AHC: San Francisco Bay area not important...

[naraht]

With a POD after 1700 have the area within 50 miles of the OTL San Franscisco Peninsula *NOT* be one of ten largest Metropolitan areas on the Pacific Coast of North America between the Aleutian Islands and the southern tip of Baja California by the year 2000.

Note, the butterflies will *not* change the severity or location of the Earthquakes in that area. There will still be one at the same place/time in 1906 and 1989 for example.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by naraht

With a POD after 1700 have the area within 50 miles of the OTL San Franscisco Peninsula *NOT* be one of ten largest Metropolitan areas on the Pacific Coast of North America between the Aleutian Islands and the southern tip of Baja California by the year 2000.

Note, the butterflies will *not* change the severity or location of the Earthquakes in that area. There will still be one at the same place/time in 1906 and 1989 for example.

Hm. That won't be all that easy, the area grew up like it did for reasons that don't seem like they'd go away unless California is only relevant to those coming overland - and even that might not be enough.

It's not inevitable, but "not one of the ten largest Metropolitan areas on the Pacific Coast . . ." leaves a lot of room for it doing less well than OTL and still being good enough for this.

[jkay]

Just have the Mexicans win against us in the war we monged. It's hard, but not ASB, especially if we kill off early their too dumb caudillo Santa Ana whom "led" Mexico; he might as well've been in our pay. Texas became independent the same way.

That should work because Latino culture was alot less into settlement, so it would most likely slow the region's growth alot.

[Iori]

It would frankly be easier to just have the other nine and an additional city simply grow more.

The Bay area grew because of its importance and geology; with the area part of the United States it's going to inevitably become a large metropolitan area.

[naraht]

Originally Posted by Iori

It would frankly be easier to just have the other nine and an additional city simply grow more.

The Bay area grew because of its importance and geology; with the area part of the United States it's going to inevitably become a large metropolitan area.

Then can we get the bay as an outpost (most likely british?) like Hong Kong or Gibraltar? (or even Macau which is relatively small relative to Hong Kong)

[jkarr]

have a massive earthquake strike the area, similar to the 1906 one but earlier

it may prevent settlers in the area for quite some time, but realistically, by today, it will be a metropolis because of tis position

[naraht]

Originally Posted by jkay

Just have the Mexicans win against us in the war we monged. It's hard, but not ASB, especially if we kill off early their too dumb caudillo Santa Ana whom "led" Mexico; he might as well've been in our pay. Texas became independent the same way.

That should work because Latino culture was alot less into settlement, so it would most likely slow the region's growth alot.

Yes, it might have fewer people in 2000, but between the cities in Oregon Territory and North and the Mexican cities south of it, would you get 10 bigger? (I deliberately pushed the POD back to 1700, because I didn't think a POD which affected the Mexican American War would do it?)

[naraht]

Originally Posted by jkarr

have a massive earthquake strike the area, similar to the 1906 one but earlier

it may prevent settlers in the area for quite some time, but realistically, by today, it will be a metropolis because of tis position

Read note in Original Post, the earthquakes come at the same date/time/strength as OTL.

[Falastur]

Originally Posted by naraht

Then can we get the bay as an outpost (most likely british?) like Hong Kong or Gibraltar? (or even Macau which is relatively small relative to Hong Kong)

I think that would be a route to making its size grow, not diminish. Exclaves often tend to stimulate growth and be attractive to immigrants, especially cross-border immigrants. And considering the land around San Fran, as an exclave it'd be likely to have really quite a lot of hinterland...

[jayel]

you would need to get rid of the bay itself, to much use as a safe harbor

[Socrates]

Have it stay Mexican with weak control from the central government, so it becomes ruled by local semi-independent dictators. Pacific trade instead goes through a US city in the Oregon country.

[naraht]

Originally Posted by Socrates

Have it stay Mexican with weak control from the central government, so it becomes ruled by local semi-independent dictators. Pacific trade instead goes through a US city in the Oregon country.

Weak control and semi-independent dictators are likely to end up as independent dictators...

[naraht]

Originally Posted by Falastur

I think that would be a route to making its size grow, not diminish. Exclaves often tend to stimulate growth and be attractive to immigrants, especially cross-border immigrants. And considering the land around San Fran, as an exclave it'd be likely to have really quite a lot of hinterland...

Yeah, while I could see the Peninsula as an exclave, I think the remainder of the bay would still be a decent metropolis and would probably benefit from the cross-culture interaction...

[Lord Grattan]

Originally Posted by naraht

With a POD after 1700 have the area within 50 miles of the OTL San Franscisco Peninsula *NOT* be one of ten largest Metropolitan areas on the Pacific Coast of North America between the Aleutian Islands and the southern tip of Baja California by the year 2000.

Note, the butterflies will *not* change the severity or location of the Earthquakes in that area. There will still be one at the same place/time in 1906 and 1989 for example.

I imagine that (the city we know as) Oakland and the Contra Costa region could easily, with the right butterflies, surpass the peninsula in prominence and population.

EDIT - Never mind, as it's less then 50 miles from S.F.

[jkarr]

Originally Posted by naraht

Read note in Original Post, the earthquakes come at the same date/time/strength as OTL.

that would be even better...have two of them...thatd definatly crush san fran from being a major city

[edvardas]

Just delay the discovery of gold. When they start to build the transcontinental railroad, they will notice that it is a lot easier to build a railroad over Marias Pass than Donner Pass-two thousand feet lower elevation. Also, Marias Pass is the only hard climb on the northern route. But the central route also has Sherman Hill and the climb out of the Bonneville Salt Flats. Finally the northern route does not cross any real deserts, while the central route crosses the Wyoming Basin and the Nevada desert.
Once they build the railroad to Portland, the bay area will remain a backwater.

[Herzen's love-child]

Short of civilization-killing events., there is just no way the Bay area will not have a significant population vis a vis the rest of the West Coast. Even in pre-Columbian times, the region had one of the densest populations in all of N. America. It is just so damn geographically well-suited to be a significant population center.

[FDW]

Originally Posted by jayel

you would need to get rid of the bay itself, to much use as a safe harbor

Getting rid of (most of) the Bay would actually wank the region somewhat, as the lack of flat land did wonders to balkanize the region (into many municipalities) and make development of infrastructure in the region more difficult.

Originally Posted by Herzen's love-child

Short of civilization-killing events., there is just no way the Bay area will not have a significant population vis a vis the rest of the West Coast. Even in pre-Columbian times, the region had one of the densest populations in all of N. America. It is just so damn geographically well-suited to be a significant population center.

Yeah, if anything, the Bay Area was nerfed IOTL. (for several reasons).

[Malta Shah]

Have it fall into the sea

[RamscoopRaider]

Get a political situation where the area eats a WMD (yeah it's a cop out)