Canadian Alternate Histories

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Docere

It's too small, and was displaced by Vancouver after the amalgamation of Vancouver Island and mainland BC. But it's interesting think of it rising to be a metropolis that at least rivalled Vancouver.

But at this point, Victoria is more like Santa Barbara than San Francisco.

Was there any particular reason why Vancouver made a better choice for a large city to grow relative to Victoria (in terms of location etc.)? Its climate isn't bad, geographical position doesn't seem disadvantageous, and I don't think it has that many disadvantages that if I didn't know, would have allowed me to, predict ahead of time, it to not have grown as much as Vancouver itself did.

[geotag277]

Victoria was always kind of an awkwardly placed settlement, specifically designed to block United States territorial interests. It's kind of nice it developed the way it did historically, but it's not really a place that would naturally lend itself to being a large population center, being so disconnected from everything and far away from the mainland.

If Fort Vancouver never fell into American hands, I doubt there would ever be a settlement on Vancouver Island.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by geotag277

Victoria was always kind of an awkwardly placed settlement, specifically designed to block United States territorial interests. It's kind of nice it developed the way it did historically, but it's not really a place that would naturally lend itself to being a large population center, being so disconnected from everything and far away from the mainland.

If Fort Vancouver never fell into American hands, I doubt there would ever be a settlement on Vancouver Island.

It has a good climate, sunny and mild by Canadian standards, doesn't it? Couldn't it be a good place to have an agricultural settlement, perhaps to grow crops that require or benefit from lack of cold weather that it provides, and also export to the nearby mainland.

[Capsicum]

Then again, the area to grow crops in is probably not that large (maybe also grazing livestock?) in the valleys since it's mountainous. Maybe also fishing?

Vancouver Island has a similar population density to PEI, and it's heavily agricultural too, and while not as long a growing season as Vancouver Island probably, it's also not mountainous.

[Capsicum]

Perhaps one way Vancouver Island could have grown was looser immigration restrictions. Vancouver Island had a lot of diversity in its early history -- there were African Americans fleeing racial conflict in California, immigrants from Asia, Jewish communities etc.

Maybe a hypothetical way that Vancouver Island could have grown was to have growth in ethnic communities who stayed and grew the population, if restrictions were looser. So, the early African American, from the US, or Asian population could have continued to stay, perhaps maybe if a deal was made early on, to be more tolerant in exchange for agreement to help Canada grow or at least help the Canadian side of the Pacific Northwest grow relative to the US side. But perhaps that's too unlikely given attitudes at the time.

[Capsicum]

Another question: How unlikely would it have been for Vancouver (or another BC city) to pull an LA-style rise in population so that the west coast can rival the east (well, not really coast but Ontario/Quebec) or even if not rival, at least counterbalance in a more equal way? Is there any way for a western Canadian city to take the number 2 spot the way LA pulled ahead of Chicago. Perhaps a BC city rising over Toronto (if Montreal was the 1st city), or rising over Montreal (if Toronto was the 1st city) to take that spot.

I wonder if conditions that made the US west coast rise (the rich agricultural land and good climate) aren't strong enough in BC (since it is mostly California's huge population that makes the US west coast what it is, as the PNW is still low in population) to allow such a thing to happen and such a westward shift to take place.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by balletomane

The following are some excerpts from Winnipeg's City Planning Commission that existed from 1911 to 1913 and can be found in "Gateway City" by Alan Artibise.

"The building of a main boulevard around the City connecting the outside park system."

They did start on that. It was to be called Sharp Boulevard and it does exist in a tiny section in St. James. Inkster Blvd. was intended to be another piece of it.

"...a plan should endeavour to arrange for the location of a factory district or groups of factory districts."

The factory district was up on McPhillips. It never really got off the ground, although that did become an industrial area eventually.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

It has a good climate, sunny and mild by Canadian standards, doesn't it? Couldn't it be a good place to have an agricultural settlement, perhaps to grow crops that require or benefit from lack of cold weather that it provides, and also export to the nearby mainland.

The Fraser Valley as a river delta is a million times better for farming than Victoria. Especially if we also had the Bellingham side of the valley, which is much larger than most Vancouverites realize, and the area around Burlington (Skagit river delta).



I suspect current Vancouver would still be a decent sized city if the Columbia River was the border, but Seattle would be almost nothing. Apparently it was near collapse when it was saved by becoming the departure point for American gold rush miners going north by boat. They were legally required to buy a shitload of supplies before they could depart, so they wouldn't freeze/starve to death. That's how the Seattle Underground tour guides tell it anyway.

They also say Seattle was a profoundly stupid place to settle, and toilets used to regularly overflow with the tide before they built on top of the old, burned down city by knocking down part of the enormous hill to the east. That hill is still quite enormous, so I can't imagine what a pain a walking commute would have been like in the 1800s.

