Submitted 17 hours ago by Karmanopoly@lemmy.world to [deleted]
https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/07a56b82-5471-4d3b-a18b-ae8462ae3857.jpeg
No major cities
One reason I haven’t seen mentioned: it’s hard to get there. The best you get is a two-lane highway (as in one lane for eastbound and one for westbound). Also because you have to go over a mountain range, there’s actually very few highways to even use.
For the Oregon Coast, in that circle you have 4 highways: 6, 18, 26 and 30. If you want to go to, say, Newport. You pretty much go to Lincoln City and then head South.
Ask the people in Astoria and the other cities there.
What they said but also, that’s the Cascadia Subduction Zone. Faced disastrous drop in land level back in the 1700s. Dunked the whole coast into the Pacific
I was there yesterday. It’s cold AF all year.
These are ceremonial, organ-harvesting sites.
Best to stick to the main roads.
we just went to that area yesterday!! its very rocky and lots of cliffs on the coast, and super super hilly and forested in the interior.
many absolutely do live there, and those municipalities marked on your map there are reasonably populated. but the terrain is not super great for building large stuff, and they really do not like deforestation either. it is also farther away from freeway I-5, where most stuff on the west coast is freighted by truck, and is more expensive, at least from our experiences.
the sunset on the coast is SO pretty though :)
they are populated. gorgeous drive up the coast. did a week in the banana belt near the turn of the millenium. it was a very nice municipality.
It’s a Bigfoot reserve.
Because somebody put a giant red fence around the area, nobody can get in.
These places feel normally populated for the geography when you drive through them.
If I remember correctly, they talk about it in this YouTube video. It basically boils down to the terrain and it being bad for ports.
There’s a city named “Newport” smack dab in the center of the circle ironically enough.
It has been blocked off by a ring of lava
The Goonies: am I a joke to you?
NGL I’d move to Astoria in a heartbeat if I had a remote job and a place to land lined up, but the Epstein class has decided that can’t happen
I freaking loved Astoria, such a mood. Totally get why you’d move there. Maybe one day…
Because they live somewhere else
Maybe too hilly or steep cliff coast ( = bad when you want fishing or an harbor)
I’ll add to all the maybe’s by saying maybe Bigfoot.
This
There is clearly a secret Bigfoot preserve and or is you believe scp-1000 a super advanced civilization of hyper-inteligent homonids we colloquially refer to as bigfoot
Other comments give a good tl;dw already, but in case anyone wants a video with pictures and examples, Geography By Geoff has done this topic a few times. Here’s one: www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqyM54CNSsY
Maybe the same reason there are so few ports on the African West Coast.
i think that when locals call a place “the land that god made in anger”, it might be wise to not settle there
Why do you think almost no one lives there just because you don’t know of a major city in the area?
It’s simple logistics, there’s no reason for a major city to be there.
You have Seattle, Vancouver, Victoria in the same region. And if anything is coming to the area it’s going to that region already, and if it’s going farther south you have better ports in Oregon.
Genuinely curious what made you interested in this idea or where it came from
It’s just weird that it’s the West Coast of North America and the major cities (seattle and Portland are well inland)
Just a little further south and it’s one of the mot populated regions (SanFran, San Jose, LA etc)
Do a quick look at the terrain option on Google maps. I think it’s very obvious that there were advantages places for larger populations to settle around. That particular section of the west coast is fairly inhospitable. Look at the coastal sea floor as well. It paints a fairly clear picture on its own, especially when comparing it to the east coast. Secondly find a timelapse of the how north American was settled as colonies. Stuff mostly came from the east and eventually made it’s way to the west. Railroads are big big part of how the west was colonized and there wasn’t much use for north south railways as things progressed as there was to get things to and from the east.
That locks in or at least reinforces the locations of where major populations can establish themselves.
It’s only been about 135 years since trans Pacific trade started(quick google info please be kind if that’s wrong)
And it was with people’s that had absolutely no relation with the European colonists. And they were also very xenophobic culturally and didn’t develop very advanced in deep ocean sailing due to lack of interest.
The old world was east of the Americas, mystery and the unknown was the Pacific. There be monsters there!
So all in all it seem to make a lot of sense that there wasnt much economic pressures requiring big coastal economies until well after established communities and regions developed.
I think Astoria is one of the older major coastal trade cities, but it faltered as Seattle and Portland developed.
And to your point about being inland a ways, they are in much most hospitable regions for farming and agriculture to support a large population
I’ve had similar thoughts. It’s ocean-side cities along America’s West coast, it’s along the same coast as some of the most desirable locations to live in the world (SF, LA, and many cities in between and beyond.) it seems strange that the population moves further inland when you look on a map.
The Northwest Sasquatch tick can grow to 6” in size and kill a person overnight.
This isn’t an informed guess, but I’d imagine it has to do with ground suitability, as well as risks caused by the ocean and weather. I recently read an article that major cities in the area, away from the coast, are causing the ground to sink below their weight.
Wildly wet. Tons of rain. Geographic reasons for it.
This is why i want to move there lol (not to detract from your point)
sings “I’m only happy when it rains…”
Correlation between geography and population density
Also most of the time that people live on coasts in dense areas is because they’re shipping ports or some other very specific reason
Go live there yourself.
