Alternate US population and biggest cities

JJohnson

Banned
I have a question about an alternate US, specifically, if we look at an alternate version of the US in 2012, where are its biggest cities, and what's a rough population estimate?

This is the theoretical US:
-territory: OTL US, Canada, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Bahamas, Bermuda, all the Virgin Islands, northern Mexico (Durango, Sinaloa, Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, Tamaulipas and north of that)
-growth:
*Revolution: OTL 13 plus Nova Scotia, Quebec, capture Bermuda/Bahamas, UK keeps Newfoundland Island
*1803: Louisiana
*1812: no change, just fix the 49° parallel. UK keeps Rupert's Land
*1846-8: Mexican-American War cedes the southwest to the US.
*1848: Oregon Country goes entirely to the US
*1867: Alaska purchased
*1898: Hawaii annexed
*1898: Spanish-American war cedes Puerto Rico, Cuba
*1900-14: Rupert's Land sold to the US due to low settlement, drain on British Empire
*1916: Britain sells VI to US for war materials. US covers present territory, enters WW1 and 2 as OTL.

For this version of the US, assuming the above, what would its size be theoretically?

And as a slight variation, let's say that the UK captures Santiago in the War of Jenkin's Ear, and sets a colony there, covering roughly half the island, and by 1800 or so, it pushes the Spanish off the island. If the US captures it during the War of 1812 and it becomes US territory, how big would a US cuba bearing only former British citizens and American colonists get?
 

FDW

Banned
I'd say about 340 million or so?

As for cities, here are the likely 15 largest metro areas:

-New York City: This city had wonderful location OTL that helped make it so big, I see the same factor playing out in whatever TL your planning. (Population 21-23 million)

-San Francisco Bay Area: Believe it not, The Bay Area was nerfed OTL for a number of reasons, so it should be around 20-25% larger if those issues are partly mitigated. If you choose to slow down the Los Angeles regions growths (which had kind of ASB levels of growth IOTL), then you can have The Bay Area absorb about half of LA's population. (Population 16-18 million)

-Chicago: Grew up kind of late OTL, but like the two above, it has very strategic positioning, so it'll grow very large, let's say slightly larger than OTL. (population 12-14 million)

-Washington DC/Baltimore: The federal govt has played a huge role in the growth of this region OTL, so I would expect it near the top as well. (population 8-10 million)

-Boston: I would expect this region to be about the same size as OTL. (population 7-8 million)

-Los Angeles: While LA isn't the dominant west coast city that it was OTL, it's pull factors mean that it'll still have a sizable population. (population 7-8 million)

-Tampa Bay: Absorbs some of the growth that went to Orlando, Miami and Houston OTL. (population 6-7 million)

-Philadelphia: About as big as OTL, for similar reasons to that of Boston. (population 6-7 million)

-Dallas: About as big as OTL, because of it's convenient location in regards to transport. (population: 6-7 million)

-"Vancouver": Vancouver, with the US controlling all of Puget Sound, and having a better position on Puget Sound than Seattle, means that Vancouver will be much larger than OTL. (population 5-6 million)

-Atlanta: About the same size, for the same reasons as Dallas. (population 5-6 million)

-Detroit: Again, about the same size, assuming your TL is rather convergent with OTL (which it seems to be). (population 4.5-5.5 million)

-Galveston: If you choke off Houston's growth, and not have the hurricane of 1900 be so bad, then Galveston will end up being much larger. (population 4.5-5.5 million)

-Monterrey (The one in OTL Northern Mexico): Given the industries than developed in this region OTL, I've got no doubt this city will be prominent for those same reasons. (population: 4-5 million)

-Twin Cities: Slightly larger than OTL, because of it's increased role as a Transport hub for areas in OTL Rupert's Land. (population 3.5-4.5 million)


I should note, Almost all of these cities are among the 15 largest metro areas in the US OTL, and I think they'll grow like they did OTL because of the geographic advantages they enjoyed. Of the cities not among the OTL top 15 (Monterrey, Vancouver, and Galveston), Monterrey has an OTL population equivalent of the biggest 15 metro areas in the US and Galveston and Vancouver more or less replace Houston and Seattle respectively as the most prominent cities in their respective regions.


Also one more note, these numbers are for the entire metropolitan region and not just the cities proper. Depending on how local politics work out, some of the cities proper might only be fraction of the area and population of their greater metropolitan areas.
 
