HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Jan 8, 2018, 5:24 PM
SignalHillHiker's Avatar
SignalHillHiker SignalHillHiker is online now
I ♣ Baby Seals
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: See post below...
Posts: 25,328
The usual suspects for me. I wonder if the National Policy had not been implemented, would Canada have mirrored the United States with its primary city on the east coast, Halifax, and smaller ones in its Great Lakes provinces. I suspect Montreal would've been on top either way, but I also suspect Halifax would've taken on a lot of the roles that allowed Toronto to boom and the Maritimes would probably be one of the dominant centres of the country today.

I wonder had we not given up our independence in 1933, or joined Canada in 1949, what it would be like? Assuming I still exist, what are my politics? Am I like some Albanian, from the poorest corner of North America, completely unimpressed with my country, desperate to afford some legal mechanism to emmigrate to Halifax or beyond? Or are we Iceland, a perfectly contented little country. They were certainly worse off than we were in 1949 - so if they could turn it around, perhaps we could've done as well.

I wonder if Quebec had voted to separate in 1995, where would we be now. I imagine a string of increasingly conservative federal governments would've strained relations between what's left of Canada to the extreme. I think 2018 is a long enough time for that to have pushed out BC, NS, PEI, and NL. Maybe we'd be under President Trump by now.

And finally I'd be curious to see what North America would be like today if colonization had never happened.
__________________
Note to self: "The plural of anecdote is not evidence."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Jan 8, 2018, 5:32 PM
geotag277 geotag277 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,091
It's interesting to consider how things like NAFTA calculus would change with an independent Quebec (and to a lesser extent NFLD).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Jan 8, 2018, 5:45 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
Monsieur Sainte-Nitouche
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vieux Canada
Posts: 31,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
Another what if: what if the deportation of the Acadians never happened?

In 1755 there were around 14,000 Acadians in Nova Scotia and 11,500 were eventually deported. There were 20,000-30,000 Europeans in total in Nova Scotia back then (compared to 55,000 in New France, and extremely little European settlement farther west). Many of the Acadians who were deported died and much of their property was destroyed. Many Acadians who escaped the deportation moved to frontier areas of that time, like PEI and farther north in New Brunswick, or left the region entirely. The deported Acadians ended up in a bunch of places including Louisiana and Quebec.

The deportation itself was a somewhat strange event that might easily not have happened. A new British governor of Nova Scotia, Charles Lawrence, decided on his own to execute his plan and the New England colonies helped. London didn't approve of the plan and it's not clear that earlier or later governors would have either (Nova Scotia's governor in the 1740's, Paul Mascarene, was a bilingual Huguenot). Lawrence had little understanding of Nova Scotia or the Acadians. He was mostly convinced that they were guaranteed supporters of France in the event of invasion. That was doubtful and France never invaded again anyway.

If the deportation hadn't happened I think the Maritimes would be more like 50/50 Francophone or more, and Halifax would have had a linguistic character closer to what Montreal is like today (based on the legacy of a large rural French-speaking population and an English-speaking urban elite). It's not clear if NB would have been more or less Francophone; maybe it would have been much more Francophone because there would have been fewer places for English-speaking Loyalists to move to. New Brunswick as a separate entity may never have existed at all. The Maritimes might have also developed a bit faster due to not having lost as much of their head start in demographics and wealth.
Back of the envelope exercise...

So there are about 300,000 Acadians living in the Maritimes today. Probably a good 200,000 more Maritimers are of Acadian origin but are assimilated and don't identify as Acadian.

If the deportation effectively halved the Acadian population at the time (either through death or exile), then we could imagine that the Acadian population of the Maritimes might be double what it is today. Or 600,000.

Also, with a greater critical mass like that it's highly possible that there would have been less assimilation and that those people would also have multiplied with Acadian francophone offspring over the generations.

Which means that an Acadian population of 800,000-1 million in the Maritimes is a definite possibility under an alternative history scenario where the Grand Dérangement did not happen.
__________________
SSP Canada's Most Interesting Man
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Jan 8, 2018, 5:56 PM
MonctonRad's Avatar
MonctonRad MonctonRad is online now
Wildcats Rule!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Moncton NB
Posts: 15,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
Which means that an Acadian population of 800,000-1 million in the Maritimes is a definite possibility under an alternative history scenario where the Grand Dérangement did not happen.
Agreed. The next question is "what would the Anglophone population be in such a scenario?"

