AHC: American Venice

I'm not sure how to accomplish this exactly, but I feel like New Orleans or something in that general area might be a good candidate under the right circumstances.
 
New Orleans, or somewhere similar, is a good shout.

The issue is that you don't just need canals. It's a fact that's been repeated so often that it's now a joke, but Birmingham (the original, not Alabama) has more miles of canal than Venice. The difference is that most people move about Birmingham by road. The canals have to be integral, rather than just there.
 

Driftless

Donor
I'm not sure how to accomplish this exactly, but I feel like New Orleans or something in that general area might be a good candidate under the right circumstances.

New Orleans, or somewhere similar, is a good shout.

The issue is that you don't just need canals. It's a fact that's been repeated so often that it's now a joke, but Birmingham (the original, not Alabama) has more miles of canal than Venice. The difference is that most people move about Birmingham by road. The canals have to be integral, rather than just there.

The Mississippi can rise or fall several feet (as much or more than tidal levels) - it's just that it's so hard to predict, unlike tidal changes.
 
Drift less mentioned a key point: before railroads.
This fictitious "American Venice" needs to fixate on its canal system before another transportation mode (e.g. railroads). It also helps if the city is so far offshore that boats are the only practical access.
It also helps if the mainland is routinely ravaged by hostile armies. That forces a trading city to build on a series of islands that is too far offshore to be attacked by cavalry or drive engines (e.g. early artillery).
So which American cities are built on swampy estuaries of major rivers?
 
Drift less mentioned a key point: before railroads.
This fictitious "American Venice" needs to fixate on its canal system before another transportation mode (e.g. railroads). It also helps if the city is so far offshore that boats are the only practical access.
It also helps if the mainland is routinely ravaged by hostile armies. That forces a trading city to build on a series of islands that is too far offshore to be attacked by cavalry or drive engines (e.g. early artillery).
So which American cities are built on swampy estuaries of major rivers?

Boston was built on a peninsula only connected to the mainland by a very narrow isthmus, at the mouth of the Charles River, so from the geographical standpoint it could work. Not sure why they'd go about digging canals there, though.
 
Boston was built on a peninsula only connected to the mainland by a very narrow isthmus, at the mouth of the Charles River, so from the geographical standpoint it could work. Not sure why they'd go about digging canals there, though.

You don't actually need to dig canals to get Boston to the point. A very large part of the land of Boston is actually infill. So, you would need to convince the Bostonians to include canals into their landfill projects.

That said, I do like the New Orleans idea.
 
I think there were a couple of (abortive?) attempts in Florida to do something like that, as an affectation to draw tourists and residents. Have something like that happen in a city that manages to become fairly large-not necessarily as large as, say, Jacksonville or Miami-and you could have a pretty good sized canal system develop along with it.
 
i'll echo the earlier sentiment and agree that the obvious choice is New Orleans
I've never been to southern California, so I assume this is a dumb question. But why isn't Venice Beach a perfect fit here?
names don't mean much, that's why ;) ever heard of Intercourse, Pennsylvania? :D :p
 
The Mississippi can rise or fall several feet (as much or more than tidal levels) - it's just that it's so hard to predict, unlike tidal changes.
That's a pity. If that precludes New Orleans, then the two ideas quoted below might be good shouts.
You don't actually need to dig canals to get Boston to the point. A very large part of the land of Boston is actually infill. So, you would need to convince the Bostonians to include canals into their landfill projects.
I think there were a couple of (abortive?) attempts in Florida to do something like that, as an affectation to draw tourists and residents. Have something like that happen in a city that manages to become fairly large-not necessarily as large as, say, Jacksonville or Miami-and you could have a pretty good sized canal system develop along with it.
 
What about hurricanes? Venice in contrast to the American coast doesn't suffer annual hurricane surges (while it does have its share of tidal influx). It isn't practical having canals at your doorstep if it floods your house on a regular basis.
 
Chicago's a top choice, IMO

Your challenge is simple: Have a sizable American city be as prominently known for its canal network as Venice.
Anyone who's taken the boat tour of Chicago would see the potential of a canal system. An added benefit is the lack of tides, though this eliminates the beneficial flushing out of sewage.

28513853-mjs_carp-_nws-_porter-_1_barrier.jpg


Chicago-DT-1951.png
 
Top