Car industry question: Anywhere but Detroit?

To what degree should we assume that the centralizing of all the major national competitors in one "MoTown" is some sort of economically favored phenomenon and we can only argue about where it is, versus the possibility that an ATL produces a great dispersal of automotive manufacturing centers? Indeed this situation has evolved in latter days, with USA based manufacturing being widely scattered.

I would guess there are three phases broadly speaking--the pioneer days, in which as this discussion has pointed out, various makers were indeed scattered from the old Northeast coastal states to considerably farther west than Detroit. I do think that the strongest region to harbor most of them would be as OTL the Midwest around the Great Lakes, including Buffalo--but for the US market, not Toronto! Indeed a great part of the industry might be in a make that has a Canadian background, but for both quasi-political and fiscal reasons relating to tariff and so forth, a Canadian origin make that finds a large Yankee market will probably be forced to set up a US based subsidiary that will soon become the tail wagging the dog; on paper the company might remain, for reasons of pride, associated with Canada and the British Empire generally but in reality its center of gravity in the second period, that in which Detroit became Motor City OTL, when cars are Big Business and an American make means Made in the USA--which in this period means mostly Detroit, with a few competitors eventually wiped out based elsewhere in the Midwest--will be on the US side of the border; Toronto might specialize in production for the Empire trade. The third period would be post-1970s with the old centers becoming part of the "Rust Belt" while Americans largely buy overseas, mostly Japanese--and the American production sites I am thinking of were and are for Japanese makes with the Japanese choosing US manufacture sites.

Clearly in the pioneering period and in the post-collapse period, location is largely up for grabs. It certainly makes sense to me that availability of specific resources of labor skill and local capital favor some regions-not broad regions but specific spots within the vague generality of "The Midwest"-over other sites initially.

But given that Henry Ford or someone like him is going to pioneer large scale mass production first, and then be imitated by a "me, too!" competitor funded by massive investment from the deep pocket cartels (hello, GM!) does it follow that in the middle period, the location chosen by one pioneer then tips the balance toward rivals setting up in the same market, as opposed to rivals picking different locations throughout the Midwest? I gather there were economic arguments favoring rivals doubling down in the same small region as the pioneer chooses. I gather the major one would be labor force--no longer a matter of hiring the skilled workers still less firm management in wagon making and bicycle industries, now a matter of hiring workers familiar with modern production line automotive manufacturing. I believe it was for this reason that GM in particular chose to battle Ford head on in the same metropolitan area--so they could steal away Ford's trained workforce.

So--is that really an accident in OTL, with the GM board making a decision that might have gone another way with the board members weighing other factors, or is it a very strong economic thing that means that whoever chooses a different site than the ATL *Ford chooses suffers and fails to become one of the top firms?

If in fact the arguments for there being a single Motor City in the classic period of US auto industry are weak, then we might, instead of a single car megacenter, have the several big car makers spread out in quite different locations. How plausible is that?

I could most assuredly see multiple cities become motor cities.

You could have Chicago or Milwaukee, Detroit, Cleveland, or a Dixie highway Triumphant of Detroit ( metro area ), (south ) Dayton, Cincinnati; (North) Flint, Saginaw/Bay City
Nothing says that everyone has to setup shop in Detroit. that said, in OTL once Ford really took off with mass production, the Skilled labor flocked to the area, and as such competitors followed or spun up from former employees as well as the complete support infrastructure of sub companies that provided materials, parts and other items. Its not an accident, Its just business. Detroit was already making a name for itself in this regard, so being close to the action was helpful in those days. I personally think the Detroit north Axis is the most likely, however Chicago could become a serious contender.


Viability, consolidation, World War II all played major factors as well. Michigan was the Arsenal of Democracy during the war. To that end cities like Pittsburgh, Akron, Columbus, St Louis are in my eyes also viable options, if people want to separate themselves from Ford and Detroit. However more logically by the 1920's almost everyone is in Michigan or in the immediate area because that is where the support network is and the action. Remember this is the days before the internet, jet travel, and everyone has a car. Materials are delivered by ship and train.
 
Last edited:
The area somewhere from Buffalo to Saginaw is going to be the place. It has access to to the raw materials. But the automotive industry is not developing in a vacuum. There are other industries developing there own centers of "critical mass". Machine tools in New England (mainly Conn.) and Cincinatti. Plus there is the "Mr X worked for Mr Y and decided to go into business for himself" factor. Silcon Valley anyone.
 
The area somewhere from Buffalo to Saginaw is going to be the place. It has access to to the raw materials. But the automotive industry is not developing in a vacuum. There are other industries developing there own centers of "critical mass". Machine tools in New England (mainly Conn.) and Cincinatti. Plus there is the "Mr X worked for Mr Y and decided to go into business for himself" factor. Silcon Valley anyone.
and no one liked mr. y .. he was such a jerk
 
Concord, NH is not an especially good choice, IMVHO. It's too small, then and now, to have a lot of workers, and the Merrimack River is too shallow for good water transport. It was great for the Concord Coach--New Hampshire has LOTS of great wood--but motorcars--not so much. EVERYTHING will need to be hauled in by rail.

