-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Connecticut is my favourite, though it's not on that map - like the other states with trans-Appalachian claims, its charter granted it all the land to the "South Sea", or in other words, the Pacific Ocean. To that end, they squabbled relentlessly with New York and in Pennsylvania, tried to seize the Susquehanna. Even after independence, Connecticut was one of the most ardent in pushing its claims; of the states with claims on the Northwest Territory, Connecticut was the most stubborn, refusing to give up the last of its claims (the Western Reserve) until 1800. The little state that tried to push New York and Pennsylvania around always amuses me.
My problem with North America (as a Canadian) is that this is Anywhere, USA and this is a definable town. The USA's straight borders (internal and external) are indicative of a much wider problem; it's an entire nation built on monotony. Canada is on the same boat, and so are Australia and New Zealand. To me it makes a nation far less valuable.
Really, North America is a testament to optimistic design utterly failing. James Kunstler has a really good take on it.
Edit: I don't agree entirely with Kunstler and I'm not a fan of New Urbanism, but I agree that what we've built here in the "New World" is shit and it needs an overhaul. I doubt it will ever happen, but I don't think the USA is a well built nation (or CA, AUS or NZ), and like I say above, borders are indicative of it.
Really, North America is a testament to optimistic design utterly failing. James Kunstler has a really good take on it.
Edit: I don't agree entirely with Kunstler and I'm not a fan of New Urbanism, but I agree that what we've built here in the "New World" is shit and it needs an overhaul. I doubt it will ever happen, but I don't think the USA is a well built nation (or CA, AUS or NZ), and like I say above, borders are indicative of it.
Last edited:
This may just be me, but what was your problem with...anything? The Ted talk especially rambled a lot. He had a terribly annoying voice and didn't ever establish a problem.
Everything is indeed decentralized. Especially in the western half of US, which I will be specifically referring to.
It makes cars invaluable since everything is so far apart, high gas prices will not be received well, and rapid transit is inefficient.
But what can we do? Force landowners to sell their land and subsidize new construction? The only solution would be government imposed property-seizures and development. Not a very good start to a new order.
It makes cars invaluable since everything is so far apart, high gas prices will not be received well, and rapid transit is inefficient.
But what can we do? Force landowners to sell their land and subsidize new construction? The only solution would be government imposed property-seizures and development. Not a very good start to a new order.
We don't really have that many terrible borders. In South West Tennessee,you have a lack of terrain, whereas in the East we have mountains and hills all over the place. The counties reflect that. In Hamilton county, our border with Bradley is defined by White Oak Mountain, Our border with Marion defined by the Tennessee River, Meigs' and Rhea's borders was designed due to the failure of James County (Which is now Eastern Hamilton), Sequatchie's border is set by the beginning of the Cumberland Plateau, as is Bledsoe. If you look at Meigs and Rhea, they are divided by the Tennessee as well.
Attachments
I was born in one of Texas' western square counties, and this wrong. First of all, the only desert you'll find in Texas is in the extreme southwest. The panhandle is dry, cotton-growing elevated plains and the east is green, warm hill country and then, further South, humid and similar to the Gulf Coast. The square counties out there work well because there is very little in the way of geography. There's a few rivers and seasonal playa lakes dotting the landscape but for the most part it's a flat plain. Flat plain + lots of agriculture and few cities = square counties are the easiest way to do things. During the colonial period west Texas was known as "El Llano Estacado", the staked plains, because the spanish drove numbered stakes into the ground in order to aid navigation. Today, flying over it you'll see endless circular cotton fields from the edge of the plateau to New Mexico's mountains.
It's because of how the original land grants were formulated back when the European powers were making overlapping claims in North America
In 1665 King Charles II of England granted to the founders of Carolina the lands between 29 deg and 36.50 deg latitude
Most of this was just a paper claim though. As you see from the map this territory actually includes parts of Spanish Florida where St. Augustine had been founded hundred years earlier in 1565. And then later on France founded New Orleans and laid claim to the entire Mississippi valley as Louisiana. And of course the majority of the land claimed were still controlled by various Indian tribes
In 1732 the original grant for Georgia fixed the limit of the colony to the land between the Savannah and the Alatamaha rivers, and then westward to the sea from these to rivers
Since the Alatamaha is north of the 29th parallel, this then in principle separates off a "Southern Carolina", but I don't think there were any English settlements in that area at that time
The straight borders were established when these (now) US states were still territories, so I wouldn't lend credence to that argument. I think it has more to do with it being trendy with people of the time to think that geometrical forms were "perfect" and "beautiful", whereas nowadays we consider such borders to be grossly unnatural.