Cities that wouldn't exist if borders were different.
- Thread starter Swede
- Start date
Tijuana would probably be part of San Diego if the US-Mexican border was somewhere different.
EDIT:
St. Petersburg's size would be very contingent on who owns the land.
EDIT:
St. Petersburg's size would be very contingent on who owns the land.
Anzû
Gone Fishin'
Vancouver and Seattle. If there was no border between them, both places are independently good to set a port up but by today they could be a single conurbation. Vancouver is the access point to British Columbia, Seattle for Washington, but if one state controlled both one would probably rise as the overall 'north western port' even if the other still has that niche.
Of course that doesn't mean they couldn't still be separate cities, there's continuous urban development between them today. But without a border they could all end up under one jurisdiction, especially if one does end up taking the role of that state's north Pacific seaport.
Of course that doesn't mean they couldn't still be separate cities, there's continuous urban development between them today. But without a border they could all end up under one jurisdiction, especially if one does end up taking the role of that state's north Pacific seaport.
And whether Ivangorod/Narva is kept by Russians or by Swedes. It may end up an insignificant town, not the northernmost 5+ millon people city.
Windsor (Ontario) would become part of Detroit metropolitan area if the US-Canada border was further south.
Do examples after 1900 count for this? If not, I think most Vladivostok would be at most a small village, as I think the Qing had made it illegal to live there, and Russia built that city as a port.
For cities after 1900, I think the ghost cities in China may count? They are not built because they are on the border for a port where another country has one, but instead the Chinese government paid for their construction. They do have people in them now, but when built, there had been no demand, I think. So, if the border, or even government had been different, I could see them being much less developed now, perhaps even not existing(with their inhabitants near Beijing instead).
For cities after 1900, I think the ghost cities in China may count? They are not built because they are on the border for a port where another country has one, but instead the Chinese government paid for their construction. They do have people in them now, but when built, there had been no demand, I think. So, if the border, or even government had been different, I could see them being much less developed now, perhaps even not existing(with their inhabitants near Beijing instead).
Last edited:
A lot of cities in Europe originated as Roman military bases; if the Roman Empire never existed, or its borders were different to OTL, a lot of these cities either wouldn't exist, or would be host to much smaller and less important settlements.
By the 1800s there were many exceptions to the ban on Han settlement in Manchuria and its inevitable that something in the area of Vladivostok at Peter the Great Gulf would become an important port for Qing China since it's too good/strategic of a location (as it avoids the Strait of Tsushima), especially if Japan still emerges as a powerhouse (or gets colonized by a powerful country).
My home city, Foz do Iguassu, which sits right on the triple border between Brazil, Argentina, and Paraguay, would likely have never developed the way it did IOTL if the territorial results of the Paraguayan War had been different. Hell, find any way to hamper the Itaipu Dam project and it might never develop beyond small border town status.
Last edited:
Doesn't Vladivostok need that strait, or at least Japanese allowance for trade?
I think that while the ban might be lifted later, that by then people would just use the ports south, with a Chinese railroad made later.
Also, do reverse scenarios count?
If so, then i'll mention Aleppo in Syria: had the Ottoman Empire never lost Syria, or had the French Mandate's border been further north (including Hatay), Aleppo wouldn't have been cut off from other nearby cities on whose mutual development it depended on (such as Gaziantep and Diyarbakir), and would have likely grown larger.
If so, then i'll mention Aleppo in Syria: had the Ottoman Empire never lost Syria, or had the French Mandate's border been further north (including Hatay), Aleppo wouldn't have been cut off from other nearby cities on whose mutual development it depended on (such as Gaziantep and Diyarbakir), and would have likely grown larger.
Move the Canada-US border slightly south and there's no Rideau Canal, and accordingly Ottawa-Gatineau remains a mere lumber camp.
Move the Quebec-Ontario border and Ottawa-Gatineau ceases to work as a compromise location for Canada's capital.
Move the Quebec-Ontario border and Ottawa-Gatineau ceases to work as a compromise location for Canada's capital.
Depends with who.
South? IF Japan is strong enough to police the strait, then yes.
East? Depends who owns Sakhalin and the Kurils.
It's hard to imagine a different border though. The current border is very logical, passing through all the bodies of water.
Unless you have Michigan be part of Canada and the border be on land.
I had assumed that Japan would still expand into China into Manchuria and the Sakhalin island, but you are correct.
As long as Japan doesn't own Sakhalin or the Kurils they're fine. Which the (northern) Kurils always belonged to Russia while Sakhalin was claimed by the Chinese since at least the Yuan dynasty. It isn't too unimaginable a stronger Qing (strong enough to keep Russia out of Manchuria) would make moves to secure the island.
There's plenty of products Outer Manchuria produces/could produce which would be good for export (or domestic consumption elsewhere) and best shipped by sea. It will never be as proportionately important to China as Vladivostok is to Russia but geography ensures it would still be important, much as Halifax is to Canada or Anchorage is to the US. Its main use of course would be a naval base.