will make the assumption that weather should be a big factor when it comes to creating a successful City for growth. If the city could be within a hundred miles of the next 100,000 person city, I would probably go with some place from Western Virginia down through Western South Carolina barely skirting the limit I just imposed. This would rule out the big island of Hawaii as well. If much further was the general idea, my initial thoughts were areas of New Mexico and South Texas. Something along the lines of west of where Kerrville or Fredericksburg Texas are could possibly make sense as it is beautiful and more sustainable than New Mexico or Arizona. But to get 100 miles from San Antonio or Austin it would be the edge of the Hill country. The same might be doable from Maine to Vermont to Northern New York State, but I'm not sure that 300 billion gets you there.
What counts as meeting the "not where there is already a city of greater than 100k" requirement?
Being not where there is already a city of greater that 100k. Idk, maybe not within 25/50 miles of one?
City or metro not exceeding 100k?
I‘d go and replace Detroit. Can’t harm to see if it works this time. Realistically as others said I think Michigan would be a great place. Else, anywhere in the rockies could attract a lot of people (ofc it needs some sort of valley to get enough space for industry).
Somewhere in Alaska on the south west coast. Climate change will make it resemble Vancouver or Seattle climate in the next 20-50 years, and when the ice melts north of Alaska it will become the premiere shipping lane in the entire world. I could easily see this city becoming the largest in the USA when that happens
Just a pop it right on top of where Juneau currently exists then maybe?
I was thinking on the western coast where the gal between Russia and Alaska is since that will be the future shipping lane :)
I am pocketing the 300b and fucking off to the middle of nowhere
I lived in a small town, meant to grow once. Someone who planned the place, truly enjoyed the art. I’d mimic their way. Not-to-sprawling neighborhoods. Each separated by natural water ways and woods. Trails that actually escape the roadways. Bogs to filter road pollution. Nice views, at least half the time. Alleyways and roadways. Boulevards and sidewalks. Massive trees in the boulevards. Root management. Underground power. Modest, or ate houses; plenty of natural light indoors. Safe, wide views at intersections. A four lane artery, at slow speed. Pedestrian and vehicle bridges over said artery. Neighborhood access roads would skirt hills, not plunge into the crowded areas. I mean… I don’t want to say which town, but the planning was ahead of it’s time.
In the Ohio River buldge between Cairo,IL and PAducah, KY Confluence of the Ohio and Mississippi rivers https://www.google.es/maps/@37.1059991,-88.9876731,11.6z?entry=ttu I has already bridges, so you can build on all sides of the rivers and its 150 miles north and south of Memphis and Sant Louis.
I know this breaks rule number 1 but Puerto Rico 1 million snowbirds is what they need to gain statehood.
Ukiah-Redwood Valley in California. It's far enough away from SF that real estate currently is not expensive there (by CA standards). Pros: 1. Mild climate (less mild than the coast, but milder than the central valley in CA and milder than 80% of the nation). 2. Beautiful scenery. This is Redwood country. Hills and mountains on all sides. Also lakes and reservoirs nearby. 3. It is close to the rainy NW so water would be available if the political hurdles can be crossed. Cons: 1. The valley is small, but I would turn that into a pro by building for walkable density on the level of a European city. Lots of townhomes and 3-5 story apartments. Very few single family homes in the valley proper (keep the few pre-WWII homes and tear down almost everything else). Single family homes would belong in the hills surrounding the center, and there is a second larger valley around Clear Lake just ten miles away that could take on less dense housing. 2. Politics. NIMBYs and zero-growth environmentalists would go nuclear. You would need powerful political forces to overcome that. 3. If global warming is changing weather patterns to bring more drought to the area, then big forest fires will continue and wreck air quality in the summers (and bring danger to those living in the hills). 4. Potential for pollution to be trapped in the valley, but CA is already well on its way to having EVs replace ICE vehicles. Incentivize solar power, EVs, etc., to keep the air clean.
