THE LOCATION OF RIVER TOWNS IN THE CENTRAL LOWLAND OF THE UNITED STATES
THE LOCATION OF RIVER TOWNS IN THE CENTRAL LOWLAND OF THE UNITED STATES
复制标题
美国中部低地河流城镇的位置
DOI：
10.1111/j.1467-8306.1959.tb01616.x
复制
发表时间：
1959
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
A. Burghardt
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
A. Burghardt
虽然“河镇”这一术语早已被广泛使用，但对这些城镇的地理位置的研究却很少。通常对河流城市进行了单独的分析，很少关注除水系之外的任何邻近特征。即使是那些关注河流城市的研究，也很少寻求可能有助于解释这些城市的位置的一般原则。在许多情况下，为什么占主导地位的河流城市会保持在现在的位置，仍然是个谜。这篇论文主要关注的问题是，为什么较大的河流城市位于特定的河岸上。城市的间距也将被考虑在内。在关于河镇的讨论中，通常根据湿地和旱地的对比来解释选择一边和另一边的原因。圣路易斯、孟菲斯和堪萨斯城据说位于河的特定一侧，因为在那个地方有受欢迎的旱地和河流临街的结合。这种简单的解释并不完全令人满意。在许多地区，两岸都有令人向往的地点；在大多数地方，两岸都有城镇。即使是早出发的额外优势也不能解释某些城市的主导地位；独立城和圣约瑟夫都位于高地和密苏里州，而且都比堪萨斯城更古老。美国中部低地被选为本研究的区域。这是一片地形均匀的广袤区域，包含大河。潜在的城镇选址并没有受到地形的严重限制；到处都有河崖，这是最大的地貌特征。狭长的山谷，由于缺乏珍贵的平地而鲜为人知。在这里，城镇的起源也是相对较新的，可以详细研究。在这些河镇的发展中，防御是微不足道的。许多城镇都毗邻堡垒，但只有当堡垒位于商业战略位置(通常是这样)时，这样的地点才会成为大城镇的所在地。密苏里河沿岸的堡垒数量如此之多，以至于它们的本地化效应变得微不足道，俾斯麦和皮埃尔的城镇就在对岸发展起来。在辛辛那提，最初的定居点在堡垒建立之前，而在其他情况下，如奥马哈和堪萨斯城，城镇在堡垒之外发展起来。在较大的江河城市中，城市的地理位置和强大的防御地位之间的巧合只是一个巧合，仅此而已。这些城镇都不是政府创造的。最初的定居点除了管理自己，也许还有他们的县之外，没有任何政府职能。政治办公室设在以前定居的城镇，经常从一个城镇迁到另一个城镇。在本文涉及的五个最大城市中，没有一个现在是州首府。在美国的大中央低地，由于经济和地形因素的相互作用，城镇得以发展。在他们所在地区占主导地位的定居点是那些位于特别有利于商业和工业的位置的定居点。
THOUGH the term "river town" has long been in common usage, few if any studies have been made of the location of these towns. Usually river cities have been analyzed individually, and little attention has been paid to any adjacent feature other than the river system. Even those studies which have been focused on river cities have rarely sought for general principles that might help to explain the locations of these cities. Why the dominant river cities are where they are is still, in many cases, obscure. This paper is concerned primarily with the question of why the larger river cities are on a particular bank of the river. The spacing of the cities will also be considered. In the discussion of river towns the usual explanation for the choice of one bank over the other is given in terms of the contrast between wet and dry land. St. Louis, Memphis, and Kansas City are said to be on a particular side of the river because on that site there was the welcome combination of dry land and river frontage. This simple explanation is not fully satisfactory. In many locales desirable sites were available on both banks; in most places towns were platted on both banks. Even the additional advantage of an early start does not explain the dominance of certain cities; Independence and Saint Joseph are both on high land and on the Missouri, and both are older than Kansas City. The central lowland of the United States has been chosen as the area for this study. This is a vast area of topographic homogeneity, containing large rivers. Potential town sites were not seriously limited by topography; everywhere the greatest feature of relief is the river bluff. The narrow mountain valley with its dearth of precious level land is unknown. Here too the origins of the towns are relatively recent and can be studied in detail. Defense was of only negligible importance in the development of these river towns. Many of the towns were located adjacent to forts, but such locales became the sites of large towns only if the forts were located at commercially strategic points (as they often were). Along the Missouri forts were so numerous that their localizing effect became negligible, and the towns of Bismarck and Pierre developed on the opposite bank. At Cincinnati the initial settlements preceded the establishment of the fort, while in other cases, such as Omaha and Kansas City, the towns developed apart from forts. Among the larger river cities a coincidence between the site of the city and a strong defensive position was just a coincidence, and nothing more. None of these towns was a governmental creation. The initial settlements had no governmental functions other than to govern themselves and perhaps their counties. Political offices were established in previously settled towns and were frequently moved from town to town. Not one of the five largest cities dealt with in this paper is now a state capital. In the great central lowland of the United States towns developed because of the unhampered interplay of economic and topographic factors. The settlements that became dominant in their areas were those that were located in positions uniquely favorable to commerce and industry.