Good and bad cities

We've already talked as a class about many of the cities that were originally placed in both good and bad locations.  It seems that the best locations are those closest to a river or waterway, but not in a flood plain.  These locations provide both a good water supply for crops and other needs, but as well as a means of transporting goods.  I had actually already thought about Macon originally being in a well thought-out place.  Other cities that were built in what I believe to be good locations are Rome, which was built on the hills surrounding the Tiber River, and Istanbul (Constantinople); the actual layout of these cities as of today are not very organized, however.  A city that is actually in a decent location and is surprisingly well laid-out is Moscow, Russia.  By looking at a satellite image you can see that it's built around a river, and fans out in a circular pattern from this central point with a grid pattern in between.

Of course bad locations for cities are places where resources are not readily available, and have to be shipped in from other locations.  As we've already talked about, bad locations are places like the middle of the desert, where water and other supplies are a hot commodity.  Phoenix, Arizona is a prime example of a city in such a location; it does have a very organized grid-style layout, however. 

I guess maybe what would make an ideal city of tomorrow would be something along a good waterway with an organized layout (something like Moscow).  Goods and services would need to be placed somewhat evenly throughout the city.  It would also need a good infrastructure and public transportation to help people reach these locations easier and at the same time cut down on air pollution.