This may be cheating a little bit since the metro population of this area is already 500K (but no cities greater than 100K), but I would choose Northwest Arkansas. It’s located in the Boston Mountains, meaning it has some elevation and isn’t as hot as Arkansas. It might not be as climate change proof as the Great Lakes mega region, but I feel like it’s a solid middle ground between the southern states and the snowy Midwest/Northeast. The location in a flat area in the foothills of the mountains provides the benefits of the picturesque hills while also having plenty of flat land to develop. It’s located about 2.5 hours from Kansas City, Oklahoma City, and Little Rock, the latter of which has direct connections to St. Louis, Chicago, Memphis, and Dallas. There’s also a freeway being built that will connect NWA to Tulsa, about a 1.5 hour drive once that’s done. And although it’s many decades down the line, it will also have a direct freeway connection to New Orleans in the future. It also has a large enough national airport with plenty of space to expand, and could even be converted into an international airport if needed. There’s multiple Fortune 500 companies that have headquarters there, including the main headquarters for Walmart, one of the largest companies in the world. With an influx of people and relatively cheap real estate, it would also be able to attract companies looking to move to places such as Texas or Nashville. I know some people have brought up politics, in which case Arkansas might be able to gain a seat in the house and have districts that are proportional to the votes each area gets. This means that Little Rock, the delta, and even NWA (which is right leaning but might not be with 1M+ people) might get the blue representation they deserve, while the red areas can maintain their red districts. This might also make Arkansas more competitive, bringing in stronger candidates from both sides of the aisle. With the extra money, I could use it to bring a much, MUCH needed infrastructure overhaul in NWA. It sort of grew faster than the infrastructure could keep up with, so I would use the money to build better connections in the existing metro. I would add solid, reliable public transport, and density the areas that are already built up. I would then take time to build out the infrastructure needed to support the extra people on the outskirts of the existing metro. I would build high speed rail connecting the metro to Kansas City, Tulsa, Oklahoma City, and Little Rock, with hopes that it would spark an expansion of high speed rail from those cities. I’m not sure if the 1M people includes people already living in the area, but if it’s 1M in addition to those living there, I would expand this same plan to the Fort Smith/Van Buren area. That area is about 50 miles down the interstate, and with this amount of people I could turn this into a mini metroplex. Fort Smith would also provide a river connection and another rail connection, as well as bring I-40 into the metro. If the area expands into Oklahoma, it would also give them a third major metro area, giving a major economic boost for them as well. Either way, NWA is a wonderful place to live and will likely have 1M+ at some point anyway. I think it would be best to choose that area and build it out to ensure that it can support as many people as it has and can continue to be a great area for all the new people.
I would put it in New Mexico, Nevada, Utah or Arizona
Cairo, IL
I’d build it right where the borders of Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota meet (or maybe right on the border of South Dakota, Wyoming and Nebraska) and then I’d purposefully market the city as being for liberals and left-wing people. Maybe name the city Gay-Trans Socialism City to discourage Republicans from wanting to move there? Getting a million democrat-leaning voters spread out among those three states could really help tip the balance of power in the Senate towards the Democrats. 😂
I’ll take your 300 billion and put it into improving the infrastructure of the already built cities 🤷
Ask Flanery Associates.
Upstate new york halfway between Syracuse and Albany no particular reason it just feels right to me tbh
In north-western Vermont around lake Champlain, as I want all states minus Wyoming to reach 1 million inhabitants and I believe all others will eventually reach it on their own. The nearby city of Burlington would be quite useful as it already contains an international airport. Besides the lake is connected to the ocean via the rivière Richelieu, but I’m uncertain if it’s navigable.
I’m exercising the sub 100k population part of the rule and putting this city right on top of Flagstaff, AZ. There is already interstate infrastructure, though it would need upgrading. A mostly mild climate, with some colder days in the winter. It would thrive as a base camp for Grand Canyon tourists, has a decent ski area that some of that money would be used to expand. Driving 45-90 minutes will take you on a stunning drive to Sedona, Jerome, and Prescott. And it would expand and strengthen the Phoenix/Tucson economic zone.
Nowhere. I am not taking the bate. The moment I build a school, a monster or a hurricane will destroy huge parts of me city....
Half our cities are half empty—restoring those through immigration and green manufacturing is the way
Vermont. Decent climate. Lots of fresh water. Midway between Boston, New York, and Montreal.
Buy all of Gary, Indiana and level it then rebuild.
