Does anyone know what the largest city in the world not on a navigable waterway is? Kurt Vonnegut, in Deadeye Dick, claims that it is Indianapolis, something that I would like to believe. I have recently met someone who challenges that, however, although she cannot remember the name of the city that she believes is actually the largest of that sort. I would really like to be right about this as I am seldom right about anything else.
My guess would be Dallas/Ft. Worth.
Mexico City isn’t on any waterway anymore. The city itself has 8.2 million and the metro area has 15 million.
The key to answering the OP’s question is defining “navigable waterway.” I think if you delve into that issue, you’ll find that the powers that be (i.e. the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) have an incredibly inclusive standard. The body of law over the past couple hundred years has evolved so that practically any and every ditch, gully, wash or depression that even occasionally conveys water is considered a “navigable waterway” by our benign government. Since practically every settlement was founded at a location where fresh water was readily available, and therefore probably along, on, or even in a “navigable waterway,” I’m not sure how the question can be answered.
OOPS! I should say that my post refers to settlements and waterways in the United States. Didn’t mean to ignore other places!
I agree with TBone2 that there can simply be no objective answer to this question, as the criteria are simply to slippery. For instance, the city that eventually became Mexico DF was founded on a swamp. Does that disqualify it?
How about Atlanta, Georgia? It was founded at a railway hub, I believe.
Atlanta is on the Chattahoochee which is is big enough for canoes and I suppose when Terminus (now Atlanta) was founded you could float a small barge down the Chattahoochee at high water.
How about Los Angeles? It’s about 16 m from the ocean and I don’t think the L.A. river ever had enough water even for a canoe except maybe in the middle of a rain storm.
Jerusalem. Population, some 500,000, located in the hills, and the nearest water is an hour’s drive away via freeway - either the Mediterranian to the west or the Dead Sea to the east. All the city’s water comes from wells, or is piped from the north of the country.
Hows about Las Vegas? Any rivers through there? I don’t recall seeing any.
You are correct. The LA River was originally an underground aquifer, it was a shallow creek bed, you had to dig down about 2 feet to find water. It only runs above ground now because they dredged it up and made it into a concrete channel. The river was originally called “The Mother Ditch” (don’t recall what that was in spanish) because it really was just a ditch and only had visible water during flash floods. Really. Go to Olivera Street in LA and read the plaque sometime, it has the whole story.
The LA River is definitely not navigable. I used to live right next to the LA River, I know the only unlocked entrance to the whole river. Been down there many times. You can’t even cross the river in a car when the river is low, there’s a 4 foot deep squared-off trench in the middle of the channel.
The only US city larger than LA is NYC, and it is on the Hudson River, which is quite navigable.
Now what about the world? Let’s work backwards from the list of the world’s largest cities, I found one at:
http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/issues/pop/cities.html
It claims Mexico City is the world’s largest city, but I’m not sure I go for that, they’re including a wide area around it. It’s landlocked.
Next is Sao Paulo Brazil. I’m not too sure about this claim either. It is landlocked, but I couldn’t find a map detailed enough to see if it is on a waterway.
#3 is Tokyo. Everything I’ve seen before indicates that Tokyo is really the largest city in the world. If you include suburbs like the figures for Mexico City, you have to admit suburbs for Tokyo too, which makes it the largest city in the world. Tokyo has the River Sumida. When I was in Tokyo, everyone told me the Sumida was non-navigable and had been mostly cemented over and turned into a sewer. I’ll have to check into it. But for now, Tokyo is not a candidate.
Next is Calcutta. Definitely on a river.
Next, Bombay. It’s on a peninsula, surrounded by two bays, and cut off from the mainland by a river. I’ll rule Bombay ineligible.
Next is New York City. We’ve already dealt with NYC.
Next, Seoul. The map shows a river. Looks like a big one, don’t know if it’s navigable.
Next, Shanghai. I found a map with a river that actually is marked “navigable.”
Next, Rio de Janerio. Can’t find a map.
OK, we’re going pretty far down the list here, and I’m too tired to pursue it further. I don’t see any convincing claim of both size and non-navigability. I don’t even think this list of largest cities is too accurate. Someone else want to give it a shot?
I believe “Mother Ditch” in Spanish would be “Zanja Madre”.
The definition of “city” and “navigable” aren’t clear enough to come up with an answer that someone won’t be able to object to.
I’d offer that rather than the Army Corps or other technical definitions of the phrase “navigable waterway”, we go with what IMHO is the spirit of the comment. To wit, most large cities began as ports - whether on the ocean, a bay, or a river - and the phenomenon of cities such as Denver, Phoenix, Atlanta, et al. built at railway hubs, trucking hubs, etc… is rather modern. So Mexico City wins, I’d think…
Which begs the question: what is the oldest, largest, non-port city that antedates rail and road traffic ?