Chicago isn't necessarily as strategic as you might think. It won out over St Louis because St Louis didn't invest in enough infrastructure for it to be a good hub.

Richmond is another place that could grow to be much bigger in another timeline. And Baltimore if DC was never built.
 
Well massive and utter ignoring of butterflies and America-Wanking aside, you need to a) Decide which infrastructure projects are set up, if the St Lawrence seaway goes before the Erie canal then Montreal will be much bigger and New York much smaller for example, where the transpacific termini are is another big one. b) Realise the lack of British Canada will massively change immigration (millions went to Canada on the subsidised ships and then skipped south, here they'd go elsewhere). c) Realise the change in america will effect european history and thus the amount and direction of immigrants.

There are far too many questions you've left unanswered to make any sort of estimate.
 
FDW, I'm surprised you didn't include a city in Quebec (either Quebec City or Montreal) taking advantage of the St. Lawrence.

What about a city in or near Toronto, is there anything inevitable about that?

Incidentally, Galveston Island has an area of 64 sq mi (166 km2) and an OTL population of 58,175. In contrast, Malta, the most densely populated island in Europe, has an area of 95 sq mi (246 km2) and a population of 368,250. Manhattan has an area of 22.96 sq mi (59.5 km2) and an absurd population of 1,601,948.

So, my question is really whether Galveston can grow as large as you predict. Unlike Manhattan, it has no really convenient fresh water sources, and it is a barrier island, rather than lying between larger landmasses (the mainland, Long Island and Staten Island). I don't doubt a metro that large can grow in the region - that's really what OTL's Greater Houston represents - but Houston has a central location and Galveston is at the fringe. I'm not sure a Galveston based metro ever grows that big.

Another thought: the OP doesn't explicitly mention it, but I'm assuming the US gets Baja California as well. Does a large city develop there, maybe at Cabo San Lucas, as a sort of Pacific Miami (vacation resort and port of immigration)? For that matter, how does OTL's SoCal develop with a US Baja?
 
Chicago isn't necessarily as strategic as you might think. It won out over St Louis because St Louis didn't invest in enough infrastructure for it to be a good hub.


So the place where two major waterways meet isn't strategic in your mind. What exactly is strategic in your mind?
 
So the place where two major waterways meet isn't strategic in your mind. What exactly is strategic in your mind?

I think he meant that whilst Chicago is a very crucial transhippment point, there are plenty of other such hinge locations in the region, and Chicagos ancillary industries (like food processing) and population could have gone to them instead.

Also the transshipment point of 'chicago' could be miles from the OTL city location depending on how and were infrastructure gets built.
 

JJohnson

Banned
FDW, I'm surprised you didn't include a city in Quebec (either Quebec City or Montreal) taking advantage of the St. Lawrence.

What about a city in or near Toronto, is there anything inevitable about that?

Incidentally, Galveston Island has an area of 64 sq mi (166 km2) and an OTL population of 58,175. In contrast, Malta, the most densely populated island in Europe, has an area of 95 sq mi (246 km2) and a population of 368,250. Manhattan has an area of 22.96 sq mi (59.5 km2) and an absurd population of 1,601,948.

So, my question is really whether Galveston can grow as large as you predict. Unlike Manhattan, it has no really convenient fresh water sources, and it is a barrier island, rather than lying between larger landmasses (the mainland, Long Island and Staten Island). I don't doubt a metro that large can grow in the region - that's really what OTL's Greater Houston represents - but Houston has a central location and Galveston is at the fringe. I'm not sure a Galveston based metro ever grows that big.

Another thought: the OP doesn't explicitly mention it, but I'm assuming the US gets Baja California as well. Does a large city develop there, maybe at Cabo San Lucas, as a sort of Pacific Miami (vacation resort and port of immigration)? For that matter, how does OTL's SoCal develop with a US Baja?

I was assuming Baja goes US also in the Mexican American War, where the US gained OTL Mexican Cession, Sinaloa, Durango, Republic of the Rio Grande, Chihuahua, Sonora, and all Baja California. That and everything north becomes US territory.

I don't know about hurricanes moving along different paths just due to an alternate timeline, but it might be possible - different aggregations of people, greater heat in a local area affecting air in that area, could throw a hurricane a little one way or another to cause more or less damage. At least, it sounds reasonable on paper.
 
I was assuming Baja goes US also in the Mexican American War, where the US gained OTL Mexican Cession, Sinaloa, Durango, Republic of the Rio Grande, Chihuahua, Sonora, and all Baja California. That and everything north becomes US territory.