The current Anglophone population of the Maritimes is about 1.5M. I doubt that it would be higher in the above scenario, and could be less, especially since some of the Anglophone population simply displaced the old Acadian population. I would guess about a million Anglophones as well.

So, the population might be a 50/50 split, which would be similar to the situation that existed in the Canada's prior to confederation. Would there have been institutional paralysis in the Maritimes (even worse than currently exists in NB)???

Interesting thought.........

Also, I'm keeping to my guns that the Acadian metropolis would be in the Wolfville area (as the original heartland of Acadia). With an Acadian population of a million, such a city could be similar in size to Halifax or even slightly larger. These cities would be less than an hour apart. That would be an interesting dynamic, wouldn't it........
__________________
Go 'Cats Go
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Jan 8, 2018, 9:12 PM
dmuzika dmuzika is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinion View Post
I always wonder what the west coast would be like if British Envoy Richard Pakenham actually gave a crap during the Oregon Treaty negotiations and the Columbia river became the US/Canada border, as it should have been. What is now Vancouver, WA, would be the third biggest city in the country with tons of room to sprawl like LA. It would also be far and away the best climate in Canada, just as far south as Toronto but with moderating ocean effect and no imposing mountain range to trap all the rain clouds.

That means Seattle would be part of Canada too, with significantly reduced importance and population. Current Vancouver would have a different name and be even smaller still, only relevant due to the Fraser River. Portland, as a border city, would probably be smaller too. Or maybe more important to the US? Not sure. Despite its name it's not really an important port. Though as the new northwest corner of the USA it would probably become an important US military city, much like San Diego.

Victoria, too, would see reduced importance since the need to secure Vancouver Island for Canada wouldn't happen with Fort Vancouver staying put. And Fort Vancouver would most likely be the BC capital instead of New Westminster/Victoria.

The real impact would be 100+ years from now when more people have settled in the west, lured by multiple large cities and warmer climates. Current Vancouver WA might eventually become the largest city in the country, and the west coast would have far more political influence with 3+ cities over 1 million.
I've wondered the same thing as well. Here's my 2 cents:

If the Canadian border went as far south as the Columbia River, I suspect that as long as Canada maintained immigration levels which could sustain growth, the area would arguably grow to be a legitimate second core to Quebec-Ontario. It also would have changed how the prairies provinces were settled.

The area west of the Cascades has fairly good agricultural land (similar to BC’s Fraser Valley) which would attract settlers and development, so it’s likely that it could become a "California north" in terms of attraction. Because of Fort Vancouver (present-day Vancouver, WA) being the important centre and the Canadian government building the trans-continental rail as a way to check American northern expansion, the CP probably would have terminated at Fort Vancouver. The CP would have probably taken a different route through southern Alberta, staying closer to the 49th parallel and passing through Lethbridge and the Crowsnest Pass, as opposed to Calgary. Depending on the location of the eastern boundary; the Continental Divide, the Bitterroot Range (geographic barrier that separates Montana and Idaho, or the Columbia River), the CP mainline would have passed through either Nelson, BC or Spokane, WA before continuing southwest. As a result, the West Kootenays would be less isolated and more populated, along with one of either Lethbridge or Fort Macleod being the major southern Alberta city, while Calgary would have been relegated to a lower tier city.

The same would go for Canada’s second trans-continental railway, the Canadian Northern. The Palliser Triangle made preferred agricultural land in the central, parkland areas of Saskatchewan and Alberta, hence today’s Winnipeg-Saskatoon-Edmonton-Yellowhead Pass-Kamloops-Vancouver CN line. The question is would the line follow the same route if the Pacific ports were further south? As far as the Canadian Rocky’s go, the terrain is fairly tame between Edmonton and Kamloops with wider valleys and lower elevation, but if the destination didn’t have to be Vancouver, BC, then it might have followed an alternate route. Prior to the 1846 Treaty, the Okanagan valley functioned as a major travel corridor to Fort Vancouver, so it might have followed that south before turning west in central Washington. It also might have chosen not to go as far north as Edmonton, instead taking the Howse Pass west of Red Deer.

