Alternate history of cities

[badrunner]

Yeah even Baton Rouge has better rail infrastructure than New Orleans. Railroad history is inextricably linked to the growth and decline of American cities. Another "could have been" scenario is San Diego which came *this* close to becoming the major Pacific seaport, but for the lack of rail infrastructure.

Here's a documentary about the San Diego railroad:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id2y3eT5dC8

[Centropolis]

you can then circle back around to montreal as the continental seat of a far older power structure (at least of what is today canada and the heart of the present day united states).

montreal beget new orleans, new orleans beget st. louis, st. louis beget what is today kansas city (by st. louis creoles believe it or not).

[Centropolis]

theres an entirely different alternate timeline there. what if new france (or new spain for that matter) had stayed intact? it would have been very hard to hold the english speaking colonies/british empire/america off, though.

[lio45]

It was guaranteed not to stay intact, it was very empty and the thirteen colonies were getting packed. In no possible alternate timeline does the U.S. not reach its manifest destiny of touching the Pacific.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by lio45

It was guaranteed not to stay intact, it was very empty and the thirteen colonies were getting packed. In no possible alternate timeline does the U.S. not reach its manifest destiny of touching the Pacific.

maybe someone else could chime in but i don't think the u.s. was inevitable. north america could have ended up like south america, divided more by language and border into less powerful contries. i can envision multiple english speaking countries (like 3-4), surrounded by one wealthy french and more than one spanish speaking one.

[lio45]

I don't really see several neighboring British colonies not uniting upon trying to gain their independence, but I suppose there's definitely an alternate timeline in which the CSA outlasts the Yankee will to fight (slavery would've lived a few decades max there, anyway) and they remain separate countries.

In that timeline, African Americans don't move north to work in factories, so it completely changes the demographics (and culture too) of the two countries.

And I agree that it would probably have been possible for France to buy peace with Britain by giving them all the Mississippi valley and "Upper Countries" (the Great Lakes area) for free. In this case, the colony of Canada would probably have evolved into a separate country (today's Quebec). It would likely have merged with Acadia. (Louisiana, I'm not sure could have been kept separate; I see it getting gobbled up by whatever the Thirteen Colonies become, in all possible timelines, possibly by peaceful demographics change or else conquest.)

[ChiMIchael]

I wonder if Philly would have been more competitive with NYC if canals were made to connect the it to Pittsburgh.

[coyotetrickster]

Originally Posted by ChiMIchael

I wonder if Philly would have been more competitive with NYC if canals were made to connect the it to Pittsburgh.

There was no engineering at the time the Erie Canal was built that could have overcome the heights of the Allegheny Range at an affordable price. The Erie Canal has a height differential of 595, stretched over a much longer distance, than the general height of the Alleghenies (4,800 general range of the mountains). Additionally, the distance to get ships to that height was substantially shorter than the gradual climb for the Erie. Plus, lake traffic opened up much cheaper agricultural and commodities to shipping to NYC.

[Qubert]

As it relates to Galveston: What happened historically makes sense. Even if the 1900 storm didn't happen the city would've had zero room to grow. Houston was going to happen on way or another.

New Orleans was doomed by railroads. Once you could get from the BOS-WAS corridor to CHI/STL and beyond in a day rather than paddle down the coast then up the Mississippi it was over. The fact it's as big as it is is due to oil.

NYC would have boomed with or without the Erie Canal. Yes, it helped, there's no denying that, but someone would've put a railroad between CHI and Albany and it would have had the same effect. Philly and Boston do not have a geographically advantageous corridor to the west the way the Mohawk Valley cuts a free run between Syracuse and Troy. Any canal or rail line to PHL/BOS has to cut through mountain after mountain. Not to mention, the financial interests of the colonies had already established a deep network in Manhattan even before the revolution. I don't think any other colonial city had the financial infrastructure of NY.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by badrunner

It's a shame it couldn't hang on to that position to the present day. It would have been a far more interesting city than others that took its place. Railroads really spelled the end for the Mississippi trade networks.

Or maybe it's so interesting because it didn't have a constant inflow of money and investment.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by badrunner

It's a shame it couldn't hang on to that position to the present day. It would have been a far more interesting city than others that took its place. Railroads really spelled the end for the Mississippi trade networks.

What probably limited New Orleans's growth was the fact that the South remained largely agrarian until after WW II.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by ChiMIchael

I wonder if Philly would have been more competitive with NYC if canals were made to connect the it to Pittsburgh.

More likely would have been completion of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesap...nd_O_Canal.jpg

But I somehow doubt this would have made Washington into a second NY.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

theres an entirely different alternate timeline there. what if new france (or new spain for that matter) had stayed intact? it would have been very hard to hold the english speaking colonies/british empire/america off, though.

On the other hand, had the Acadians not been expelled, what of South Louisiana? Would New Orleans have been more aggressively successful with a more pronounced "Anglo" influence (after the purchase) rather than the latin (French/Spanish) influence?

