Alternate history of cities

[balletomane]

Potentially interesting alternate history, what if all cities that have shrunk actually grew by the same number they lost between censuses.
What if Chicago city proper had 4.8 million?
Detroit 3.0 million?
Cleveland and St. Louis 1.4 million?
Pittsburgh 1.0 million?
Even smaller cities like Youngstown or Gary with 300,000?

[ThePhun1]

What if there was no such thing as hurricanes? How many more major cities would there be?

Alternatively, what if they were more frequent? Could Miami Beach exist as anything more than a minor beach resort town? Would New York be sustainable or would it decline?

[caligrad]

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.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by caligrad

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.

Timing sucked, as Houston became the regional hub but more hurricanes came to harm Galveston's development. It was a city of 70k as recently as 1960 and would likely be 100k today.

Galveston is a Rust Belt city in a number of ways, it's sad.

[caligrad]

Here's one.

What would it be like today if LA never existed ? or never exploded into being the second largest city in the nation ??

Would there be a Vegas? would there be a Phoenix ? San Diego ? meaning.... Yes, obviously the 3 would exist, but, would they be as prominant and large as they are today if LA was gone?, I would go as far to say that places like Riverside, Palm Springs, San Bernardino, Orange county and other surrounding cities/counties wouldnt be anywhere near their size today, if existing at all.

Why? LA has a disease called.... The "Spillover effect". As people begin getting priced out of LA, back in the 80s/90s, they started moving into the deserts and surrounding cities.. San Bernardino and Riverside are still blossoming because of the spillover. A lot of people from LA, and So-Cal, moved to Vegas and Phoenix as prices skyrocketed in LA.

If LA didnt exist ? what would happen to Hollywood? where would studios be? If theres no LA and Orange County is gone, would Disneyland have ever been made??? and if not, would Disney exist at all ????

Would San Diego be larger? or smaller? The port of LA/Long Beach being the largest in the country, it if didnt exist, would the Bay area become the largest port ???

A twilgiht zone episode of an "LA less USA" would be very interesting. Possibilities are endless.

[spoonman]

Originally Posted by caligrad

Here's one.

What would it be like today if LA never existed ? or never exploded into being the second largest city in the nation ??

Would there be a Vegas? would there be a Phoenix ? San Diego ? meaning.... Yes, obviously the 3 would exist, but, would they be as prominant and large as they are today if LA was gone?, I would go as far to say that places like Riverside, Palm Springs, San Bernardino, Orange county and other surrounding cities/counties wouldnt be anywhere near their size today, if existing at all.

Why? LA has a disease called.... The "Spillover effect". As people begin getting priced out of LA, back in the 80s/90s, they started moving into the deserts and surrounding cities.. San Bernardino and Riverside are still blossoming because of the spillover. A lot of people from LA, and So-Cal, moved to Vegas and Phoenix as prices skyrocketed in LA.

If LA didnt exist ? what would happen to Hollywood? where would studios be? If theres no LA and Orange County is gone, would Disneyland have ever been made??? and if not, would Disney exist at all ????

Would San Diego be larger? or smaller? The port of LA/Long Beach being the largest in the country, it if didnt exist, would the Bay area become the largest port ???

A twilgiht zone episode of an "LA less USA" would be very interesting. Possibilities are endless.

Good question. Any of us familiar with San Diego history would tell you assuredly that San Diego would have assumed LA's position as the dominant city in SoCal if LA didn't exist. In that scenario Palm Springs and Inland Empire would still exist in much the same way (commuters heading from low cost housing heading into the cities -SD & LA).

San Diego was originally being considered instead of LA as the primary destination for rail and port purposes in the late 19th/early 20th century. Even if LA existed, it's possible San Diego could have taken the crown. Ultimately though, San Diego was not "chosen" due primarily to the hilly terrain on the east side, which posed significant challenges for rail service (though eventually rail was built east).

Anyhow, we all know how things turned out. Yes, SoCal could look very different with or without LA if different decisions were made. But I guess you could say that about almost anything.

[mhays]

Galveston could be like Miami? That's not plausible. Way too little developable land and too far from the mainland.

I can believe that had it not been so destroyed, the center of population could have been closer than present-day Houston.