Present-day Vancouver BC’s location along Burrard Inlet would still make it an attractive port, so it probably would have eventually get a railway connection, but might have been left out of the first two trans-continental railways which would have delayed its development. The two biggest losers probably would have been Prince Rupert, which may have never gotten a railway, and the Roger’s Pass area which might would have been bypassed (or received road/rail connections a lot later). Because of geography, the Fraser Valley/Vancouver, BC would probably be part of the same province as present-day Seattle/Vancouver, WA; while the interior would be a separate province, possibly centered around the Kelowna-Wenatchee corridor. What we regard as the major cities west of Winnipeg in present-day Alberta and Saskatchewan would probably be completely different, and arguably the provincial boundaries would be different as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metro-One View Post
I also have wondered the opposite as well, what if the US border did take BC all the way to 54.40.

That literally would have left Canada with a tiny sliver wedged between 54.40 and the Alaskan panhandle for Pacific access.

Would there be a big city there sandwiched between the US on both sides?
Realistically, BC would probably be part of the US. The Treaty was signed 1846 but BC didn't enter confederation until 1871 with the promise of a trans-continental railway. With virtually no populated areas on the Pacific coast and no incentive to join Canada, the Americans probably would have closed the gap.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2018, 3:23 AM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 19,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonctonRad View Post
The current Anglophone population of the Maritimes is about 1.5M. I doubt that it would be higher in the above scenario, and could be less, especially since some of the Anglophone population simply displaced the old Acadian population. I would guess about a million Anglophones as well.
It is impossible to know what would have happened but I think the 50/50 scenario downplays how bad the deportation was.

Closer to 3/4 of all Acadians were deported, many were killed, and a huge amount of wealth was destroyed. Before the deportation there was a "golden age" for Acadians when they were one of the wealthiest peasant groups on earth (if you believe the arguments of "A Great and Noble Scheme") and the population was growing by 3-4% a year. That was all horribly derailed, setting the region back by perhaps 50 years in development. Even from the perspective of the colonial overlords it would have been better to tax the Acadians than to burn everything down and spend 30 years resettling and rebuilding. Only the new settlers themselves profited in the end.

Quote:
Also, I'm keeping to my guns that the Acadian metropolis would be in the Wolfville area (as the original heartland of Acadia). With an Acadian population of a million, such a city could be similar in size to Halifax or even slightly larger. These cities would be less than an hour apart.
It is hard to imagine why this would happen though. Acadians lived in Nova Scotia for 150 years and never built any cities (Grand-Pré was a small town or village or 1,500 and was the largest single Acadian settlement). There aren't parallel English and French metropolitan areas in Quebec. Montreal was majority English around 1850; it turned into what it is today when a large number of Francophones moved in from rural areas.

New Brunswick has its different cities but Moncton isn't even the "French" city, it's another example of Francophones moving to a majority English city in the 20th century.
__________________
flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2018, 3:29 AM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
Monsieur Sainte-Nitouche
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vieux Canada
Posts: 31,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
It is hard to predict what would happen but I think the 50/50 scenario downplays how bad the deportation was.

Closer to 3/4 of all Acadians were deported, many were killed, and a huge amount of wealth was destroyed. Before the deportation there was a "golden age" for Acadians when they were one of the wealthiest peasant groups on earth (if you believe the arguments of "A Great and Noble Scheme") and the population was growing by 3-4% a year. That was all horribly derailed, setting the region back by perhaps 50 years in development.



It is hard to imagine why this would happen though. Acadians lived in Nova Scotia for 150 years and never built any cities (Grand-Pré was a small town or village or 1,500 and was the largest single Acadian settlement). There also aren't parallel English and French metropolitan areas in Quebec. Montreal was majority English around 1850; it turned into what it is today when a large number of Francophones moved in from rural areas.

