Seems nearly all the larger cities of the world are within reasonable proximity of an ocean, lake, river, etc. Understandable for any number of reasons — transportation, crops, etc.
What’s the largest city in the world that’s NOT near a major waterway? I’ll let you guys fight about what constitutes “near” (or “major” for that matter).
I suppose Phoenix, AZ has to be in the running?
From this list, Mexico City then Delhi.
Phoenix is not in the running.
Um… wasn’t Tenochtitlan, the predecessor of Mexico City, built on a lake? Does nothing remain of the lake?
And isn’t Delhi on a river?
Well, if rivers count as water, then Phoenix doesn’t count: it’s on the Salt River.
In the US, Vegas has to be the winner. El Paso will overtake it if the Rio Grande eventually dries out.
It doesn’t look like there are any huge bodies of water, but there are some lakes and streams within and outside the city limits.
Delhi, India is on the Yamuna River.
This has been asked before, and it usually winds up in the end that practically no settlement of over a few dozen people is truly “not near water.”
There’s certainly some water near Vegas.
bordelond is right. There really isn’t going to be any major settlement without a good source of water nearby.
I doubt Jerusalem is the largest, but it’s still pretty big, and it’s nowhere near any water. It wouldn’t be nearly as large as it is (roughly three quarters of a million) if it weren’t both a capital and a holy city.
Mecca is about twice the size of Jerusalem, and doesn’t seem to be near any water.
Mexico City sits on the bed of Lake Texoco. It would be flooded were it not for the artificial drainage that removes water from the site.
It’s 20-30 miles away depending on how you count. Some folk call that close, others not.
Lake Xochimilco in Mexico City is lake-y enough that they had water events for the Summer Olympics?
Nah – the yachting was contested in the waters off of Acapulco.
…
Jerusalem’s got water within piping-in distance, I assume. Surely there is a municipal water supply of some sort? EDIT: Wiki sez:
That’s still a fair distance to build from water, though. Especially before modern technology. Was there ever a running river near there in ancient times?
Riyadh? They seem to get much of their water from underground aquifers. No major aboveground bodies of water, as far as I can tell.
Nope, never. It’s pretty much on the watershed between the Mediterranean and the Jordan Rift.
OK, so ancient Jerusalem was fed by one of the world’s major underground springs:
Can’t seem to find whether or not the Gihon Spring is still used this way or not. Of course, the population of Jerusalem is much larger today than back then.
Las Vegas is not on a body of water. Lake Mead, the dammed portion of the Colorado and Virgin Rivers, is far enough away that it did not supply water to the community until much later (well, technically, Lake Mead wasn’t made until much later, but you get what I mean).
So what did they live on water wise? Well, the name of the town gives a clue: Las Vegas - The Meadows. There were artesian wells in the area, which flowed sufficient to provide water for the new community.
When a community starts, there is ALWAYS some water nearby. But I perceive the OP as talking about cities that are not on major sources of river/ocean commerce or irrigation. I think Las Vegas certainly qualifies there.
As for the Saudi Arabian cities mentioned upthread:
Riyadh’s got nearly 6 million people, so it’s likely a very strong contender for the OP’s general question.
Madrid has a ridiculous stream as an excuse for a river and none of the water that feeds Madrid is from that river but brought from many Km away.