HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #161  
Old Posted Oct 20, 2017, 3:15 AM
Citylover94 Citylover94 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtown,man View Post
Very well thought out and interesting to read man.
Thanks I spent more time thinking about all of that than I want to admit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #162  
Old Posted Oct 20, 2017, 3:14 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is offline
Registered Putz
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 22,342
Quote:
Originally Posted by Citylover94 View Post
This one always intrigued me.

New England almost decided to secede from the United States because they were upset that the war of 1812 would be disastrous to the New England economy which was heavily based on trade with other countries as New England relied on importing raw goods and then exporting the finished goods that it's factories produced. I imagine that if New England had decided to secede in 1812 over economic concerns so that it could maintain trading ties with Britain and if the secession had been allowed which it may have been because the constitution had only been signed 25 years before so having several states leave may not have been opposed.

If that had happened I expect a couple things would have occurred either the South would secede earlier and successfully or the rest of the United States may have kept slavery legal for much longer because New England was a major player in the push to end slavery.

As far as New England's development goes in this scenario I expect that with such a highly developed industrialized economy at least by the standards of that time that without the pressures from the United States to limit trade as occurred on and off throughout the 1800's and early 1900's the economy of New England would have remained more centered on trade and may have not lost factories to other areas as quickly as it did because they could not be tempted out of the area as easily by other states as started to happen as early as the 1920's with de-industrialization starting to become an issue earlier for New England than any other region.

Another interesting difference is that New England is likely to have maintained neutrality throughout many conflicts that the United States has been involved in because their history and economy in this situation would push them to try and keep trade open to best support their own economy; whereas, the United States as a whole has never had as much concern about trade as New England and was more likely to involve itself in conflicts with many of the moderating voices being from New England politicians. Because of the attempt to maintain neutrality and the strong banking infrastructure that had been present in Boston in particular since early in its history I also think is may have become something of a banking/investment safe haven.

Independent New England

Capital: Boston
States: Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont (Maine would not exist because it was created as a compromise later on to maintain the balance of slave and free states so it would still be part of Massachusetts)
Population 2017: 20-30 million (assuming less people would emigrate to the United States as happened IRL because the immigration process would be harder than just moving to a new region of the same country, as well as higher population growth in the 1800's and early 1900's)
Population density: 319-478 ppsm
Largest Cities 2017
1. Boston
2. Worcester
3. Providence
4. Springfield
5. New Haven
6. Hartford
7. Cambride
8. Lowell
9.Quincy
10. Bridgeport
(with NYC being in a separate country the cities in CT that grew largely as a result of NYC's influence no longer make the top 10 largest cities in New England with several Boston area cities moving up several spots having absorbed more of the population and economic growth. This also would have made the development in Westchester, Northern NJ and LI even more intense)

What about the Interstate Highway System?
With a much smaller area and a very strong rail network and a geography that makes building highways difficult in many areas (mountains/rivers) it is likely New England would have only a limited number of limited access highways likely only connecting cities and not extending into them with rail travel as the most common way to travel within the country because the distances are too short for air travel to compete well with rail and lowered demand for large numbers of limited access highways because the
country is relatively small and dense. A country with a similar network to what I would expect is Italy.

One interesting parallel in this alternate history would be that New England spearheaded the secession from England over concerns around trade and its economy and then would have done the same thing just a few years later in seceding from the United States.
very interesting take down. But you forgot poor Manchestah though in your Top 10 city list. I'm curious if VT would have gotten much bigger since it would be bordering 2 countries with Burlington being major economic hub from activity between the rest of the US, Canada and New England. Also could mean Plattsburgh on the other side of Lake Champlain in NY could have grown to as a result of increased economic activity.
__________________
Castigat ridendo mores
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #163  
Old Posted Oct 20, 2017, 3:39 PM
Citylover94 Citylover94 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 195
I had debated how much Burlington would of grown but even if it were twice as large it would still be smaller than many other cities and Portland would likely be larger than Burlington still so I don't think it would have made a top 10 population list. Although there is a chance that Boston and Montreal would have developed stronger ties and have in a way fed each others growth more leading Burlington to be much larger than it is today. It is hard to say. In some ways the Champlain Valley, northern Maine and the Pioneer Valley in Massachusetts would likely have become New England's main domestic farming areas as they are the easiest and most productive areas to farm in with the largest amount of fertile and relatively flat land in the region. So maybe Burlington, Portland, and Springfield would have functioned as distribution cities for food much as Chicago did for the United States. It is hard to say.