New Brunswick has its different cities but Moncton isn't even the "French" city, it's another example of Francophones moving to a majority English city in the 20th century.
I don't know about an Acadian metropolis in the Wolfville area but I do think there would have likely been denser population in an arc from the south shore of the Bay of Fundy going around the Minas Basin up towards Moncton. This area today (especially the eastern portions to the south and north of the Minas Basin) is kind of isolated and out of the way, but had the Acadians not been deported and left alone to grow and prosper, this could have been more of a heartland for them and a region of more central importance in the Maritimes.
__________________
SSP Canada's Most Interesting Man
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2018, 3:35 AM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 19,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
I don't know about an Acadian metropolis in the Wolfville area but I do think there would have likely been denser population in an arc from the south shore of the Bay of Fundy going around the Minas Basin up towards Moncton. This area today (especially the eastern portions to the south and north of the Minas Basin) is kind of isolated and out of the way, but had the Acadians not been deported and left alone to grow and prosper, this could have been more of a heartland for them and a region of more central importance in the Maritimes.
I think Francophones in Canadian history (let's say prior to the modern era of the 1950's/60's) have had a bit more of a tendency to stay put or organically settle adjacent areas. Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean is an example of this. Historically this was a double-edged sword. It meant a larger population but also a poorer population.

English speakers in the Maritimes tended to move all over the place. Had this not happened it would have been a region of 3-4 million people by now.
__________________
flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2018, 3:40 AM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
Monsieur Sainte-Nitouche
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vieux Canada
Posts: 31,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
I think Francophones in Canadian history (let's say prior to the modern era of the 1950's/60's) have had a bit more of a tendency to stay put or organically settle adjacent areas. Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean is an example of this. Historically this was a double-edged sword. It meant a larger population but also a poorer population.

English speakers in the Maritimes tended to move all over the place. Had this not happened it would have been a region of 3-4 million people by now.
I even noticed this as a kid. My parents were from small Acadian towns in the Maritimes that weren't in rich areas, but they were noticeably more vibrant than many neighbouring anglo towns. That's because the anglo towns had emptied out first. Now the emptying out trend has finally hit the Acadian towns, and they're being hit hard. The feeling of decline stings less in the anglo towns because they already bottomed out long ago. No one there (in the anglo towns) has memories of streets and parks filled with kids and parades in the streets as recently as the early 90s...
__________________
SSP Canada's Most Interesting Man
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2018, 3:51 AM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
Monsieur Sainte-Nitouche
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vieux Canada
Posts: 31,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker View Post

And finally I'd be curious to see what North America would be like today if colonization had never happened.
I often think about this.

The Europeans were present in an imperialistic way all over the world at one point.

But for a variety of reasons they didn't send legions of European settlers everywhere. Only to certain parts of the world.

Obviously North America was destined to have some measure of European influence, but what if it had been just limited to influence? With almost no settlement of Europeans?

What would a North America demographically dominated by aboriginal peoples be like? (Like Africa and Asia largely are today.)
__________________
SSP Canada's Most Interesting Man
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2018, 3:53 AM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 19,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
I even noticed this as a kid. My parents were from small Acadian towns in the Maritimes that weren't in rich areas, but they were noticeably more vibrant than many neighbouring anglo towns. That's because the anglo towns had emptied out first. Now the emptying out trend has finally hit the Acadian towns, and they're being hit hard. The feeling of decline stings less in the anglo towns because they already bottomed out long ago. No one there (in the anglo towns) has memories of streets and parks filled with kids and parades in the streets as recently as the early 90s...
Part of this must just be because there are more easy options if you speak English.

But an interesting angle is that an affinity for moving around is definitely part of the cultural DNA in a lot of Atlantic Canada, just as it seems to be in the British Isles. This probably started because so many people lived in port towns and worked in some sort of seafaring profession (which became empire building, banking, etc.). In inland agricultural regions people just settled down, farmed, and tried to get more adjacent farmland when possible. This is all less relevant in 2018 but there is still definitely a sense in Atlantic Canada that you are more successful if you move away (even if you do one day move back). In fact it is such a big phenomenon that people complain they cannot get hired for good jobs locally until they return after experience elsewhere.