I don't know about hurricanes moving along different paths just due to an alternate timeline, but it might be possible - different aggregations of people, greater heat in a local area affecting air in that area, could throw a hurricane a little one way or another to cause more or less damage. At least, it sounds reasonable on paper.

Well, you don't really need to avert the 1900 storm. If the island were better prepared, the damage would have been greatly lessened. Even an earlier evacuation would have saved countless lives, and an earlier version of the Galveston Seawall (initial segment constructed 1902-04 OTL) would have prevented the storm surge.

The only reason that Hurricane Ike was so damaging in 2008 was that the storm hovered over the Galveston Bay side of the island and dropped massive quantities of water. The Seawall protects against surge from the Gulf of Mexico side, which is what did the damage in 1900.
 
-Washington DC/Baltimore: The federal govt has played a huge role in the growth of this region OTL, so I would expect it near the top as well. (population 8-10 million)

The one issue here is, with a *US that incorporates Canada, the midpoint of the nation is further north than in OTL. That might result in the national capital being further north as well (possibly along the Mason-Dixon Line, or perhaps even on the PA/NY border). Not sure that would be the case, given just how powerful Virginia was at the time, but it's at least possible, and if that were to happen, OTL's Washington, DC area would mostly be a swamp until the late 1800s.
 
@ Nugax Even with the POD you can't change geography. The Portage would still be in Chicago. industry would come to Chicago regardless of POD's.


@Socrates Yeah the meeting of the Great Lakes with the Mississippi river system is still more strategic
 

FDW

Banned
FDW, I'm surprised you didn't include a city in Quebec (either Quebec City or Montreal) taking advantage of the St. Lawrence.

Montreal would likely be at 16th, right below the Twin Cities region in population, with Cabo San Lucas and San Juan in 17th and 18th places.

What about a city in or near Toronto, is there anything inevitable about that?

No there isn't really. Toronto wasn't founded until after the American revolution IOTL, so I really don't see a way for that area to become prominent here.

Incidentally, Galveston Island has an area of 64 sq mi (166 km2) and an OTL population of 58,175. In contrast, Malta, the most densely populated island in Europe, has an area of 95 sq mi (246 km2) and a population of 368,250. Manhattan has an area of 22.96 sq mi (59.5 km2) and an absurd population of 1,601,948.
So, my question is really whether Galveston can grow as large as you predict. Unlike Manhattan, it has no really convenient fresh water sources, and it is a barrier island, rather than lying between larger landmasses (the mainland, Long Island and Staten Island). I don't doubt a metro that large can grow in the region - that's really what OTL's Greater Houston represents - but Houston has a central location and Galveston is at the fringe. I'm not sure a Galveston based metro ever grows that big.

Houston only seems to be central when you see the example of OTL. And keep in mind, metropolitan areas have grown up in worse areas (Seattle, Miami, Phoenix, Las Vegas). And keep in mind, Galveston proper probably only consists of small chunk of it's overall metro area and has probably engaged in some Land Reclamation to expand it's land area.

Another thought: the OP doesn't explicitly mention it, but I'm assuming the US gets Baja California as well. Does a large city develop there, maybe at Cabo San Lucas, as a sort of Pacific Miami (vacation resort and port of immigration)? For that matter, how does OTL's SoCal develop with a US Baja?

Probably, for Cabo San Lucas. As San Diego/Tijuana, OTL they fed off each other's growth by having complementary economies and straddling a border. Without that border, the San Diego/Tijuana area is nowhere near as large as OTL. (Though you'd still see some growth, so there'd be at least 1 million people in the region.)
 
Well massive and utter ignoring of butterflies and America-Wanking aside, you need to a) Decide which infrastructure projects are set up, if the St Lawrence seaway goes before the Erie canal then Montreal will be much bigger and New York much smaller for example, where the transpacific termini are is another big one. b) Realise the lack of British Canada will massively change immigration (millions went to Canada on the subsidised ships and then skipped south, here they'd go elsewhere). c) Realise the change in america will effect european history and thus the amount and direction of immigrants.

There are far too many questions you've left unanswered to make any sort of estimate.

Can you expand on the subsidised ships point? I always imagined in a scenario where Canada and the East Coast were the same polity (either in the British Empire or the United States), the St Lawrence route would be an easier way to the Midwest than New York.
 
