I've always wanted to know why it seems like the central and south american natives were city builders and north american natives didn't bother. Is there any reason for this as the weather and soil in North America is usually stable and the soil is fertile for structured agriculture and development.
First of all, the pedantic observation about how Mexico and Mesoamerica, including the Mayab and Anahuac regions in general are smack down in the sub-continent we call North America, despite me obviously knowing you're talking about modern US and Canada territories.
Now if we are talking about Native American groups from what is now the US and Canada, we have plenty of examples of cities and complex systems of both agriculture, trade and political nature, I'd recommend the following posts by u/Reedstilt:
It is true that many of them (though by no means all) had been abandoned by the time of contact with a prevaling theory pointing to a great draught that ocurred during the 12th-13th century in the region, though this didnt mean the collapse of ALL societies or settlements in the region, with many early european explorers making note of "encampements" (more like cities) expanding, "well beyond what the eye can see in the distance filled with people going on with their lives", other factors that should be taken into account is that many notes on Native American populations were made after competition for land with colonizers began and helped reduce the density of populations and settlements in the regions. Factors including the political instability and conflicts that the arrival of europeans caused along with the introduction of alien fauna and diseases, as the so called American genocide is probably one of, if not the greatest in human history, even in regions were it could be made (as administrative bodies that survived the conquest existed), like in Mesoamerica were estimates can be made, the implications of it are... concerning to say the least, needless to say estimates are harder to come by in regions like the US.
It should be noted also, that many times North America is seen as some huge abandoned plain that had no contact or commercial structures between its communities, which is just untrue, I'd also recommend you check the FAQ section on pre-columbian North America.
So, I can't speak about the commonness of cities other than to reiterate what was pointed out by Reedstilt - that what is now the USA/Canada (particularly the riverine central and eastern portions) were densely populated by communities. Be they "towns," "villages," or ..."cities"? The most famous one is also the least controversially called a city: Cahokia. This place had 10k people in the low estimates, and upwards to a few 10's of thousands of people (say 20 or 30k) for higher ones. But somewhere around this number would make it about the same size as contemporary London during this time (ca. 1000-1300 CE). Besides that, what I can talk about is things that I've posted about earlier, like huge structures in North America here.
Firstly, it's important to remember that the lower Mississippi area features the earliest monumental architecture (in the form of mounds) done in the entire Americas, starting ca. 4000 BCE and onward, with a notable early site being Watson Brake, and a notably later site Poverty Point. This mound building tradition began before pyramid-mounds over in Peru and much earlier than in Mexico which has pyramid-mounds ca. 1500 BCE. But in my post, I focus more on later buildings:
When speaking about unique and huge buildings in North America, the first thing that comes to mind for many people are pueblos. These are interconnected villages formed of stacked houses in a honey-comb like design, these houses being closed, for storage, in regular use, an elite’s house, or a ritual pit-house. The Ancestral Puebloans who created these aren’t a singular group, but are 6 (7 at contact) language families of farmers who shared this architectural style and elements of masquerade culture. During the imaginatively defined “Pueblo period”, they built some astoundingly huge honeycomb villages such as at Pueblo Bonito in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico 1 2 3 4, Salmon Pueblo, Yucca House, Goodman Point Pueblo, Kin Tiel, and Puye Pueblo, which had around 1000 rooms! The largest pueblos have 1000+ rooms, some of the largest are a group of pueblos made by the ancestors of the current pueblo of Walatowa (Jemez). One of these is Kwastiyukwa, built in the late 13th century, this pueblo has 1250 rooms officially (according to Michael Elliot) though he estimates its peak at 1300-2600 rooms, others give higher room counts such as William Whatley’s work (referenced at the Jemez visitor’s center) which says 2000-3000 rooms. Whatever the number might be, it was a huge structure being either 4-5 stories tall (says David Roberts) or 5-7 stories tall (says Dennis Holloway). Nearby pueblos also ancestral to Walatowa are large as well, with Tovakwa having around 1850 rooms.
It is a common theme in North America (and perhaps elsewhere) that people make ritual buildings in pseudo-antique styles, and mixed in with houses and storage rooms in these pueblos are often multiple semi-subterranean ritual buildings called kivas. These are designed after pit-houses which Ancestral Puebloans had lived in during earlier periods. These buildings were designed for assemblies and are huge, such as Chetro Ketl Great Kiva. To understand their grandeur, there is a reconstructed great kiva at Aztec Pueblo, Aztec Ruins National Monument 1 2 3. Contemporary to the Ancestral Puebloans were the Hohokam (Huhugam) people of southern Arizona, the ancestors of modern O’odham peoples. These farmers adopted more influence from Mesoamerica proper, adopting platform pyramids (on which elite houses were built) and ball-courts. Sometimes they also built huge communal houses/temples such as at Los Muertos which was 180x120’ (36.5x24.5m) and 4-7 (though more likely only 4) stories tall as mentioned here on page 17.
While pueblos have some cultural cache, many other groups across North America made truly huge buildings. The largest I know of is Tsu-Suc-Cub (Old-Man-House) in Puget Sound, with its frames pictured here ca. 1875 some time after its destruction. This huge longhouse sheltered over 600 Suquamish and Duwamish people and was the residence of Chief Seattle. It stretched more than 380 yards (347.5m) long, although other estimates are only 900’ (275m) or less. Regardless it’s still much larger than the second largest longhouse that I know of, the Haudenosaunee longhouse built in the late 1300’s at Howlett Hill near Syracuse, New York. This longhouse was 334’ (102m) long and 23’ (7m) wide, the floor plan seen here.
So while this information is a great balance to the usual narrative...it is true that the Aztecs and the Incas were much larger than "states" up in North America: Chaco Canyon influenced an area 'about the size of Utah', the Haudenosaunee were large as well, and Cahokia conquered Fisher Mounds in Trempealeau Wisconsin Pauketat et al. some 560 river miles north (!) This is a huge feat and shows that Cahokia did have a huge influence, but this does not mean Cahokia controlled 500 square miles around itself. In the end, while these mega-polities did exist, they were not the norm. People lived in smaller communities and smaller polities with less hierarchy, and that that was intentional. This has been talked about by Lewis Borck in some talks which you may enjoy 1 2. But I should mention that the notion that there are no cities or huge buildings in North America is often tied to baggage, in effect saying that Mexico and Peru are the real civilizations in the Americas whereas North America was practically uninhabited. I've talked about this in a post here about that word and its use in history. To quote:
But besides all these "civilizations" with those familiar multi-story structures, there are many more who didn't use stone at all. Peoples who used perishable materials for their houses, created earthworks instead of stone temples, and lived in palatial long-houses instead of stone palaces. As history unfolded, these powerful "nations" were dealt with on a nation-to-nation basis. And for European governments, what other way was there to react to the Haudenosaunee in the 17th century - as their gun-toting armies conquered much of north-eastern North America. And what else could the Spaniards do when the Pueblos unified and revolted in 1680? Those Spaniards who refused to accept suzerainty were simply executed.
But this power did not last. As the Haudenosaunee's confederated empire was dismantled in the late 18th century; the newly independent Euro-Americans could tell themselves that they had never really been there at all. This of course, disregards all the stone structures which must have dotted the landscape of the northeastern United States at Euro-American contact. When the pilgrims found Pawtuxet deserted surrounded by corn fields, their hypothesis was confirmed as well. God had granted them this land, the previous peoples had left it for them; this was divine providence.