Manchester vs Bridgeport was a big debate for me because they would likely be much closer in size, but I gave Bridgeport the edge because although NYC is now in a different country I think it still would have had a greater likelihood of just edging out Manchester because even before it was absorbed into the NYC area fully as the suburbs developed more in the postwar era it was already far larger than Manchester. For example by 1920 it had just under twice the population of Manchester. But this one is a toss up.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #164  
Old Posted Oct 20, 2017, 3:56 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is offline
Registered Putz
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 22,342
Or would have Vermont, said screw this, go it alone and become it's own country. again.

I think a good deal of coastal CT would have still thrived and grown due to naval and ship building industries and evolved into port cities later on. Not as NYC bedroom communities but in their own right.
__________________
Castigat ridendo mores
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #165  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2017, 3:09 AM
Citylover94 Citylover94 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 195
I don't think so Vermont always planned to join the United States even when it was writing it's own constitution it just couldn't immediately so I think it would have stayed as part of the new country of New England.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #166  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2017, 5:00 AM
LSyd's Avatar
LSyd LSyd is offline
Red October standing by
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Columbia/Sumter, SC
Posts: 16,815
Quote:
Originally Posted by Centropolis View Post
come at me alt timeline bro! *blows rails over 19th century rail maps*



i.makeagif.com


blogspot.com

2 FAR!!!!!


-
__________________
"The vapors! The fainting couch! Those heartless elitists are burning down the plantation with their logic and arithmetic!"

-fflint
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #167  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2017, 5:11 AM
LSyd's Avatar
LSyd LSyd is offline
Red October standing by
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Columbia/Sumter, SC
Posts: 16,815
Quote:
Originally Posted by caligrad View Post
Well it depends.

I think there were more reasons why Galveston never recovered. Maybe it was all about timing.

Just 6 years later, the great San Francisco earthquake completely destroyed the bay area, somewhere like 90% of the city was wiped out, if not by the earthquake, by the fire. Yet. fast forward to today, San Francisco and the bay area is booming, even with routine earthquakes every few decades. LA as well, although never destroyed, has routine earthquake every few decades, yet still managed to be the second largest city in the nation. Its all about timing i think in Galvestons case.

I mean... Galveston is literally the Miami beach of Texas/Houston in regards to Geography when looking at them both from above. Nearly 120 years later, whats stopping Galveston from booming since everyone of any living memory of the Hurricane are long gone. Beacsue... Miami Beach is booming under near identical conditions.
while i'd love to see an alternate Galveston that went boomboomboom through the 20s, it wouldn't be the same charming laidback historical resort city it is, especially after the shitstorm of 50s-60s urban renewal ripped up the density it would've had.

then later hurricanes would've still maybe doomed some of its gorgeous ego towers.

rustbelt? i see why it's described that way, but it is really truly New Orleans' little Texas cousin.

-
__________________
"The vapors! The fainting couch! Those heartless elitists are burning down the plantation with their logic and arithmetic!"

-fflint
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #168  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2017, 6:18 AM
balletomane balletomane is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 504
I often wonder what Alberta would be like without its oil booms, and Canada as well. Maybe some "have not" provinces like those in Atlantic Canada and Manitoba/Saskatchewan would be larger as they would've lost less people due to interprovincial migration, that is assuming Canada still had 36 million people today.
Alberta had smaller oil booms like the Turner Valley, but it was in 1947 when Leduc No. 1 was drilled that really changed things. Up until then the three prairie provinces were like "three peas in a pod" and their population growth and size were more or less the same. From 1941-1946, Alberta grew from 796,000 to 803,000, but from 1946-1951 the province grew from 803,000 to 940,000, far outpacing the two other prairie provinces.
I think an Alberta without the oil booms would see Winnipeg as the premier city in the prairies with about 800,000 residents. Edmonton and Calgary would follow with about 400,000 to 450,000 residents. I actually think Edmonton would be the larger city in the province without oil but not by much, following the Depression the city surpassed Calgary and perhaps bring home to the provincial government it would have stayed number one. Cities like Fort McMurray and Grande Prairie would be little more than northern settlements and the five largest cities in the province would be Edmonton (450,000), Calgary (400,000), Lethbridge (40,000), Medicine Hat (30,000) and Red Deer (20,000). The province itself would be about the same size as Manitoba, so Saskatchewan would still be the least populous of the prairie provinces.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #169  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2017, 6:29 AM
Docere Docere is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 3,019
^ Montana with cities?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #170  
Old Posted Dec 7, 2017, 6:26 PM
JoePDX JoePDX is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePhun1 View Post
Let's talk about places that could be different and major cities. I know Cairo, Illinois gets brought up from time to time but I'll keep it local.

