Where are the best geographic locations to build a city?

[Universil-Unoyz Wintarros]

And all the pre-existing air pollution?

You could build them giant air purifier towers like in China.

Or we abandon the idea of technological advancement, stop tainting the earth as we are already, and revert back to ‘monke’, our most natural state.

[Kowani]

You could build them giant air purifier towers like in China.

Or we abandon the idea of technological advancement, stop tainting the earth as we are already, and revert back to ‘monke’, our most natural state.

Ah, a political memer. Wonderful.

Have you considered the fact that abandoning technology will just get you run over by any group that does not?

[Occidens Praseodymia]

You could build them giant air purifier towers like in China.

Or we abandon the idea of technological advancement, stop tainting the earth as we are already, and revert back to ‘monke’, our most natural state.

It's either one way or the other.

Monke or Beep beep

[Latvijas Otra Republika]

Or we abandon the idea of technological advancement, stop tainting the earth as we are already, and revert back to ‘monke’, our most natural state.

Ah, a political memer. Wonderful.

Have you considered the fact that abandoning technology will just get you run over by any group that does not?

human think it smart. human weak, human cold hairless. human unhappy. embrace monke. be save

[Kowani]

Or we abandon the idea of technological advancement, stop tainting the earth as we are already, and revert back to ‘monke’, our most natural state.

It's either one way or the other.

Monke or Beep beep

Monke is inherently unsustainable.
Beep Beep is inevitable.

by Latvijas Otra Republika » 04 Sep 2020, 15:34[/quote]

Ah, a political memer. Wonderful.

Have you considered the fact that abandoning technology will just get you run over by any group that does not?

human think it smart. human weak, human cold hairless. human unhappy. embrace monke. be save

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 222912.htm
We won...but at what cost?

[Universil-Unoyz Wintarros]

Or we abandon the idea of technological advancement, stop tainting the earth as we are already, and revert back to ‘monke’, our most natural state.

Ah, a political memer. Wonderful.

Have you considered the fact that abandoning technology will just get you run over by any group that does not?

An anti-tech revolution ought to be world wide. Chances are it will look more like a post apocalyptic society for a while, until we can stupify the population. They will not even know what technology is aside from useful primitive toolery.

[San Lumen]

Ah, a political memer. Wonderful.

Have you considered the fact that abandoning technology will just get you run over by any group that does not?

An anti-tech revolution ought to be world wide. Chances are it will look more like a post apocalyptic society for a while, until we can stupify the population. They will not even know what technology is aside from useful primitive toolery.

what does this have to do with the topic?

To get back on track i have often wondered why capital cities tend to be the largest cities in a country as well as provincial capitals. Yes there are exceptions but it seems quite common.

[Allenstadt]

A city built between two mountain ranges (defense), with access to a river leading to the sea (preferably the only route to the sea in that region- cha-ching!), built on solid ground. The valley is good for growing crops (fertile), elevation is not higher than 2000m, and you can mine rock from the surrounding mountains.

[San Lumen]

A city built between two mountain ranges (defense), with access to a river leading to the sea (preferably the only route to the sea in that region- cha-ching!), built on solid ground. The valley is good for growing crops (fertile), elevation is not higher than 2000m, and you can mine rock from the surrounding mountains.

That sounds like an excellent location

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Wherever the UI in Civ VI tells me to.

[Cameroi]

gently sloaping foothills, away from agricultural and scenic valleys, but not at the tops of mountains either. where water is available but not where it will be poluted for a majority of area as a result. cities aren't even the best way to cluster populations, or provide technologically advanced services. one city could be built at or near the highest point at or near the geocenter of a country and that would be its capitol. but the best structure for a city is to be a village of villages. infrastructure, population and environment, all need to be taken into consideration and relationships need to be optomized. cities tend to trash environments, so siting them i places of especial harmony and beauty is seriously not a good idea. neather of course, should or need they be depressingly austare. free reign to imagination and strangeness, while always resepcting the diversity of the natural environment is a logical process of optomization. avoidance of dependence on personal motor vehicles would also be a great enhancement.

[Southeastern Xiatao]

Somewhere on the coast in my opinion, with decent access to ports. A lot of the more prosperous cities are (although not all).