[skyscraperpage17]

Alternate history of Detroit:

*City population in 2017 - 1.3 Million People

*Metro population in 2017 - 7.3 Million People

*Racial Makeup - 44% black, 37% white, 14% Hispanic, 5% Asian

*University of Michigan would have never relocated to Ann Arbor

*The state capitol would have never left Capitol Park

*Michigan Central Station would be the hub for commuter rails between Toledo, Flint, Port Huron and Ann Arbor (including a stop inside Metro Airport's McNamara and North Terminals)

*The People Mover would have been built in the mold of Chicago's L-Train, with a loop from the New Center area to Downtown

*There would be light rail along Grand River, Gratiot, Woodward, Michigan, Fort Street and Jefferson

*DDOT and SMART would be one entity (known as the Detroit Transit Authority)

*General Motors' HQ would still be in the New Center area and the world's largest automaker.

*Eastpointe would still be named "East Detroit"

*The 81-story Book Tower would have been built

*Most of the high rises that have gone up in suburbs such as Troy and Southfield since the 70s would have been built downtown.

*The formerly walkable and urban commercial districts along Detroit's avenues would still be thriving today and would not have been demolished.

*After construction of the Renaissance Center was completed, Ford would have moved its top brass and HQ downtown (not just its marketing team) to be closer to the center of the action.

*Detroit would have been selected to host the 1968 Olympics, which may have prevented the 1967 riots that destroyed huge swaths of the city as everyone would have been focused on hosting the games (I.E. "too busy to hate").

*Motown records would have never left the city.

*Detroit City Airport would be a hub for Southwest Airlines

*Belle Isle would surpass NYC's Central Park in grandeur.

[balletomane]

In my alternate history vision of Canada where the country grew to 1/3 the US population like earlier 20th century politicians hoped, our largest cities would be,

5.0 million +
1. Toronto
2. Montreal

3.0 - 5.0 million
3. Vancouver
4. Winnipeg

1.0 - 3.0 million
5. Ottawa
6. Calgary
7. Hamilton
8. Quebec City
9. Regina
10. Edmonton
11. Halifax
12. Windsor

0.5 - 1.0 million
13. London
14. Saint John
15. Victoria
16. Waterloo Region
17. Niagara Region
18. Saskatoon
19. Kingston
20. Sherbrooke

0.3 - 0.5 million
21. Kelowna
22. Moncton
23. Oshawa
24. Trois-Rivieres
25. St. John's
26. Sudbury
27. Thunder Bay
28. Saguenay

0.1 - 0.3 million (east to west)
29. Charlottetown
30. Fredericton
31. Rimouski
32. Shawinigan
33. Drummondville
34. Granby
35. Peterborough
36. Belleville
37. Guelph
38. Barrie
39. Brantford
40. North Bay
41. Sault Ste. Marie
42. Brandon
43. Churchill
44. Prince Albert
45. Moose Jaw
46. Lethbridge
47. Medicine Hat
48. Red Deer
49. Fort McMurray
50. Grande Prairie
51. Kamloops
52. Prince George
53. Abbotsford
54. Nanaimo

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by caligrad

Here's one.

What would it be like today if LA never existed ? or never exploded into being the second largest city in the nation ??

Would there be a Vegas? would there be a Phoenix ? San Diego ? meaning.... Yes, obviously the 3 would exist, but, would they be as prominant and large as they are today if LA was gone?, I would go as far to say that places like Riverside, Palm Springs, San Bernardino, Orange county and other surrounding cities/counties wouldnt be anywhere near their size today, if existing at all.

Why? LA has a disease called.... The "Spillover effect". As people begin getting priced out of LA, back in the 80s/90s, they started moving into the deserts and surrounding cities.. San Bernardino and Riverside are still blossoming because of the spillover. A lot of people from LA, and So-Cal, moved to Vegas and Phoenix as prices skyrocketed in LA.

If LA didnt exist ? what would happen to Hollywood? where would studios be? If theres no LA and Orange County is gone, would Disneyland have ever been made??? and if not, would Disney exist at all ????

Would San Diego be larger? or smaller? The port of LA/Long Beach being the largest in the country, it if didnt exist, would the Bay area become the largest port ???

