Linearapoli is a term that I devised to describe those urban areas that develop primarily along three types of narrow (linear) topography – river valley, mountain valley, and coastal/shoreline. This post discusses the unique aspects this urban land form and why certain cities may have developed in this manner versus an equidistant/concentric spatial design. A fourth form of linearapolis has occurred more recently in places along the Interstate Highway network, but this particular blog post only concentrates on the three versions shaped by the natural topography.

River valley linearapolis – within the United States and Canada, there are several urban areas that have principally developed along confined river valleys. These cities are unique in the fact that they have remained largely confined to the river valley and bordering hillsides. Since these urban areas follow river valleys, they tend to be more curvilinear compared to the other variations of linearapolis. Among these urban centers are:

Avon-Eagle-Gypsum-Vail, Colorado (Gunnison River)

Binghamton, New York (Susquehanna River)

Charleston, West Virginia (Kanawha River)

Grand Junction, Colorado (Colorado River)

Huntington-Ashland-Ironton, West Virginia/Kentucky/Ohio (Ohio River)

Parkersburg-Marietta, West Virginia/Ohio (Ohio River)

Richland-Pasco-Kennewick, Washington (Columbia River)

Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania (Lackawanna and Susquehanna rivers)

Vancouver-Chilliwack, British Columbia, Canada (Fraser River)

Williamsport, Pennsylvania

Why these cities have not spread onto surrounding plateaus and across higher ground like other mountainous river cities such as Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, and Portland, Oregon likely varies by location. However, I do have few a theoretical constants which seem to be applicable in most cases::

The difficulty of the terrain may have limited expansion until more recent decades.

Easy of river access for those along navigable waterways (all the above except the examples from Colorado).

It was less costly and time-consuming to build and expand in the valley instead of extending infrastructure uphill.

The pre-existing momentum created by existing infrastructure in the valleys.

Mountain valley linearapolis – these urban areas develop in a relatively narrow valley between mountain ridges or ranges. There appears to be fewer examples of this form linearapolis as compared to the other two, probably a result of early North American settlement patterns being based on navigable river access. In some instances a river may bisect the urban area, such as the Potomac in Hagerstown’s case, but the spatial development pattern principally follows the mountain valley, not the river valley.

Altoona, Pennsylvania

Asheville-Hendersonville, North Carolina

Hagerstown-Martinsburg, Maryland/West Virginia/Pennsylvania

Coastal/shoreline linearapolis – these urban areas develop along ocean coastlines and lake shorelines and tend to expand along the coast/shore for quite some time prior turning inland. Unless there is a physical limitation of some kind, these areas will continue to expand inward. The Southeast Florida megalopolis started to grow inland earnestly once vacant land along the Atlantic coastline dissipated or became it became overly expensive. Now that it has reached the Everglades, pretty much the only ways to expand further in the future will be through more density and/or taller buildings.

Biloxi-Gulfport, Mississippi

Erie, Pennsylvania

Melbourne-Palm Bay-Titusville, Florida

Myrtle Beach, South Carolina

Naples, Florida

Santa Barbara, California

Sarasota-Bradenton, Florida

Southeast Florida

If there are other forms of linearapoli that I have overlooked, please feel free to note them. I would be interested in learning more about them.