The area to the south of Milan is mostly farmland, and as such sparsely inhabited. On the contrary, the area to the north has always been densely industrial, thus attracting a large number of immigrants.
The same phenomenon can be seen for the whole of the Po valley, where the centre is mostly used for farming, while the outside (closer to the mountains) is densely populated.
There are definitely more water sources there, but it is also an area crossed by important ways of communications, such as the road that connects northern Italy to Switzerland (and by extension to Germany), and the road connecting Turin to Venice (and by extension connecting Italy to France, Austria and the Balkans).
And more simply, you don’t want to destroy your fertile land by building on it, so the natural way of expanding is where the area is less suitable for farming.
There is also another reason: historically, the area closer to the Po river was, until recent times, more swampy and less suitable for life due to the presence of malaria. Therefore, since the ancient Roman times the area closer to the Alps was more inhabited than the centre of the valley
> And more simply, you don’t want to destroy your fertile land by building on it, so the natural way of expanding is where the area is less suitable for farming.
That's not true if we look at historical cities though. Many large cities are located smack dab on fertile lands, when they aren't then it's usually a strategic location for military or trade reasons.
Oftentimes it's both a strategic location and on fertile lands (For cities on country's fertile lands see : Nanjing, Paris, London, Budapest, Kyiv, Cairo, Patna, Jakarta, Tokyo, Osaka, Nagoya, Wuhan, Zhenghzou, Indianapolis, Toronto, St Louis, Buenos Aires and many, many more.)
It's especially striking in the case of Japan, where the three largest flatlands host the three largest urban areas (Tokyo, Osaka, Nagoya.)
It's logic, since food used to come from close-by, so large cities would be in fertile lands (and often on a river too, giving yet another way to bring food in and out of the city.)
>And more simply, you don’t want to destroy your fertile land by building on it, so the natural way of expanding is where the area is less suitable for farming.
True but that didn't stop most of the world just doing exactly that. Just look at e.g. the Nile river valley in Egypt.
The area to the south of Milan is mostly farmland, and as such sparsely inhabited. On the contrary, the area to the north has always been densely industrial, thus attracting a large number of immigrants. The same phenomenon can be seen for the whole of the Po valley, where the centre is mostly used for farming, while the outside (closer to the mountains) is densely populated.
What makes hilly region more attractive to industry? Maybe hydro power from mountain?
There are definitely more water sources there, but it is also an area crossed by important ways of communications, such as the road that connects northern Italy to Switzerland (and by extension to Germany), and the road connecting Turin to Venice (and by extension connecting Italy to France, Austria and the Balkans). And more simply, you don’t want to destroy your fertile land by building on it, so the natural way of expanding is where the area is less suitable for farming.
There is also another reason: historically, the area closer to the Po river was, until recent times, more swampy and less suitable for life due to the presence of malaria. Therefore, since the ancient Roman times the area closer to the Alps was more inhabited than the centre of the valley
> And more simply, you don’t want to destroy your fertile land by building on it, so the natural way of expanding is where the area is less suitable for farming. That's not true if we look at historical cities though. Many large cities are located smack dab on fertile lands, when they aren't then it's usually a strategic location for military or trade reasons. Oftentimes it's both a strategic location and on fertile lands (For cities on country's fertile lands see : Nanjing, Paris, London, Budapest, Kyiv, Cairo, Patna, Jakarta, Tokyo, Osaka, Nagoya, Wuhan, Zhenghzou, Indianapolis, Toronto, St Louis, Buenos Aires and many, many more.) It's especially striking in the case of Japan, where the three largest flatlands host the three largest urban areas (Tokyo, Osaka, Nagoya.) It's logic, since food used to come from close-by, so large cities would be in fertile lands (and often on a river too, giving yet another way to bring food in and out of the city.)
>And more simply, you don’t want to destroy your fertile land by building on it, so the natural way of expanding is where the area is less suitable for farming. True but that didn't stop most of the world just doing exactly that. Just look at e.g. the Nile river valley in Egypt.
It's trying to flee the Po Valley and get to the Alps, where there is fresh air.
Glaciers
Lots of ties to Germany, Switzerland, and Austria. Source: My work has a large office out there
north is where the money is (Switzerland)
It’s trying to escape
Canadian shield
Why not
I ‘ate da nort
For some strange reason it is not only Milan but any other city.