Alternate history of cities

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by The North One

Trump and climate change is karma for the Coastal cities. Let them suffer!

that's true, isn't it. it was the midwest in the end that delivered trump - that one could interpret as a "fuck you" to the bi-coastals as michigan, ohio, iowa and wisconsin fell. it was never really about fanatical "trumpies," was it?

i remember watching wisconsin fall and chugging my third bottle of wine and knowing that it was over.

[dc_denizen]

a good take on the topic of alt histories:

The Alteration by Kingsley Amis

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by muppet

Interesting points. But Roman cities dominated in terms of worlds largest for 450-500 years, not the 600-700 that they believed back in the 1970s before new evidence, (even if you discount Pataliputra that would make periodic, momentary swipes at the crown for a few decades). Rome overtook from Alexandria and Chang'An at the turn of the millennium, then passed onto Constantinople until 450/500 AD, the point at which the Chinese cities of Luoyang (the capital) and Nanjing (the economic, trading capital) grew equal in size and historians disagree on which of the three were the biggest, as did a latecomer in the form of Ctesiphon (Iraq).

I think the real claim to fame for the Roman Empire was that Rome was possibly the first city to breach a million, or at least approach it (in the past they thought Rome was about 450,000 due to its relatively small footprint). The jury's out on whether it was Alexandria that first reached 1 million in 100BC, Rome at 1AD, or a whopping 700 years later, Chang'An.

I was going by this Wikipedia article, which compares four different sources. Assuming that the 1970s-80s sources are outdated as you said, that leaves the two more recent ones. Morris has Rome/Constantinople being the largest or tied for the largest from 100 BC to 500 AD and Modelski's dates are 1-600 AD. There are some other cities that challenged them, but 600+ years is reasonable.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Imagine if these boundaries had persisted. Quebec could have been one of the most powerful countries on earth, centred on an even greater Montreal. Perhaps French would be the lingua franca.

wikipedia

I don't agree - from any starting point after the Conquest, the relatively empty Upper Canada gets settled by Anglos rather than by (Lower) Canadians and therefore turns into something that resembles modern Ontario anyway.

In the alternate history you're suggesting, if those boundaries had endured we would probably have at least one other Great Lakes province, Canada would be more populated than it currently is with a higher GDP than it currently has while the U.S. would be less populated than it currently is with a lower GDP than it currently has, and Canada's Great Lakes metropolis wouldn't be where Toronto is and/or Canada would have more than one Great Lakes metropolis, but I think few things would be fundamentally different, and Canada and the U.S. would both be stretching to the Pacific (western boundary would likely not be the 49th, so Vancouver wouldn't be where it currently is, but again, not really fundamentally different from this reality).

[M II A II R II K]

If the French had millions of colonists in its 3 colonies before the 7 year war then maybe the US would be confined to the 13 colonies and Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and the new French country be the superpower, especially if they annexed half of Mexico too.

[nomarandlee]

Sorry if already mentioned.

I can't help but be intrigued by the possibility of what say would have happened if the national capital would have been moved to New York City either as the original capital or maybe sometime after the civil war (if the south had won perhaps it would have been a possibility).

I imagine it would now be a city that would rival Tokyo and London in every conceivable way, including politically. Maybe a national mall could have sprung out where Harlem is today and the north of Manhatten could have been devoted to government and politics while the south would have been economic/financial while the cultural offerings would have connected the two throughout Midtown much as they do today........

OR what could have made of a number of places if at some time politicians had decided they wanted to move the capital as the country grew in size. Maybe a Chicago, St. Louis, or Deven could have been made the capital.

[M II A II R II K]

Or if Philadelphia remained the capital it could have been the biggest city.

[Razor]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

i mean here is a thought...would we all have been better off had canada been more powerful/large and the united states less so. i tend to think yes, so long as they were cooperative...at least the midwest. i think that the midwest would have been treated much, much better on the whole by canada, if not quite as populous as early. i sort of feel like the midwest was used and abused by the coastal united states that benefited from its talent (and of course the sunbelt south that swallowed her corporate hqs, some industry, and a middle class that was fought for and built from the ground up).

Another thought provoking scenario. So what you are more or less stating is how would it of played out if both countries developed at the same time, and there was less disparity between Canada's and The United States population/power because of Canada having the midwest?


I think part of the reason why the relationship works between the two countries is that big brother/little brother dynamic amongst other things.

[GlassCity]

Or what if Canada managed to get our western border south to the Columbia River as we wanted to? Would Vancouver and Seattle still be of similar sizes to now, or would one have been our undisputed west coast metropolis? More broadly, what if Canada had won all its other boundary disputes? I still think the US would be a significantly more influential nation, but they could have still been closer. Its interesting what that would have meant.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

i mean here is a thought...would we all have been better off had canada been more powerful/large and the united states less so. i tend to think yes, so long as they were cooperative...at least the midwest. i think that the midwest would have been treated much, much better on the whole by canada, if not quite as populous as early. i sort of feel like the midwest was used and abused by the coastal united states that benefited from its talent (and of course the sunbelt south that swallowed her corporate hqs, some industry, and a middle class that was fought for and built from the ground up).

It's worth noting that Canada didn't and doesn't treat its outlier fringe regions any better than the US does. Although in this case it may indeed be the case that the Midwest at least would have been treated well, given it's pivotal strategic location.

[Centropolis]

perhaps the world might have been a more peaceful place, and parts of the united states a happier place if the united states and canada were more equal in power.

i think we are on a funny timeline where the united states is running wild.

[dc_denizen]

what if globalization never happened because our political leaders told our business leaders that outsourcing to China and other poverty arbitrage countries was forbidden?

Would we have more automation, healthier cities, fewer drug overdose deaths, less trump support. etc?

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

what if globalization never happened because our political leaders told our business leaders that outsourcing to China and other poverty arbitrage countries was forbidden?

Would we have more automation, healthier cities, fewer drug overdose deaths, less trump support. etc?

Maybe? We'd also have 500 million additional people in Asia still in desperate poverty, millions dying each year from malnutrition, etc. We'd also be much poorer ourselves, if perhaps slightly more equal within the US/Canada.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Would we have more automation, healthier cities, fewer drug overdose deaths, less trump support. etc?

Possibly, but we'd also be a hell of a lot poorer.

The rest of the world would be poorer still, and hundreds of millions would probably be dead.

[dc_denizen]

wow, globalization is next to godliness now. who would have thought.

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

wow, globalization is next to godliness now. who would have thought.

Not at all, but it's certainly shown much better results than the various time periods where protectionism reigned supreme.

[Docere]

What if Constantine stayed in Rome?

[Razor]

What if the Americans won the war of 1812?..How would North America look like now?
What if the British won the war of 1812 and took more territory?

[mhays]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

what if globalization never happened because our political leaders told our business leaders that outsourcing to China and other poverty arbitrage countries was forbidden?

Would we have more automation, healthier cities, fewer drug overdose deaths, less trump support. etc?

That would be horrible for the Northwest. Our farm regions depend heavily on exports. Same with Boeing, Microsoft, etc. Not to mention our ports.

[ThePhun1]

Speaking of the Northwest, what if Seattle had been settled on Mercer Island instead? It would have been somewhat inconvenient for early settlers but wow, how urban would it be today? You can always landfill for more land as NYC has done before. That would be a blast, especially for this board. As it is, Seattle is on almost-a-peninsula (an isthumus), which helps constrain development, at least immediately around the city.