I know there are many geological origins for these mountains, but from a geographical pov, is it ever addressed as just a single geographical feature?

This is inspired by an earlier post on the most beautiful city in the world.

In my opinion, it is Yemen’s capital Sana’a. Its old city is a UNESCO world heritage site. It is an architectural wonderland with multi-layered structures. It is on a 2200m plateau surrounded by higher mountains. The old city is massive and walled with more than 60,000 inhabitants.

A host of US cities do a great job of taking advantage of their geographical proximity to water. New York, Chicago, Boston, Seattle, Miami and others come to mind when thinking who did it well.

What US city has done the opposite? Whether due to poor city planning, shrinking population, flood controls (which I admittedly know little about), etc., who has wasted their city's location by either doing nothing on the waterfront, or putting a bunch of crap there?

Also, I'm talking broad, navigable water, not a dried up river bed, although even towns like Tempe, AZ have done significantly more than many places.

[Pictured: Hartford, CT, on the Connecticut River]

I imagine with all the bottom soil being brought to the surface, all the organic remains left behind on the battle field and I guess a lot of sulfur and nitrogen is also added to the soil. So the answer is probably yes?

Inspired by an earlier post regarding how DC and Baltimore might eventually merge into one.

I found it pretty fascinating how there’s so many examples of how 2 metropolitan areas relatively close to one another could potentially merge into one single metro in the next 50 or so years. Here are some examples, but I’d love to hear of more in the comments, or hear as to why one of these wouldn’t merge into one any time soon.

1. San Antonio ≈ 2.7M and Austin ≈ 2.5M — 5.2M
2. Chicago ≈ 9.3M and Milwaukee ≈ 1.6M — 10.9M
3. DC ≈ 6.3M and Baltimore ≈ 2.8M — 9.1M
4. Cincinnati ≈ 2.3M and Dayton ≈ 0.8M — 2.9M
5. Denver ≈ 3M and CO Springs ≈ 0.8M — 3.8M

Wish I could add more photos of the other examples .

I’m going with Boston

What are some other nations with no natural phenomena in comparison to any other nation in the world ?

I'm so confused right now, how come I've never noticed this huge ass sea right next to my own country, Turkey, in my 23 long years?

And I'd say I'm decently educated in geography, I can point out most countries on a map, can associate most flags with their countries, know the capitals of at least all western countries and other somewhat prominent ones etc. As a kid I had a large world map hung over my desk, I really enjoyed spending time just analyzing it, finding countries and mountain ranges I'd never heard about, regions that looked curious etc.

But for some reason I never noticed the Caspian Sea until today? Like at all? I feel like I've never heard or seen it anywhere, despite looking at maps so frequently, up until today? When I yet again came across a map of the middle east, but this time there was this huge sea...

I feel like I must've hit my head while asleep, jeez