One thing that's disappointing is how this has been interpreted as a negative thing in the rest of Canada. It also leads to a misleading picture of what people from Atlantic Canada are like because so many leave. Newfoundland may have a 14% unemployment rate but I doubt Newfoundlanders do!
__________________
flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2018, 3:58 AM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 19,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
But for a variety of reasons they didn't send legions of European settlers everywhere. Only to certain parts of the world.
They actually did try more of a shotgun approach early on. Scotland for example sent settlers to Panama at one point. But tropical diseases killed almost all of the settlers and livestock. European agricultural methods were unproductive.

The only heavily European settled areas are the ones kind of like Europe in terms of natural environment. Canada, US, NZ, Australia, South Africa, Argentina, and higher altitude parts of countries like Mexico. Generally the Spanish-speaking tropical countries have a high percentage of aboriginal ancestry. Spanish settlers in these areas had extremely high mortality rates. It was considered a death sentence if you got sent to a tropical jungle (convenient for, say, French political prisoners sent to Guyana; you could pretend you were only exiling them).

Even the Southern US was marginal because of malaria and other diseases, which is why they ended up with a plantation economy based on African slavery.
__________________
flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2018, 4:10 AM
MonctonRad's Avatar
MonctonRad MonctonRad is online now
Wildcats Rule!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Moncton NB
Posts: 15,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
I don't know about an Acadian metropolis in the Wolfville area but I do think there would have likely been denser population in an arc from the south shore of the Bay of Fundy going around the Minas Basin up towards Moncton. This area today (especially the eastern portions to the south and north of the Minas Basin) is kind of isolated and out of the way, but had the Acadians not been deported and left alone to grow and prosper, this could have been more of a heartland for them and a region of more central importance in the Maritimes.
I agree that the Acadian population might have remained relatively more rural than the anglophone population for a longer period of time, but at some point, Acadian urbanization would have occurred. In our universe, this happened in the 1960's led by the establishment of the Universite de Moncton and the Hopital Georges-L Dumont in Moncton.

In the alternate universe, the Grand Pre area (Wolfville) might have been the beneficiary of this. I imagine a large francophone town in this area would have gradually developed and grown in the 19th century. At some point, the Acadian elite would have demanded their own Universite d'Acadie (instead of Acadia University), and this would naturally have been built in the Grand Pre area. The same sort of process that occurred for Acadians in the Moncton area would have occurred in Grand Pre instead - the difference being that Moncton remained a majority English town, while Grand Pre would have been heavily francophone.

I still think a sizeable Acadian city would have grown in Grand Pre eventually, and this would have been the cultural heart of Acadie. It is more arguable however if this city would also have been a mercantile centre like Halifax. Perhaps Halifax would have 500,000 people now, with 100,000 Acadians as a minority, with Grand Pre totalling 250,000, being 90% French.

In this latter scenario, Halifax would be the equivalent of Montreal and Grand Pre would be the Maritime version of Quebec City...........
__________________
Go 'Cats Go
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2018, 5:46 AM
Capsicum's Avatar
Capsicum Capsicum is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Western Hemisphere
Posts: 1,503
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
I often think about this.

The Europeans were present in an imperialistic way all over the world at one point.

But for a variety of reasons they didn't send legions of European settlers everywhere. Only to certain parts of the world.

Obviously North America was destined to have some measure of European influence, but what if it had been just limited to influence? With almost no settlement of Europeans?

What would a North America demographically dominated by aboriginal peoples be like? (Like Africa and Asia largely are today.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
They actually did try more of a shotgun approach early on. Scotland for example sent settlers to Panama at one point. But tropical diseases killed almost all of the settlers and livestock. European agricultural methods were unproductive.

The only heavily European settled areas are the ones kind of like Europe in terms of natural environment. Canada, US, NZ, Australia, South Africa, Argentina, and higher altitude parts of countries like Mexico. Generally the Spanish-speaking tropical countries have a high percentage of aboriginal ancestry. Spanish settlers in these areas had extremely high mortality rates. It was considered a death sentence if you got sent to a tropical jungle (convenient for, say, French political prisoners sent to Guyana; you could pretend you were only exiling them).