This pretty much, I mean building a city along the coast or at least a few miles from it pretty much allows (but not always) for a city to prosper well due to trade with the rest of the world by sea. I mean especially if we are talking about establishing a city in colonial times, seeing how having a city created along the coast will pretty much make it easier for trade and imports and exports to travel. Seeing that establishing a city inland a big distance away from the ocean is much harder.

Of course a city can still be successful even if it is located far inland, but that all needs to come down to the other factors to make it a success like economics (like what is this city good at when it comes to jobs), resources (what does the city have control over in its area?), infrastructure, and so on.

I mean of course an inland city has it a bit more better if it is located next to a major river as it will allow it to still have access to the ocean for trade.

But all in all I pretty much would argue that best geographic location to establish a city is anywhere on the coast in a temperate, subtropical, or tropical climate. Colder climates will just make your city not be seen as a place a majority people will not want to immigrate to (especially if this is in colonial times which was when heating was only done through wood and fireplaces, so no electricity).

[Southeastern Xiatao]

Wherever the UI in Civ VI tells me to.

I have childhood memories of me playing Civilization Revolution on my Nintendo DS Lite, where I would always just establish cities anywhere on the map without giving a fuck what my advisor says. And it was mainly because I just wanted to get as many cities built to boost population and get the most number of built cities before anyone else could.

[Occidens Praseodymia]

What about underground cities?
The best location for one would most likely be Yucatan, Mexico with all the underground rivers and cenotes.

[Twicetagram and JYPe]

Honestly, as long as the area is coastal, generally flat, above sea level, not at risk of natural disasters other than floods, looks fine.

What about underground cities?

Well that's possible but:
-Who will be the first to actually dig up soil to build a city?
-Will it be like an actual city or a fallout shelter?
The idea is cool, but do we need them now? Maybe in the future yes, but now we still have enough land to build cities.

[Occidens Praseodymia]

Honestly, as long as the area is coastal, generally flat, above sea level, not at risk of natural disasters other than floods, looks fine.

What about underground cities?

Well that's possible but:
-Who will be the first to actually dig up soil to build a city?
-Will it be like an actual city or a fallout shelter?
The idea is cool, but do we need them now? Maybe in the future yes, but now we still have enough land to build cities.

It would act like a fully functional city. I know it seems quite unrealistic at the moment, it could happen in the future. Arcology might happen pretty soon, it's already been done in Alaska, but on a very small scale. With that said, we could have cities within a building located in places previously thought to be impossible. Even underwater cities might be a thing, or floating cities, or cities on the moon or mars or Venus or orbiting earth or the moon...
You get it.
With underground cities though, there is the issue with earthquakes and/or flooding.
Underwater is probably safe, unless the glass cracks and everybody's doomed.

But I definitely think that arcology is the future. Entirely self sustaining cities contained within one building. It would end sprawling and they could be built in areas currently considered deadly, like underwater or in Antarctica, or space.

[Southeastern Xiatao]

Honestly, as long as the area is coastal, generally flat, above sea level, not at risk of natural disasters other than floods, looks fine.

Well that's possible but:
-Who will be the first to actually dig up soil to build a city?
-Will it be like an actual city or a fallout shelter?
The idea is cool, but do we need them now? Maybe in the future yes, but now we still have enough land to build cities.

It would act like a fully functional city. I know it seems quite unrealistic at the moment, it could happen in the future. Arcology might happen pretty soon, it's already been done in Alaska, but on a very small scale. With that said, we could have cities within a building located in places previously thought to be impossible. Even underwater cities might be a thing, or floating cities, or cities on the moon or mars or Venus or orbiting earth or the moon...
You get it.
With underground cities though, there is the issue with earthquakes and/or flooding.
Underwater is probably safe, unless the glass cracks and everybody's doomed.

But I definitely think that arcology is the future. Entirely self sustaining cities contained within one building. It would end sprawling and they could be built in areas currently considered deadly, like underwater or in Antarctica, or space.

Underground cities, underwater cities, or domed cities on the Moon (or as I prefer to call Luna) or Mars, you are going to need plenty of resources for it, a lot of farmland for people to grow food so they can sustain themselves, and 24/7 maintenance team to repair anything that goes wonky ASAP. I mean it is not impossible, but it is just more difficult. But it certainly can and will be done at some point.