A twilgiht zone episode of an "LA less USA" would be very interesting. Possibilities are endless.

Vegas developed mostly independent of LA. It's development was enhanced by the Hoover Dam, then its status as a weekend getaway for SoCalers cemented it. But that happened last.

San Diego developed independently of LA and would exist likely to the same degree it does today. As a matter of fact, among California's major metros, LA was last to blossom. San Francisco and Sacramento (area) benefited from the Gold Rush while San Diego was a major hub of Spanish missions. San Francisco's development is pretty much independent of LA. They draw two different types of people. Ditto for Phoenix, which grew as big as it did because of retirees and snowbirds.

In other words, LA's development did not help or stunt any of their neighbors except Vegas in the past half century. The Inland Empire wouldn't exist of course but obviously that's just an extension of LA. Long Beach may actually be a regional hub instead of essentially a giant suburb.

Lastly, I'm sure most film production would be in New York if not LA. It still has a significant amount of film production.

[JManc]

Vegas is Vegas because of Bugsy Siegel and the mob, not really LA.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

Ditto for Phoenix, which grew as big as it did because of retirees and snowbirds.

This isn't accurate. Phoenix grew early on because of the 4 C's -- cotton, copper, citrus and climate. Like most western cities in the early 20th century domestic migration from midwest and east coast populated Phoenix. Today's growth continues to be from a high domestic migration rate -- from the midwest - for climate, from California - bc housing costs and international migration along with high birthrates due to a low average age of 32 years and a low cost of living to support a larger family size.

Phoenix did not grow into the 12th largest US metropolis from retirees and seasonal residents -- 'snowbirds'. They do contribute to the local economy, but this is a false stereotype that continues to plague many minds of a misunderstood region.



An alternate history for the west would be if the topography were similar to the eastern third of the US. There would only be enough water to support insignificant outpost cities on the frontier. There would not be any snowpack to store water for runoff to steadily feed the reservoirs during the long dry summer season. There would not be any dams like the Hoover dam to store millions of acre feet of water and there wouldn't be canals to deliver fresh water from far away sources to large cities.

[JManc]

^ It's due to all those former members of the mob who turned state's witness and are now hiding in suburban Phoenix.

[Sun Belt]

^Salvatore "Sammy the Bull" Gravano was released from prison exactly one month ago.

While in the witness protection agency and living in Arizona, he set up an ecstasy ring, was caught and sentenced to 20 years.

[Citylover94]

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. Cambridge
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.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

This isn't accurate. Phoenix grew early on because of the 4 C's -- cotton, copper, citrus and climate. Like most western cities in the early 20th century domestic migration from midwest and east coast populated Phoenix. Today's growth continues to be from a high domestic migration rate -- from the midwest - for climate, from California - bc housing costs and international migration along with high birthrates due to a low average age of 32 years and a low cost of living to support a larger family size.

Phoenix did not grow into the 12th largest US metropolis from retirees and seasonal residents -- 'snowbirds'. They do contribute to the local economy, but this is a false stereotype that continues to plague many minds of a misunderstood region.



An alternate history for the west would be if the topography were similar to the eastern third of the US. There would only be enough water to support insignificant outpost cities on the frontier. There would not be any snowpack to store water for runoff to steadily feed the reservoirs during the long dry summer season. There would not be any dams like the Hoover dam to store millions of acre feet of water and there wouldn't be canals to deliver fresh water from far away sources to large cities.

I didn't say it was the only reason. The overriding point is that Phoenix didn't grow because LA spurred it. It grew because of factors independent of LA.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Citylover94

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 well thought out and interesting to read man.

[caligrad]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

Vegas developed mostly independent of LA. It's development was enhanced by the Hoover Dam, then its status as a weekend getaway for SoCalers cemented it. But that happened last.

San Diego developed independently of LA and would exist likely to the same degree it does today. As a matter of fact, among California's major metros, LA was last to blossom. San Francisco and Sacramento (area) benefited from the Gold Rush while San Diego was a major hub of Spanish missions. San Francisco's development is pretty much independent of LA. They draw two different types of people. Ditto for Phoenix, which grew as big as it did because of retirees and snowbirds.

