Eureka, California

[ThePhun1]

The Eureka area, with its islands and large natural harbor, looks like it could have been a major metro area. At the very least and especially with its relative proximity to San Francisco, it should have been way bigger than it is, perhaps a metro of a few hundred thousand people.

What happened? What stopped it from being any bigger than it is?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

The Eureka area, with its islands and large natural harbor, looks like it could have been a major metro area. At the very least and especially with its relative proximity to San Francisco, it should have been way bigger than it is, perhaps a metro of a few hundred thousand people.

What happened? What stopped it from being any bigger than it is?

Eureka is about 5 hours from SF, so not remotely close.

Not sure why it "should" be a bigger city. It's very isolated, heavily wooded, and not much going on besides resource extraction and maybe some tourism.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Eureka is about 5 hours from SF, so not remotely close.

Not sure why it "should" be a bigger city. It's very isolated, heavily wooded, and not much going on besides resource extraction and maybe some tourism.

Nothing has ever stopped man from cutting down trees except his own regulation. There's a huge natural harbor along Humboldt Bay, seems like there should have been more than a big town there.

[Pavlov's Dog]

A lot of the cities that boomed early on were due to ability to ship resources back east. Eureka is in an area from which it was impossible to create a railroad going eastward or northward due to a heck of a lot of mountains. It didn't have a large agricultural area nor any major mines that I'm aware of. Just a lot of big trees but there were many other similar areas elsewhere on the West Coast. The same could be said of Coos Bay, Oregon and Abderdeen/Hoquiam, Washington. They have very similar attributes.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Pavlov's Dog

A lot of the cities that boomed early on were due to ability to ship resources back east. Eureka is in an area from which it was impossible to create a railroad going eastward or northward due to a heck of a lot of mountains. It didn't have a large agricultural area nor any major mines that I'm aware of. Just a lot of big trees but there were many other similar areas elsewhere on the West Coast. The same could be said of Coos Bay, Oregon and Abderdeen/Hoquiam, Washington. They have very similar attributes.

the central pacific railroad went to sacramento, and to san francisco. there's hundreds of miles of rugged topography to the east of eureka and that doesnt really break until you get to portland (or the southern willamette valley).

i have thought about eureka, before, and thought that it would be cool if there were another large metro between portland and san francisco. if the central valley had pierced the coast range to eureka it may have happened.

[cannedairspray]

If the West Coast was the one that was settled by Europeans first instead of the East Coast (obviously impossible, just pretend), I think it's very safe to imagine there would be a lot more, separate metro areas. In that case, Eureka could be a Baltimore or at least Savannah analogue.

[creamcityleo79]

Although, the idea of a bigger metro area up there is nice on paper, I prefer Eureka the way it is. I think it's the most beautiful place in the world.

[Urbanguy]

It was a major fishing port, huge player in the lumber trade and served as a base in support of the Gold Rush in that part of California. It is located in the 2nd largest Bay in California. I was just there back in June, lots of Victorian Architecture scattered through out -- I even went to the little Sequoia Park Zoo, the oldest zoo in all of California.

The town itself embraces art quite well but there's also a lot homeless living there and there appears to be quite a drug epidemic. Trying going to the Bayshore Mall, you'll see tons of them hanging out in the parking lot or in the fields/bushes right behind it.

The industries that once brought it a lot of wealth is almost non-existent -- the fishing/crabbing & timber industries are still important there but nothing like it was in the past.

I'd say tourism is probably among the most important sources of income as it's also very close to the Redwoods and well there's a lot of history and scenery to enjoy.

@ Pavlov's Dog, I'd say Aberdeen was the most depressing large town I've seen from Washington all the way to Eureka. I was there in May & although there are so many wonderful old buildings there it was a sad sight and such a contrast from the all of the growth, industry and wealth happening inland along the I-5 corridor.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Urbanguy

@ Pavlov's Dog, I'd say Aberdeen was the most depressing large town I've seen from Washington all the way to Eureka. I was there in May & although there are so many wonderful old buildings there it was a sad sight and such a contrast from the all of the growth, industry and wealth happening inland along the I-5 corridor.

aberdeen feels like a non-tourist supported small great lakes rustbelt/industrial city, which was pretty weird. the local culture/people felt the same and everything.

[Urbanguy]

^It does for sure, it also has decent bones to be redeveloped but unfortunately, the logging industry there just doesn't seem to be strong enough to support a thriving community.

Another huge thing that I had noticed about the Washington Coast from Aberdeen southward is that it doesn't appear to be as popular a place to live as it is in Oregon, for example. I saw a significant amount of abandoned homes along that route and sparse development until around Long Beach. Not that it's a bad thing -- it just was a very noticeable difference when compared to Oregon's Coast.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Urbanguy

^It does for sure, it also has decent bones to be redeveloped but unfortunately, the logging industry there just doesn't seem to be strong enough to support a thriving community.

Another huge thing that I had noticed about the Washington Coast from Aberdeen southward is that it doesn't appear to be as popular a place to live as it is in Oregon, for example. I saw a significant amount of abandoned homes along that route and sparse development until around Long Beach. Not that it's a bad thing -- it just was a very noticeable difference when compared to Oregon's Coast.

i noticed the same thing, driving a big loop around olympic national park. i think some of this is because the larger puget sound area absorbs the vacation home demand, and associated local economy, and the west coast is half-neglected, while coastal oregon is a much more popular tourist destination out of portland/wilmette valley. the coast is also more of a straight shot out of portland (kind of) while it's a bit more convoluted getting out of seattle.

also, i don't know this for a fact but the oregon coast is a bit more mild and sunny i think. i've actually swam in the ocean in oregon without a wetsuit...although not advisable most of the time. puget sound is a (bit) more swimmable and desirable for that kind of thing than the west coast of washington state.