Though cities on the Moon or Mars are going to have another challenge being gravity. I mean we have no idea what will happen to a woman giving birth to a child in a low gravity environment. I mean would it kill the said woman? Would it kill the newborn child as it can't adjust to the gravity? Would the said child survive but be weaker than average than a child on Earth (as in more fragile)? Would it be fatal for both the said woman and newborn?

Simply put this is something we don't know yet, and that probably the main horrifying thing when it comes to colonization of other worlds. I mean doesn't mean we humans should avoid space colonization, but rather be very cautious about it seeing there is plenty of things we have not yet seen first hand in low gravity, heavy gravity, or zero gravity environments.

Though my best bet is that another suitable alternative is O'Neill Cylinders, which can hold populations up to 1 million depending on the size, how much food it can sustain itself for the said population, etc. Plus O'Neill Cylinders will basically be constantly rotating in a circle like a wheel in order to create artificial gravity for the said inhabitants, to the point it should be similar to that of the gravity on Earth. But still as cool O'Neill Cylinders sound, they would cost billions if not perhaps trillions of dollars to built as they would be required to be constructed in space.

And also the possibility of Zeon hijacking them and performing colony drops onto Earth cities below. (Sorry but had to do that Gundam reference)

[Latvijas Otra Republika]

A city built between two mountain ranges (defense), with access to a river leading to the sea (preferably the only route to the sea in that region- cha-ching!), built on solid ground. The valley is good for growing crops (fertile), elevation is not higher than 2000m, and you can mine rock from the surrounding mountains.

Gondor

[Tribe of Monke]

Cities are useless.

Monke communes are the only good option.

[The New California Republic]

Scotland, specifically Edinburgh

It's got a volcano sat in the middle of it.*

*Extinct.

[Chan Island]

I'm surprised nobody's been talking about Istanbul.

Very defensible position by both hills and sea, on a natural harbour, at a key strategic chokepoint for trade, pretty near to many resources.

There's a reason that place has been virtually continuously the capital of a large political power for the majority of the past 2000 years, and settled at least with a notable town for much longer.

[Tranzoria]

I'm surprised nobody's been talking about Istanbul.

Very defensible position by both hills and sea, on a natural harbour, at a key strategic chokepoint for trade, pretty near to many resources.

There's a reason that place has been virtually continuously the capital of a large political power for the majority of the past 2000 years, and settled at least with a notable town for much longer.

Istanbul is good, but then again, so is every coastal city in the Middle East.

[The Blaatschapen]

Anywhere along here
(Image)

Yeah, that picture includes Cleveland.

That can't be the best geographic location.

[Tranzoria]

Anywhere along here
(Image)

Yeah, that picture includes Cleveland.

That can't be the best geographic location.

Cleveland is a good location for a city.
It's just that the people there might make it hard for you to move or even go there.
I've been to Cleveland, and sometimes it's been exaggerated.

[Chan Island]

I'm surprised nobody's been talking about Istanbul.

Very defensible position by both hills and sea, on a natural harbour, at a key strategic chokepoint for trade, pretty near to many resources.

There's a reason that place has been virtually continuously the capital of a large political power for the majority of the past 2000 years, and settled at least with a notable town for much longer.

Istanbul is good, but then again, so is every coastal city in the Middle East.

I suppose that's true. Tyre, Sidon, Alexandria, Acre and many others have similar stories to Istanbul...

With the exception that they have been in much less defensible positions. Tyre was on an island, but then Alexander the Great reversed that one. And all of them were swept up by the Arab invasions in less time than it takes to sneeze. Istanbul meanwhile has been the target of war for centuries, and only rarely has an army even gotten close. Last time it was taken was in 1453, and we still never hear the end of that one- impressive for a place that powers have tried to nab even as recently as the First World War.

And then of course there's the political chokehold the place represents. The entire fate of Russia has on multiple occasions been decided not in Moscow, but by those in Istanbul. As recently as 1918 basically all of the Middle East was ruled by those in Istanbul, as well as big chunks of the balkans.

In many ways in fact, the current time is a historical anomaly for it, in not being a capital. Small sting though, for a metropolis that has 3 times the populace of all 3 Baltic states put together, and still represents something like a quarter of Turkey's entire economy.