New Orleans was an island in the middle of a swamp surrounded by a leaky three foot levee in 1718. John Law's land scheme was a dismal failure for thousands of Frenchmen. New Orleans didn't begin to grow signifigantly until the early 1800s, and only then after importation of thousands of African slaves.
Floods may be easily dealt with by geographic identification of the flood plains before construction or, in the case of New Orleans, a system of levies an dams to control them.
As opposed to a natural, sheltered, deep water harbor that doesn't need constant dredging and is free of ice year round? (lol)
Heat can be dealt with by the human body in a significantly greater capacity than freeze.
The death toll differences between the northern and southern colonies tell a different story, at least among the northern european settlers.
Yeah, and New York, or New Amsterdam as it was called in its early days, did not experience significant growth until after 1700. For over a year after it was founded in 1625 the land ownership wasn't even certain and the city was little more than a trading post. Most cities on this continent followed similar paths before becoming something certain. Regardless, my original point stands: NYC did NOT have a two-century advantage over New Orleans as less than a century separated their foundings.
As opposed to a natural, sheltered, deep water harbor that doesn't need constant dredging and is free of ice year round?
Yeah, a natural harbor at the northern extremity of the nation. A central location at the mouth of the continent's largest waterway is still preferable to that.
The death toll differences between the northern and southern colonies tell a different story, at least among the northern european settlers.
The fact that they landed in NYC in no reasonable way attests to a climate preference. In fact, the main testimony to that is found in the actions of their descendants who flock in waves to Florida as soon as other more pressing factors and their retirement permits them.