[The North One]

Does the subduction zone go into California? If so that would be a really horrible spot for a big city right on the coast.

[Urbanguy]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

i noticed the same thing, driving a big loop around olympic national park. i think some of this is because the larger puget sound area absorbs the vacation home demand, and associated local economy, and the west coast is half-neglected, while coastal oregon is a much more popular tourist destination out of portland/wilmette valley. the coast is also more of a straight shot out of portland (kind of) while it's a bit more convoluted getting out of seattle.

also, i don't know this for a fact but the oregon coast is a bit more mild and sunny i think. i've actually swam in the ocean in oregon without a wetsuit...although not advisable most of the time. puget sound is a (bit) more swimmable and desirable for that kind of thing than the west coast of washington state.

Actually the entire Oregon Coast is quite popular even for places very far from Portland. Perhaps it's more of cultural difference & that there's lots to do too like riding ATV's, Dune Buggies, 4x4's or Bikes at various Sand Dunes, to crabbing, clamming, surfing to going to casinos and so on. Lot's of people also seem to have Beach Homes and Cottages.

However, there is something to be said about your statement in reference to being a straight shot to the coast.

For Portland -> Cannon Beach, Seaside to Astoria

Salem -> Lincoln City

Eugene -> Newport/Depoe Bay

Roseburg -> Coos Bay/North Bend, Bandon

So on and so forth.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Urbanguy

Actually the entire Oregon Coast is quite popular even for places very far from Portland. Perhaps it's more of cultural difference & that there's lots to do too like riding ATV's, Dune Buggies, 4x4's or Bikes at various Sand Dunes, to crabbing, clamming, surfing to going to casinos and so on. Lot's of people also seem to have Beach Homes and Cottages.

However, there is something to be said about your statement in reference to being a straight shot to the coast.

For Portland -> Cannon Beach, Seaside to Astoria

Salem -> Lincoln City

Eugene -> Newport/Depoe Bay

Roseburg -> Coos Bay/North Bend, Bandon

So on and so forth.

i also think there are more tribal considerations in western washington state but i don't know all of the details about that.

[Zerton]

Took a look at it on Google streetview because I don't know much about it. Looks totally dead downtown. Interesting given it has such a beautiful location. Was it an old mining town or something?

[austlar1]

Eureka has the potential to be a pretty nice little city. It has some good bones and a fair amount of early 20th Century housing stock built mostly from native Redwood. There is very little business activity there and not much in the way of economic opportunity. It has a Pacific Northwest climate which means it tends to be chilly, damp, and cloudy for much of the time. I was there twice for intentional getaways when I lived in San Francisco. Can't say why exactly, but the place appeals to me. The housing costs are certainly reasonable by California standards.

[Innsertnamehere]

I drove through it a few years ago on the way to the redwoods from San Francisco. It's an economically depressed town, almost felt right at home in the rust belt, as others have mentioned. It's quite unusual for California.

That whole stretch of 101 feels more like rural Maine or West Virginia in its distinctive American rural poverty type feel.. which is very different than what you see in the rural areas in Southern California through the Central Valley.

[CaliNative]

Fact: early in his military career after the Mexican-U.S war, Ulysses Grant was posted to Fort Humboldt near present day Eureka. The remoteness and often bleak, cloudy, cold and rainy weather drove him to drink and depression. Shortly thereafter he left the army, only to return after the outbreak of the Civil War. Typical Eureka seasons: Winter: cold, rainy; Spring: rainy, cool; Summer: usually overcast, cool; Fall: some sun, often the best weather, but still usually cool. The rains start up by October. Sunny days above 75 degrees F. are rare.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by The North One

Does the subduction zone go into California? If so that would be a really horrible spot for a big city right on the coast.

I think the Cascadia subduction zone starts up offshore of Eureka, where the San Andreas fault ends at the Mendocino triple junction. California does have a couple of active Cascade volcanos, Mt. Lassen and Mt. Shasta about 100 miles east of Eureka. The Eureka area does have periodic sizable quakes from the offshore faults, but although they are sometimes over magnitude 7, the fact that they occur many miles offshore and are on deep faults usually produces only moderate damage. However, if there was a repeat of the giant Cascadia quake of 1700 (magnitude 9+), it would possibly cause major shaking and tsunamis from Eureka north to British Columbia. But those occur only every 500 years or so. Could be 100s of years before the next one.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Zerton

Took a look at it on Google streetview because I don't know much about it. Looks totally dead downtown. Interesting given it has such a beautiful location. Was it an old mining town or something?

It was a lumbering center--redwood timber--but it was isolated from the rail hubs because the terrain east of there is very mountainous.

The lumber was brought down the coast in sailing ships one of which is tied up on the San Francisco waterfront as a museum. But the rail head too much farther south in Sacramento/Stockton and eventually Emeryville.

Many of the old buildings--pre-earthquake--in San Francisco were built entirely of redwood.

C.A. Thayer (a coastal lumber ship, now a museum)

https://www.museumships.us/merchantmarine/c-a-thayer