@Socrates Yeah the meeting of the Great Lakes with the Mississippi river system is still more strategic

The meeting of the Missouri and the Mississippi is also pretty strategic though. I imagine basic location will allow them both to be reasonable sized cities, but whether either one becomes a metropolis like OTL Chicago would depend on a lot of non-geographic factors (like good management).

What about other non-strategic cities? Is there anything special about the location of Pittsburgh? Cleveland? Indianapolis? Columbus?
 
Montreal would likely be at 16th, right below the Twin Cities region in population, with Cabo San Lucas and San Juan in 17th and 18th places.

This is San Juan, PR? Why is it so much larger than IOTL? Recall that the OP mentions a US Cuba; could Havana make the top 10? Especially with South Florida as we know it (and Castro, obviously) butterflied?

Another thought as to Galveston - that's major drilling/refinery territory across the Bay, which might hinder the expansion of Galveston onto the mainland (a la the Bronx). On the other hand, OKC and Tulsa grew up around oil wells, so I guess it isn't impossible.

While we're at it, what's particularly inevitable about Dallas? The city has a very late founding, and while it is on the Trinity River, that's not too important as a trade route. Dallas really grew up on the early 20th Century oil boom; but the beneficiary could as easily have been Fort Worth, Longview, Tyler, or Beaumont. That last one gives rise to an intriguing possibility - the Beaumont/Galveston metro, as the dominant region of Texas!
 

FDW

Banned
This is San Juan, PR? Why is it so much larger than IOTL? Recall that the OP mentions a US Cuba; could Havana make the top 10? Especially with South Florida as we know it (and Castro, obviously) butterflied?

It absorbs some of the growth of the Miami area OTL, and the fact that it's urban area also consists of almost the entire island TTL. (OTL, San Juan's urban area already consists of more than half the island)

As Havana, it sits right behind San Juan in size, at 19th place overall, absorbing a chunk of Miami's growth. (Miami doesn't really exist ITTL, and the centered there instead is distributed amongst several other metro areas including Jacksonville, Tampa (who also takes in most some of Orlando's growth), Havana, Santiago (who absorbs the largest chunk as a proportion of it's OTL population), and areas farther away like San Juan and Cabo San Lucas.)

Another thought as to Galveston - that's major drilling/refinery territory across the Bay, which might hinder the expansion of Galveston onto the mainland (a la the Bronx). On the other hand, OKC and Tulsa grew up around oil wells, so I guess it isn't impossible.

I'd imagine that TTL's Galveston will be very dense having somewhere around 10-15,000 people per sq mile.

While we're at it, what's particularly inevitable about Dallas? The city has a very late founding, and while it is on the Trinity River, that's not too important as a trade route. Dallas really grew up on the early 20th Century oil boom; but the beneficiary could as easily have been Fort Worth, Longview, Tyler, or Beaumont. That last one gives rise to an intriguing possibility - the Beaumont/Galveston metro, as the dominant region of Texas!

Dallas is a good location to put a city because it happens to be the only place for hundreds of miles around where you can ford the Trinity River (And we know how valuable River fording locations are, from the examples of London and Paris OTL). Though keep in mind, the metro areas I'm naming as the largest are only referring to the general area where that city is, and not specially the exact location of the OTL city. For example, the main city of the San Francisco Bay TTL could be Oakland rather than San Francisco, TTL's Atlanta could be located several miles from OTL Atlanta, the Dallas region could referring to Ft Worth, and TTL's Twin Cities might just be a single city.
 
Can you expand on the subsidised ships point? I always imagined in a scenario where Canada and the East Coast were the same polity (either in the British Empire or the United States), the St Lawrence route would be an easier way to the Midwest than New York.

The British government subsidized and underwrote passenger ships travelling to Canada and Australia (and in the case of convicts to the latter, payed their way entirely). This made it much easier for people from the British isles to move to north america than other people in Europe prior to the development of steam passenger lines, and why in the first half of the 19th century the British were the majority of immigrants. The post-1812 wave to Canada was entirely the result of government policy.

Many many people took advantage of these subsidized ships to go to Canada on the cheap and then headed south to the US. This was especially true amongst the desperately poor Irish.

In the absence of British Canada there will be up to several million less immigrants in the first half of the 19th century, with the massive growth knock on from that.

The St Lawrence being a better route than the erie canal is not related to that, I was speaking of lower population numbers all together. The St Lawrence is a better route, but requires a larger discrete capital investments to make it workable. Whichever is completed first will come to dominate and be the major city, which is why the timeline needs to be more detailed before you can make a point either way.
 
Top