Even the Southern US was marginal because of malaria and other diseases, which is why they ended up with a plantation economy based on African slavery.
Very noticeable on this map.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2018, 7:27 AM
Mister F Mister F is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker View Post
The usual suspects for me. I wonder if the National Policy had not been implemented, would Canada have mirrored the United States with its primary city on the east coast, Halifax, and smaller ones in its Great Lakes provinces.
Doubtful. At the first census after Confederation (the National Plan didn't come into effect until almost a decade later), Halifax was already smaller than Montreal, Quebec City and Toronto. Ontario had the most people and together with Quebec had 80% of the new nation's population. Upper Canada surpassed the population of Nova Scotia as early as the 1820s and Lower Canada in the 1840s. You can't blame the National Plan for that.

The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence area has the population and dominance that it does because of geography, not politics.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2018, 10:21 AM
balletomane balletomane is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 494
Winnipeg without the Panama Canal

By 1914, Greater Winnipeg had grown to 250,000 people, making it the third largest city in Canada. The First World War slowed the city's growth slightly for the next few years, but the city had slightly surpassed 300,000 according to the 1921 census. The winning "greek iconic" design for Winnipeg's new city hall was completed in 1917, making it one of the largest and most beautiful in the nation. The City Beautiful Movement also made its impact in the city, with Memorial Boulevard being transformed into the Winnipeg's smaller equivalent to the National Mall in Washington, DC. Following the war, the city's growth rate picked up again in the 1920's, many politicians and businessman were optimistic about the city's future, envisioning a city of millions by the turn of the century. As such, some of the largest national retailers at the time unveiled plans for new department stores along Portage Avenue. Eaton's proposed a massive, 12 floor, two block long department store on the location of its newly completed Eaton's store. Nearby, the Hudson's Bay Company was proposing an equally massive department store at the corner of Portage Avenue and Memorial Boulevard. The new store was to be topped by a dome that would rival that of the newly completed Legislative Building. Both the new Eaton's Store and HBC Flagship store were completed by the mid-1920's, and in 1929 the Richardson's began construction on its new headquarters at Portage and Main, its spire reaching over 250 feet into the sky. By the time the Great Depression hit, the city's population was approaching the 500,000 mark. The 1930's saw the city's growth rate come to a halt, as with many cities in North America it grew only slightly. Combined with the Great Depression, the "Dust Bowl" years in the 1930's also severely impacted the city's grain industry, and in turn its manufacturing industry. The city's growth once again picked up during the 1940's as the economy recovered, and the post-WW2 baby boom also increased the city's population. However, the city's growth rate lagged behind that of other cities in Canada during these decades as more people flocked to Alberta and it's growing and prosperous oil industry. Still, by 1971 the city's population was closing in on the 1 million mark, but Vancouver had now surpassed Winnipeg, which was bumped to the position of fourth largest city in the country. The 1970's saw many Canadian cities see slower growth rates and Winnipeg was not immune to this, growing at a comparative rate to Montreal during this decade, however the 1980's brought a bit of an uptick in growth. Since then, the Winnipeg CMA has been growing at about 10% per decade and today is closing in on the 1.5 million mark. It's growth rate has still lagged behind those of Calgary and Edmonton, which will both likely surpass the city's population in the next 10 years.

Downtown Winnipeg:
Downtown Winnipeg has declined in population since the 1950's but is on the upswing as of late. The last skyscraper boom occurred in the 1980's, which saw many of the city's current highrises built, however the city only has five buildings that exceed the 500 foot mark. The Exchange District is largely protected and has seen many of its unused and underused buildings transformed into apartments and condos. The South Portage neighborhood is increasingly turning into the city's "financial hub", however despite the recent success of this area, both the Eaton's store and HBC store are underused and combined have over 5 million square feet of vacant space. Union Station on Main Street functions as the hub for all transit and rail service in the city, and is the focal point for the city's light rail system that was largely built in the 1980's.