Oh, you don’t want to? Why not?
There, you have your reason now.
What the hell lmao. You made an argument for why people don’t live in New York because I don’t move to New York.
And implied that literally everywhere else in the world besides where I live has reasons why “nobody” lives there because I don’t live there.
The logic isn’t strictly wrong per se, it’s just something akin to a tautology, it means nothing.
80% of the things people say on here are (somehow) contrarian tautologies.
New York has a greater number of points of interest than the Oregon coast.
Oregon coast is beautiful, don’t get me wrong. Great place to vacation. Not terribly exciting place to live, though.
That explains how places get bigger, but not why they don’t exist… Which doesn’t exactly answer OP’s question.
Basically, that’s not where the farmland is (or, when it was first being settled, the fur, which provided the major economic incentives for why that area was settled in the first place). You also have to think about how the land was settled. Settlers from the east used mountain valleys to get around. Mountain valleys in that circled area aren’t easily traversable and don’t go anywhere or lead anywhere useful. Settlers from the southwest used ships and followed shipping routes up the coast. When you consider both these settlement methods simultaneously (and they were in fact used almost simultaneously) you will come to the conclusion that these are some of the most remote areas to be settled in the continental US, and their relative remoteness has a lot to do with why they were settled the way they were.
Meanwhile, from the perspective of a ship sailing up the coast there are few good protected anchorages to use as a sheltered waystation or safe harbor in case of inclement weather directly along the coast, but if you go just a little further you’ll reach good port lands (it’s literally called “Portland”) or Seattle and you might as well journey just a little further to stop there instead if you possibly can. When you consider people taking a long and perilous journey around the horn of South America (there was no Panama Canal) you’re almost at the end of the line, and you aren’t going to want to stop 99% of the way, you’re so close that you’ll push on to the end, and that’s why Portland, Seattle and Vancouver developed where they did. The farmland got worse the further north you went and became increasingly unsustainable so nobody really went much further before the gold rush provided yet another economic incentive to draw people there, but that’s a different story.
My buddy lives in Lincoln city. He’s a glass blower
glass and your buddy must be very happy together.
Based on the voting districts alone, those areas aren’t the least populated in the state, but they’re also definitely not cities.
Since those areas also don’t have hiking trails unlike a huge swath of the state, I’m going guess the terrain along the coast there is not easily traverseable.
That’s Washington. OP circled the Oregon coast
Technically they circled both. That’s basically the entire PNW coast
Saw Seattle, didn’t think further.
2024 Presidential Race
WA by county:
WA by congr. district:
WA by precinct:
OR by county:
OR by congr. district:
OR by precinct:
Generally speaking, there is very little percentage of either state’s population living directly on or near the actual ocean facing Pacific coast… WA is basically the Seattle metro area, OR is basically the Portland metro area.
The harbor/bay at the north of that circle is Aberdeen and Hoquiam. It used to be a larger city and a major port, but with Seattle’s development, the railroads from the east terminating at Puget Sound, and the boom of WW2 making the region a military base, it became overshadowed and neglected for the last 100 years.
Cold, wet, rocky.
They didn’t know it when the states were formed, but I think a lot of the modern hesitancy comes from ‘the big one’ that we now know will certainly occur. I love visiting Newport - but you can’t ignore the tsunami safety zone makers and evacuation route signage everywhere you look. There are plenty of houses and tons of space to build, but because these coastal towns are far away from the major hubs, no one is going to commute from there either, imho.
BananaTrifleViolin@piefed.world 16 hours ago
A few reasons. One is there isn’t much flat land; most of it is hilly and even mountainous and covered in thick forests. The flat areas are occupied with farms and towns but the space is small and not enough for big cities to grow. The hills and mountains are heavily forested and there has never been a big enough population to need to encroach on them. It’s also not great for building and farming, unless grazing animals.
The other big reason is there are no natural deep sea ports in that region. It’s either marshy or the estuary of the river Colombia. Small fishing towns would be fine, but not big industrial ports that drive city growth (or did in the past). Meanwhile, Portland sits further back up the river with plenty of flat land and access to the water, so makes a natural port. And Seattle sits on the bay further north and is coastal, and a good port.
The dynamic got set up of big cities further back, and those areas never really grew. Once the land became part of state forests, then that restricts growth even more.
deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 16 hours ago
I just realized why it’s called Portland.
On my defense, I’ve never seen a map of it before.
whatalute@lemmy.world 15 hours ago
Nope, the name was decided with coin flip. Lol Could ended up as Boston.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland_Penny
LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 15 hours ago
All good points but you also forgot to mention another key factor. This is more or less the rainiest region in the country. It’s extremely wet and most people don’t like that.
CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works 14 hours ago
It really is shitty out there most of the year. Even in summer it can be 95 degrees in the valley and raining on the coast. Most of the people living out on the coast are natives, retirees, and Trump supporters as there isnt much work outside of casinos, gas station/fast food, and logging.
Leather@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
Yes. The temperate rainforest region of Pacific Northwest is a horror show. 300+ days of rain. And the others are just cloudy. You can’t swim in the ocean. It’s constantly below 80. Don’t move here. It’s horrible.
devolution@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
Mostly because no one wants to deal with twinkling vampires.