In other words, LA's development did not help or stunt any of their neighbors except Vegas in the past half century. The Inland Empire wouldn't exist of course but obviously that's just an extension of LA. Long Beach may actually be a regional hub instead of essentially a giant suburb.

Lastly, I'm sure most film production would be in New York if not LA. It still has a significant amount of film production.

Oh I didn't mention San Francisco alone just for that reason. If you were to take away So-Cal, The bay area would chug along just fine because of the vast distance between the 2 and totally different way of doing things, different people and different mindset.

I'm not saying Vegas and Phoenix wouldn't exist, I'm just saying I don't think they would be as large as they are now.

Yeah Vegas grew thanks to the Colorado and Hoover Dam, but before the quick and easy access to air travel, who was supporting the gambling and population increases? People driving in from So-Cal. Even til this day, LA and SD are Vegas biggest tourist/immigration draws

http://www.latimes.com/travel/califo...230-story.html

Even the writer of the article states "Southern California remains a key to Sin City's success"

Same with Phoenix. Between 2004 and 2013 alone, nearly 500k people left California, mostly LA, and moved there. Same with Vegas, nearly 500k people left California, mostly LA, to Vegas between the same time frame. I would think that the numbers in the 90s were way higher when the exodus was the most intense.

http://www.sacbee.com/site-services/...e32679753.html

Here's another report that shows between 2001 and 2014, 700k people moved to Arizona, mostly the Phoenix area, mostly from So-Cal.

https://wpcarey.asu.edu/sites/defaul...ation05-16.pdf

Yeah. Both would exist. But not nearly the size they are now. Not to mention. Both rely HEAVILY on the LA/Long Beach port complex.

San Diego is more connected to LA than I think people are willing to admit. Just take a look at the 5 freeway (Main freeway link between the two cities) during rush hour, especially on Friday and Sunday. You'll see people driving down there Friday night and people driving back Sunday night. Not to mention San Diego's Hilly terrain. IF LA wasn't around, id be willing to bet that San Diego/Tijuana would mirror the way El Paso/Juarez developed.I know you say LA didn't stunt San Diegos growth. But...You kinda contradicted yourself. Yeah. LA developed last, San Diego was already booming....But if that's the case and LA didn't stunt its growth, taking away potential population gains, then why isn't San Diego larger than LA ? its not even 1/3 the size of LA.

And even better.... What's keeping San Diego from growing now? There's a lot of flat land the more you go east and its pretty empty. I was shocked to see that when I went to the Safari Park. San Diego is truly the "What if" and I can see it either exploding to LAs size without LA or developing like El Paso did and being more connected with TJ. But it seems like LA is still casting a shadow over San Diego, the latest blow being the thievery of the Chargers football team.

In regards to Long Beach. I actually consider it larger than just a suburb. Its pretty dense for sunbelt standards, mostly 2-5 story apartment buildings until you get to the 405 when for a brief section, its mostly single family homes and it has a sizable downtown, without the extreme heights. But it too is a victim of being in LAs shadow. But its soooo connected with LA, many people consider it to be one sadly. But if there were no LA, I could easily see Long Beach being the size of San Diego, if not larger.

[ThePhun1]

Vegas obviously but Phoenix would more or less be the same size.

As for Long Beach, I wish there was no LA. It might have meant Long Beach would be the metropolis with an imposing waterfront skyline. A western Miami if you will, only bigger.

Finally, again, without a long winded response, San Diego developed independently of LA, so LA's impact was minimal. LA's development was mostly within the last 100 years, having grown by well over 10 million people in the region. I just don't see it at all. If the regions were interconnected, the Chargers would have no problem transitioning to LA instead of struggling to find an identity and fanbase. If LA didn't exist, San Diego still would and likely as more than a Santa Barbara.

[balletomane]

I wonder how Canada's provinces and the US states might be different without the oil boom? What would the cities in Texas look like, or the cities in Alberta?

I'd guess that in a hypothetical world without the oil boom Alberta would be about the same size as Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Calgary and Edmonton would be cities about the size of Saskatoon and Regina. The populations of the Atlantic provinces would be greater, as would other provinces that have an out migration issue since many of these residents went to Alberta for work. An Alberta without oil, or a Quebec that succeeded from Canada might be the most interesting alternate histories in modern Canada.