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

I don't think it reaches 120 degrees like Phoenix, does it?

It might as well. Corpus Christi is one of the most humid places in Texas where it typically tacks on 10 to 15 degrees to the air temp. At this time, it's 95F in Corpus Christi, but with a 70% humidity level, it feels like 107F. By comparison, it's 105F in Austin and feels like 109F with a 27% humidity at the moment.

So, take your pick. Crystalline boogers, or crotch sweat.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by drummer

What would a lot of cities be like if the automobile revolution and then interstate highways didn't happen as they did? And then suburbs didn't explode in the same way (of course, suburbs would probably still exist to some extent), resulting in more folks living in the inner cities - as the norm...? Nothing against cars, but I'm specifically thinking of the Interstate Highway system and the overwhelming development of controlled access freeways throughout the U.S. and other countries (but specifically the U.S. post WWII).

If only the interstate system had freeways end and taper off as people arrived in cities and not ring and cut through cities. A lot of places would look different.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

What probably limited New Orleans's growth was the fact that the South remained largely agrarian until after WW II.

i mentioned this, once new orleans lost the midwest vis-à-vis the creole families and other traders in st. louis and trade along the ohio valley the boom was over until oil. obviously there is still low value bulk trade to the port of new orleans via the rivers but even a lot of that has gone to houston or the port of los angeles.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

On the other hand, had the Acadians not been expelled, what of South Louisiana? Would New Orleans have been more aggressively successful with a more pronounced "Anglo" influence (after the purchase) rather than the latin (French/Spanish) influence?

new orleans would still be new orleans, being of creole influence. i don't know much about the cajun impact on new orleans other than what tourists from wisconsin expect. it likely would be that the french language would not be a thing anymore in louisiana at all, like missouri after world war 2.

[austlar1]

New Orleans entered the post WW2 era as one of four major player among southern US cities. It had some of the largest banks and law firms in the South. The port was the busiest on the Gulf. In spite of what has been said, New Orleans was a significant rail hub with 7 or 8 major trunk lines terminating in New Orlean. New Orleans had a shot at becoming a major commercial air transportation center. It was on the cusp of a major economic windfall with the advent of off shore drilling for oil and gas. I believe only Houston had a larger population at the time. New Orleans leadership, however, was not up to the task of bringing the city and the local economy into the modern era. The city's social structure was (and still is to some extent) ossified. The wealthiest and most influential citizens probably put more thought into which town club (Boston, Pickwick, Louisiana, etc) or Carnival organization they belonged to rather than in looking for ways to solve the huge underlying social and economic problems that the city faced. Politics was for the most part not a gentleman's game in New Orleans, so the political hacks ruled the roost at City Hall. They still do. In the next several decades the local economy stagnated, and tourism became the most important overall economic factor in the city. The port gradually containerized, but this did not produce new jobs or many opportunities. Offshore exploration boomed, but Houston increasingly called the shots with many energy components moving to Houston. Refining operations boomed as well, but this is mostly upstream from New Orleans and employs a mainly suburban workforce. Downtown commercial activity withered away. Most of the older office buildings and even a few newer ones have converted to hotels. New Orleans banks are no longer big time players. Even the staid old Whitney Bank is now controlled by a Mississippi entity. Hibernia is owned by a Virginia bank. New Orleans is home to two medical schools and was once a prime destination for people seeking advanced healthcare services. Once again, Houston took the lead and developed healthcare into a growth industry and major employer. New Orleans, while still a player, lags far behind. Desegregation of the public schools combined with the post war development of freeways and suburbs encouraged most of the white middle class to move out of the city into Jefferson Parish or even across the lake to St. Tammany Parish. This meant that inner city New Orleans became hopelessly polarized with a well off upper middle class and wealthy class living in certain rarefied precincts while the rest of the city became largely ghettoized. The middle class was mostly gone. New Orleans leaders never really made a play for developing into a commercial air powerhouse. Atlanta, Dallas, and later Houston came to dominate airline services, leaving New Orleans as a minor player. New Orleans built a splendid modern union rail terminal in 1954 just as rail passenger service began an almost terminal decline. Obviously they picked the wrong horse. I really don't think the economic decline of New Orleans was brought about by the development of railroads or reduced river traffic. There is still a huge amount of barge traffic on the Mississippi, and the river teems with inbound ships from the Gulf. New Orleans declined mostly because it was neglected by the people who might have been able to create or strive for a new social climate that embraced diversity and really tried to bring new business opportunities into the area. Instead it was "laissez les bon temps rouler". The tourists delight in that attitude, but it is not one that takes New Orleans to a place of growth and renewal.

[Centropolis]

yeah

[chris08876]

Speaking of alternatives, I wonder how the development pattern would of been shaped had a place like Philly remained the capital and let's pretend D.C. was never created.

Surely the sphere of influence would of dramatically changed the way it looks (migration, immigration, funding).