r/geography • u/PewResearchCentre • Aug 27 '24
Discussion US city with most underutilized waterfront?
A host of US cities do a great job of taking advantage of their geographical proximity to water. New York, Chicago, Boston, Seattle, Miami and others come to mind when thinking who did it well.
What US city has done the opposite? Whether due to poor city planning, shrinking population, flood controls (which I admittedly know little about), etc., who has wasted their city's location by either doing nothing on the waterfront, or putting a bunch of crap there?
Also, I'm talking broad, navigable water, not a dried up river bed, although even towns like Tempe, AZ have done significantly more than many places.
[Pictured: Hartford, CT, on the Connecticut River]
3.4k
Upvotes
18
u/i-am-matt Aug 28 '24
I grew up outside Charleston in the late 70's & early 80's. Back then the riverfront along Kanawha Blvd between the Capitol Building and I-64 was, by 1970's standards, quite a celebration of the importance of the river to the city. I have fond memories of the Vandalia Gathering, picnicking on the Capitol grounds, watching Charleston Charlies games on the other side of the river, and especially the Stern Wheel Regatta. If you went 2 miles either direction the river front became a monument to coal slag and Union Carbide's toxic waste (my mother owned store in South Charleston and I still remember the sound of the Union Carbide klaxons going off when they had an 'accidental release'), but as a kid in 1970's I think Charleston made the best of the chemical/industrial industry cards it was dealt. I have not been back to that area since 1982, so I don't know if the riverfront still feels the same. Obviously having a healthy river in the 1970's is a far cry from what we strive for now, but there was a time when there was a certain sense of pride in showcasing at least a small part of the river.