Jump to content

Talk:Great Lakes region

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Inclusion of Ottawa as a showcase of a “Great Lake” city?

[edit]

I’m just sort of confused. I understand Ottawa is a large city within the area (5th largest in fact), but unlike all the other photos, it doesn’t border any lakes. In my view, this doesn’t make any sense—why can’t a more relevant city or landmark that actually borders the lakes be included in its place? To me this is potentially misleading. At what point do we include New York City or Philadelphia? Nobody considers those Great Lake cities, yet if they were included, they would occupy #1 and #3 on this list and thus by the same rules as including Ottawa, would warrant a spot on the collage graphic. My proposal is to replace it with either Niagara Falls or Milwaukee. Both fit the bill for relevant historical places within the Great Lakes region (Milwaukee is the 5th largest city bordering the Great Lakes behind Mississauga and Detroit) and would be less confusing of an inclusion than Ottawa. What is the census here? The Cyber Patriot (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawa definitely doesn't belong. It's not on one of the lakes. It's not on a river that leads into one of the lakes, as the Ottawa River flows into the St Lawrence downstream of the lakes. No, the Rideau Canal doesn't make it a Great Lakes city any more than the Erie Canal made Albany or New York City one. I would absolutely agree with removing it and will do such immediately. oknazevad (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All the places you named off are originally prosperous because of the connection to the St Lawrence Seaway and a great lakes. Perhaps we should just make a historical connection as to why all these places prosperous originally because of the Atlantic trade through the St Lawrence Seaway. Moxy🍁 00:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
New York City is prosperous because of the Great Lakes? News to pretty much any historian in existence. oknazevad (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No guesswork please. The Erie Canal was one of the main reason for New York City's rise. Such a historical fact not only is it covered by historians but by the popular press at large ....even on the other side of the Atlantic like Catalano, Robin (2024-07-16). "The Erie Canal: The manmade waterway that transformed the US". BBC Home. By connecting the Great Lakes in the Midwest to New York City, the manmade waterway precipitated the mass movement of goods, ideas and people across the country. It not only transformed New York City into the US' main seaport and an industrial juggernaut, but it also opened up the interior of the young country to settlement.. Historians generally discuss this relation to economics "The Economic History of the Erie Canal". San José State University. Before the Erie Canal was built New York City was not the premier port of the United States that it became. Philadelphia was the largest, most prosperous city of the new United States. The Erie Canal provided the base for New York City's rise. Moxy🍁 01:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
New York was the largest city in the US long before the Erie Canal was completed indeed it has been the largest city in every census from 1790 even if an anachronistic comparison of metropolitan areas would complicate things, and reasonably prosperous though not particularly differentiated from other East Coast ports at least not to the degree it became later, but that's another complicated topic there's also the matter of remaining the largest long after the economic significance of the canal has faded to virtual irrelevance.
That isn't to say it wasn't important, historians are almost unanimous in describing it as such, but at the same time the case should not be overstated and the places you named off are originally prosperous because of the connection to the St Lawrence Seaway and a great lakes emphasis added obviously, isn't really supportable. Not to mention the Saint Lawrence Seaway wasn't completed until 1959!
Now we could sit here and discuss the harbor, the Hudson, and the fur trade, but it is really all off-topic since the question to ask is if RS usually describe these cities as part of the Great Lakes region, and not just one or two expansive oddballs. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 01:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would agree it's not part of the great lakes region.... but believe there's a lack of knowledge being portrayed here about the economic impact of the canals that connected to the great lakes and the St Lawrence River. The original economic impact zone of the great lakes was huge. The Erie canal leading to New York city was devastating for Upper Canada and transformed New York City into America’s commercial capital. Moxy🍁 03:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]