Imagine if there was no such thing as hurricanes or if they were no bigger than a minor tropical storm. How impressive would Galveston be today? Ignoring that the city is susceptible to sinking like New Orleans, I'd say it'd be one of the more bragged about cities on this forum and a fine piece of urbanity.
A lot of you are forgetting urban history. A good deal of why some cities grow faster or boom or not boom have a lot to do Not with natural location but with how they are promoted and who is invested in their promotion. People or certain individuals are sometimes the factor. DeWitt Clinton the mayor of New York was the big promoter of the Erie canal, and we see what happened to New York. Granted, its location would have been enough to secure a major City, but who knows how the actions of a certain individual can promote that growth even further and start a growth spiral. I know my home City of Lynchburg Virginia was the biggest city in the western part of Virginia at one time, but promoters in Big Lick, now Roanoke, sought to put a railroad junction there instead and it grew larger. Also later because of lobbyists in Charlottesville, Interstate 64 was chosen to go there instead of going through Lynchburg. We all know how interstates promote growth.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #171  
Old Posted Dec 8, 2017, 1:36 AM
ThePhun1 ThePhun1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Houston/Galveston
Posts: 1,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Citylover94 View Post
I had debated how much Burlington would of grown but even if it were twice as large it would still be smaller than many other cities and Portland would likely be larger than Burlington still so I don't think it would have made a top 10 population list. Although there is a chance that Boston and Montreal would have developed stronger ties and have in a way fed each others growth more leading Burlington to be much larger than it is today. It is hard to say. In some ways the Champlain Valley, northern Maine and the Pioneer Valley in Massachusetts would likely have become New England's main domestic farming areas as they are the easiest and most productive areas to farm in with the largest amount of fertile and relatively flat land in the region. So maybe Burlington, Portland, and Springfield would have functioned as distribution cities for food much as Chicago did for the United States. It is hard to say.

Manchester vs Bridgeport was a big debate for me because they would likely be much closer in size, but I gave Bridgeport the edge because although NYC is now in a different country I think it still would have had a greater likelihood of just edging out Manchester because even before it was absorbed into the NYC area fully as the suburbs developed more in the postwar era it was already far larger than Manchester. For example by 1920 it had just under twice the population of Manchester. But this one is a toss up.
Burlington is so small and insignificant it's barely even on the first page of Google results when you type it in, with Burlington Coat Factory obviously dominating the page.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #172  
Old Posted Dec 8, 2017, 1:05 PM
Citylover94 Citylover94 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 195
Trust me I know how tiny Burlington is which is why in my alternate history timeline for New England as an independent country it wasn't mentioned. The reason I mention top 10 cities is Manchester, NH and Burlington, VT were asked about in regards to whether they would be bigger than I projected in the scenario of a pre-War of 1812 New England Secession which was discussed at the time by New England. The other poster thought Burlington might have become a major trading point between Canada and New England and I was stating how even if it did become a major trade city and grew more than it had I don't think it would have been all that large, but it is hard to say when you mess with a historical timeline as much as a New England Secession would have.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #173  
Old Posted Dec 8, 2017, 6:56 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is offline
Registered Putz
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 22,342
Burlington is so small that even if it doubled in population, it would still be under 100k but on the larger end of New England cities. Another alternative would be that VT remained part of New York and Burlington, Bennington and Brattleboro became industrial centers like those in upstate NY. Fortunatly, that never happened...
__________________
Castigat ridendo mores
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:34 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.