Tacoma would have suffered by never being chosen as the northwest rail terminus, too.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

It has a good climate, sunny and mild by Canadian standards, doesn't it? Couldn't it be a good place to have an agricultural settlement, perhaps to grow crops that require or benefit from lack of cold weather that it provides, and also export to the nearby mainland.

Settlements in north america weren't pursued based on climate, for obvious reasons. No one really cared about California until the gold rush, and it was again settled primarily for strategic reasons.

[Pinion]

Post-1945 settlement has absolutely been influenced by weather. A lot of soldiers came back from the war thinking "I don't have to live in this frozen shithole." (fuck Trump for making that a Trumpism) It's almost entirely the reason why Florida exploded in population. LA and San Diego were basically paradise on earth before overcrowding, poor planning and social issues took them down a notch or two.

You won't find migrants who value warm weather in Calgary for obvious reasons.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by Pinion

Post-1945 settlement has absolutely been influenced by weather. A lot of soldiers came back from the war thinking "I don't have to live in this frozen shithole." (fuck Trump for making that a Trumpism) It's almost entirely the reason why Florida exploded in population. LA and San Diego were basically paradise on earth before overcrowding, poor planning and social issues took them down a notch or two.

You won't find migrants who value warm weather in Calgary for obvious reasons.

Yes, because air conditioning was invented and the diseases and low economic productivity associated with hot climates became less of a problem.

[geotag277]

North American settlements generally refer to the period before 1900 when most of these places were founded.

I would argue the main driver of most migration in modern times is economic conditions (Rust Belt -> Florida, Gold Rush -> California), not weather.

California's growth tracks pretty well on a population/gdp basis as Canada. It's not a coincidence.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by geotag277

California's growth tracks pretty well on a population/gdp basis as Canada. It's not a coincidence.

?? The state of California's GDP is almost $1 trillion higher than Canada's with 4 million more people.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by Pinion

?? The state of California's GDP is almost $1 trillion higher than Canada's with 4 million more people.

Now it is, historically it has been pretty even.

People don't mass migrant for weather. That's just a historical fact.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by geotag277

Now it is, historically it has been pretty even.

People don't mass migrant for weather. That's just a historical fact.

LA more or less initially became a big city for its weather. It was the Phoenix of the time, a total realtor/developer created city.

[geotag277]

Los Angeles was originally settled by Spain, at which point it had no redeeming weather characteristics in the context of their territory. Once America took control of California, it grew on the back of oil discoveries.

In any case, people moved to Los Angeles mainly for the jobs.

As an aside I always find it funny how often people from Vancouver disproportionately place such emphasis on weather in their reason for living in a place, as if the rest of the world must think like they do and justify weather as a reason to continue living in a place. It's something that seems fairly unique to Vancouver. I've seen people migrate from California to Calgary and have less to say about the weather than a typical Vancouver native would say.

I think it's a combination of the relatively mild weather Vancouver is known for combined with the ingrained Canadian obsession with weather.

[balletomane]

Originally Posted by Andy6

They did start on that. It was to be called Sharp Boulevard and it does exist in a tiny section in St. James. Inkster Blvd. was intended to be another piece of it.



The factory district was up on McPhillips. It never really got off the ground, although that did become an industrial area eventually.

Interesting, thanks for the info.
I wish I could see some of the plans and maps the city planning commission prepared, but from what i understand they've either been lost or destroyed, however the descriptions are interesting on their own.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by geotag277

Los Angeles was originally settled by Spain, at which point it had no redeeming weather characteristics in the context of their territory. Once America took control of California, it grew on the back of oil discoveries.

In any case, people moved to Los Angeles mainly for the jobs.

As an aside I always find it funny how often people from Vancouver disproportionately place such emphasis on weather in their reason for living in a place, as if the rest of the world must think like they do and justify weather as a reason to continue living in a place. It's something that seems fairly unique to Vancouver. I've seen people migrate from California to Calgary and have less to say about the weather than a typical Vancouver native would say.

I think it's a combination of the relatively mild weather Vancouver is known for combined with the ingrained Canadian obsession with weather.

Online forums such as these also give us the impression that weather is a deal-breaker for the vast majority of people in terms of choosing a place to settle.

Realistically, it is a deal-breaker for some people, but these people are definitely in the minority.

*Within reason* of course. Places that have cold weather year-round and basically no summer cross the line for most people. But this is also true for places that are too hot year-round which explains why places like Death Valley or deserts in North Africa and the Middle East are not very populated either.

The vast majority of people are able to take a bit of cold and a bit of heat during a given year without having too much issue with it, in a general climactic range between -20C and +40C.

[Pinion]

Canadians living on frozen tundra with a tiny population think no one cares about weather. lol

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Pinion

Canadians living on frozen tundra with a tiny population think no one cares about weather. lol

Canadians living on frozen tundra with a tiny population* know that most people don't care about weather because they live side by side with people from all over the world (often from tropical locales) who are perfectly happy there and who actually tell them they do not care much about weather. lol

*Canada outside of SW BC doesn't have a "tiny population" and includes several cities and provinces with more population than SW BC.