Other notes:
The city's West End has become a hotbed for recent immigrants and is pumping new life into this inner city district that declined for several decades prior to 2010.
The city's North End is still struggling to reinvent itself as it is plagued by many vacancies and high crime rates, but the city's growing Aboriginal population is beginning to transform the area, albeit slowly.
Winnipeg's urban area covers 700 sq km, including the city itself, and the municipalities of Headingley and East and West St. Paul. The urban area has a population of 1.25 million.

Last edited by balletomane; Jan 9, 2018 at 12:15 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2018, 11:50 AM
shreddog shreddog is offline
Beer me Captain
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In a Van down by the river
Posts: 3,940
Quote:
Originally Posted by balletomane View Post
I know there was a similar thread in the City Discussions forum, but I thought it might be interesting to have a Canada-only thread.
Not that it matters, but there already is a thread for this ...

What Kind Of Alt. History Would You Of Liked To Seen For Some Canadian Cities?
__________________
It really is later than you think!

Do something about your future.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2018, 1:51 PM
MolsonExport's Avatar
MolsonExport MolsonExport is offline
The Vomit Bag.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: The Tropic of Sir Galahad
Posts: 31,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister F View Post
Doubtful. At the first census after Confederation (the National Plan didn't come into effect until almost a decade later), Halifax was already smaller than Montreal, Quebec City and Toronto. Ontario had the most people and together with Quebec had 80% of the new nation's population. Upper Canada surpassed the population of Nova Scotia as early as the 1820s and Lower Canada in the 1840s. You can't blame the National Plan for that.

The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence area has the population and dominance that it does because of geography, not politics.
the geography was much more accessible given the Saint Lawrence seaway. The United States had no such passage so deep into the continent. It is one of the reasons why much exploration of the continent was started in Montreal (being the farthest navigable point for large vessels due to the Lachine rapids (the coureurs-de-bois would portage upstream and bootstrap their way across the continent).

Montreal was therefore destined to be the primary city, at until well after the Lachine Canal was constructed.
__________________
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere.Elie Wiesel
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2018, 2:16 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
Monsieur Sainte-Nitouche
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vieux Canada
Posts: 31,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonctonRad View Post
I agree that the Acadian population might have remained relatively more rural than the anglophone population for a longer period of time, but at some point, Acadian urbanization would have occurred. In our universe, this happened in the 1960's led by the establishment of the Universite de Moncton and the Hopital Georges-L Dumont in Moncton.

In the alternate universe, the Grand Pre area (Wolfville) might have been the beneficiary of this. I imagine a large francophone town in this area would have gradually developed and grown in the 19th century. At some point, the Acadian elite would have demanded their own Universite d'Acadie (instead of Acadia University), and this would naturally have been built in the Grand Pre area. The same sort of process that occurred for Acadians in the Moncton area would have occurred in Grand Pre instead - the difference being that Moncton remained a majority English town, while Grand Pre would have been heavily francophone.

I still think a sizeable Acadian city would have grown in Grand Pre eventually, and this would have been the cultural heart of Acadie. It is more arguable however if this city would also have been a mercantile centre like Halifax. Perhaps Halifax would have 500,000 people now, with 100,000 Acadians as a minority, with Grand Pre totalling 250,000, being 90% French.

In this latter scenario, Halifax would be the equivalent of Montreal and Grand Pre would be the Maritime version of Quebec City...........
Oh, I definitely see how an Acadian city of that size could have taken root in the eastern Annapolis Valley. I should have been clearer.
__________________
SSP Canada's Most Interesting Man
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2018, 3:32 PM
Waverley Waverley is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Dartmouth, NS
Posts: 2
I've always wondered how it would be if Nova Scotia was able to hold onto it's Gaelic language roots and if that language became dominant like French is in Quebec today.

"By 1867, Gaelic was the third most spoken language in Canada and by 1900, as many as 100,000 Nova Scotians spoke Gaelic as their first language. However, changes in the late 19th and early 20th century, including the growth of cities, the boom of industrial jobs, the expansion of railroads and the introduction of English-only school systems, eroded the Gaelic language to near extinction."
https://cch.novascotia.ca/stories/le...-gaelic-spirit

How would a Gaelic language dominant culture be able to function in Canada (let alone the broader international community)?
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:48 PM.

     

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