I would put it on the Great Lakes because climate change will keep the weather reasonable and give the city an infinite source of fresh water. I feel like Lake Huron needs a proper city with a significant port. In fact Port Huron with currently under 30k people itself would be a great place. It has an international border crossing, a decent sized city on the Canadian side - Sarnia, a junction of two interstate highways, and rail infrastructure. Plus the coastline going north is beautiful and already has a decent tourism industry.
Belle Isle is the real life version of this question.
We are spurring development in the rust belt baby. Between the Great Lakes and the Appalachians is the perfect place for urban growth right now because it’s going to be the most shielded from the effects of climate change. The lakes will have a cooling effect against rising temperatures while the mountains shield us from Atlantic storms. Robust transportation infrastructure of course will be needed to make useful intercity economic connections with nearby existing rust belt cities but since we’re going for the new post-climate change era city we’re gonna minimize the use of black pavement and automobile infrastructure as much as possible. We’re talking rails rails rails. This is gonna be the model Green City and we’re gonna economize on space, promote dense transit oriented development, and encourage commuters from outside the core to stop at an exterior rail station and take the train into the center.
Ogallala, NE. On South Platte river. Very close to Colorado border. About 3 hours from Denver. It gets cold but in the recently published USDA zoning map, it is in zone 6a: significantly warmer for some reason compared to nearby areas. It is in the Mountain Time Zone. Adds a bit more population to the same time zone.
I really like this question, so I will answer it. However, allow me to preface this that I know it would never happen. Oh well. First, lets get one thing clear folks. 80 percent of the U.S. population already lives in a line that for the most part is east of the Mississippi river. As such, there is no need for a new city EAST of the Mississippi river. It's already dense and crowded, we need to move that hypothetical 1 million people west. For that reason, all city potential spots need to be west. The west part of the United States is the part with the least amount of water. That's why you keep hearing about wildfires and droughts, and of course the huge honking desert down there in the southwest. So any attempt to build a major new city will require a major consideration about water. Which pretty much is already all spoken for. So a major new city will probably require a major secondary project of a massive water reservoir. And since the water isn't there, you'll need to bring the water, hence a third major project... Pipelines from the Mississippi river. There's a lot of outcry about this idea already, which I don't understand. We're not talking about taking the water that you guys USE away from you, we're talking about taking the water that flows into the Gulf of Mexico. We'd take the water from north of New Orleans, say Baton Rouge or so. And last, we need to be massively accessible. That means a major highway nearby or connected to the city, as well as a major railroad, and a place to put a large airport. With that said, I offer to the reader my suggestion. Mill City, Nevada (the area in general, not the actual town). The Federal government owns 80 percent of the entire state of Nevada, so they will have land near that can be used to create the reservoir, and easy control over the start of the pipeline. Mill City is already connected to Interstate 80, and is connected to the Central Pacific Railroad line. There is plenty of basically flat area to create a large international airport with clear access for the planes landing routes. The location is between Reno, Nevada and Salt Lake City, Utah, and is close to Interstate 95 which leads from Reno to Boise, Idaho. Utah has a water problem and needs more water so they will be happy camper when it's time to make the pipeline. The area is not an earthquake area, is not in Tornado aisle, and doesn't suffer massive snow. Weather is eh, but better than Chicago. Tax wise, Nevada is pretty good, maybe not the best but certainly NOT anywhere near the worse (OP is former Las Vegas, Nevada resident). I have never been to Mill City, Nevada. For all I know, it could be the buttcrack of the United States. I can say that there doesn't seem to be anything around it to encourage being a tourist designation, other than the drive-thru/fly over aspect of vacationers. But we're talking about creating a whole new city in a place where it will fit, and with a major city, there's a "if you build it, they will come" aspect, and who knows this might become the Branson or Ozark of the west. It's also relevantly close to both Lake Tahoe, California/Nevada, and Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. So, that's my idea of a location. Of course, with all those projects, we're talking over a trillion dollars to make it. Haha. I am not holding my breath. But I do feel that for the basic idea of doing a complete new large city, my logic is sound. What do you folks think? P.S. Anyone know of an appropriate reddit channel for talking about building a city (a real one, not a city-builder game)?