Submitted by gham1 t3_10szif0 in Washington
I know there’s several factors to the answer I’m seeking, but I was thinking about how the northern pacific coast, compared to the northern pacific coast, is really pristine- way less population, industry, etc. Coasts are usually where populations concentrate. But not so much in WA. What factors do you think have the most impact in keeping the coast beautifully under-peopled?
It’s called Point Defiance because the US military set up cannons on both sides, making the waterway a death zone for any British or Spanish ships coming in to fuck around. Later, forts were built up along the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Not even the Japanese could get through with submarines. Oh and occasionally old forgotten sea mines rust out their chains and come bobbing up like corks.
Great answer. I always wondered about this.
Distance, lack of infrastructure, people don't really want to live there, large part is Res. land. Did I mention distance.
Also Jack shit for jobs, rampant meth use, property theft, coastal flooding, brutal weather…
Yeah, it’s depressing af. Like if you took depression and made it into a place.
It’s called “Dismal Nitch,” “Cape Disappointment”, and “Point No Point” for a reason.
Colder / wetter weather than the more popular southern beaches. Also distance from major freeways.
> how the northern pacific coast, compared to the northern pacific coast,
Huh?
This confused me too but context clues make me think they meant northern Pacific coast compared to southern Pacific coast.
Anyway the answer is 100% the weather lol
It rains even more on the coast. And the geography is pretty rough out there generally speaking, with less open flat land and rockier coastlines. The coastal mountain ranges also don't help with access to the rest of the country.
The west coast north of California wasn't settled by Europeans until the mid-1800's. The only way to get people and supplies in, and product out, was by sea. Populations concentrate around transportation hubs. There are only two seaports on the Washington coast between the Columbia River and the Strait of Juan de Fuca: Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor.
The Spanish, Russians, and British charted the coastline throughout the 1700’s and 1800’s. The Russians only gave a shit about shooting otters for furs. And shooting Inuit for fun. Once they wiped out all the otters between Alaska and San Francisco, they pretty much pulled up stakes and sold Alaska to The USA as a big Fuck You to the British which was colonizing Canada. The Russian Empire wanted a buffer between Siberia and the British. The War with Mexico added pretty much everything north of the Rio Grande to the US. The Gadsen Purchase added a bit more land in Southern Arizona to build a railroad. This is a short-ass version of history. I left out the Indian Wars and the near extinction of the deer and elk herds.
The Olympic Mountains limit the available land on the WA coast to a pretty narrow strip, and Puget Sound's qualities make it a far better spot to build major ports.
Thanks to Grays Harbor, I don’t think there needed to be much settlement on Washington’s coast to link the Puget Sound to California.
Being like the largest harbor between here and San Francisco, it also had Chehalis River providing a direct route into the prairies of the South Sound.
And also the port is one day closer to Asia than any other port on the west coast.
[removed]
https://twitter.com/USCGPacificNW/status/1621613914093154306?s=20&t=Rzzi5Iy8iG3zdzi924dd1Q
My brother lived in Aberdeen for two years. He moved away after he almost hanged himself.
MagicWalrusO_o t1_j74gztq wrote
Because Puget Sound is one of the best natural harbors on earth, so settlement focused there. Same reason why Vancouver and Victoria don't face directly onto the Pacific.