I'd say that you need a major seaport or lake port, or the city will get priced out of the business; water transport is much cheaper than land. As car companies get big, major rivers are vital. For things that need to be shipped in by rail, a relatively flat railroad line helps; transportation costs are MUCH less when the line isn't mountainous.

Pittsburgh could be a good location, since the steel is made right there, in vast amounts, unless competition for workers drives the price of labor up. It has the drawback of being mountainous, so fewer easy places to locate vast sprawling complexes.
 
As for Toronto, for most of its history, it was pretty small compared to Montreal, which is my #1 Canadian candidate, except for the hostility of the Church to commerce & industry (& that might be a later development). Halifax had banking & shipbuilding industries that might "spill over".
What about Canada's actual automotive capitals? Oshawa and Windsor? (though Windsor was an outgrowth of Detroit [for obvious reasons])
 
To what degree should we assume that the centralizing of all the major national competitors in one "MoTown" is some sort of economically favored phenomenon and we can only argue about where it is, versus the possibility that an ATL produces a great dispersal of automotive manufacturing centers?
I'm not suggesting the industry remain forever concentrated at one place, only wondering if there could be a different city which becomes known as the hub of, & synonymous with, the U.S. industry, as Detroit is OTL.

As for the rest of your argument, I find it very interesting & thought-provoking. I did not know about the "stealing jobs" goal of GM; it makes me wonder if that didn't also play a part in Ford's raising wages. Given how unpleasant auto factory work was, is there a chance of competing for workers on better in-factory conditions? (OTL, GM eventually built much more pleasant ones...) That, however, is a bit OT...
 
I don't really see how Canadian cities factor here - it's the US auto industry. It will presumably be based there.
 
I don't really see how Canadian cities factor here - it's the US auto industry. It will presumably be based there.

At the time, the USA was THE place that people bought motorcars, so the industry has to be in the USA. Protectionism could pop up at any time and there wuld be people who considered it to be VITAL that the USA make its own machines. (They would, in the context of the era, be right.)

If one company did start making their cars in Canada, tycoons running other companies would invest in some politicians and newspapermen to generate outrage, and put a heavy tariff on imported cars and car parts. In this time, most imports were a luxury for the USA, so retaliation wouldn't be a very credible threat.
 
There's a prospect for a Canadian company, but absent a low-tariff deal allowing exports into the U.S., not much chance of a Canadian industry serving Canada alone; the market's far too small. Even exports in the Commonwealth might not do it; that also requires something like an "Imperial Tariff Zone", where exports to Britain, NZ, Oz, &/or SAfr are low/zero-tariff. Not to mention facing competition from domestic British marques. (Oz ones would be less an issue, since the Canadian industry would tend to benefit technically from being so close to the U.S., & would be pretty established OTL before Oz got off the ground.)
 
There's a prospect for a Canadian company, but absent a low-tariff deal allowing exports into the U.S., not much chance of a Canadian industry serving Canada alone; the market's far too small. Even exports in the Commonwealth might not do it; that also requires something like an "Imperial Tariff Zone", where exports to Britain, NZ, Oz, &/or SAfr are low/zero-tariff.
Or you know, what happened OTL could happen.
 
I had that in mind when I suggested a potential export industry. Eventual takeover, given the small size of the domestic market, seems (seemed) a given. Look at Ford Canada (which even built RHD Model Ts!). Or Studebaker Canada. Or Honda Canada (which builds better-quality Civics for export to Japan, AIUI).
Canada did have a very healthy auto-export industry, and was actually the second largest manufacturer in the world. The trouble is keeping it that way, because at the end of the gold standard Canada pegged its Dollar to the USD rather than the Pound and promptly lost its favourable position in Commonwealth markets. You'd need a PoD where either the UK stays on the gold standard or pegs the Loonie to the Pound, and those matters probably warrant their own plausibility check threads.

Also, "eventual takeover" is a bit of an oversimplification of the relation between McLaughlin and GM (which Sam McLaughlin helped start and had been significantly involved with for its entire history). It would be more accurate to say that the two companies had always been intrinsically joined at the hip, and that fact merely became official in 1918.
 
This site suggests the flour milling industry, plus building steam engines & proximity to metal mining & refining, as well as proximity to the water, gave Detroit a major advantage over other possible locations.

BTW: bump.
 
Last edited:
This site suggests the flour milling industry, plus building steam engines & proximity to metal mining & refining, as well as proximity to the water, gave Detroit a major advantage over other possible locations.

BTW: bump.

True, but the same industrial advantages could be had in nearly any of the mid to large cities in the Rust Belt. The biggest advantage Detroit had was that Ford and Olds already lived there. Had they lived in say, Cleveland, then they would probably have focused on building factories there. Once it started snowballing then there was no reason to look elsewhere.

Here's a decent article: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...merican_car_companies_based_in_michigan_.html
 
True, but the same industrial advantages could be had in nearly any of the mid to large cities in the Rust Belt. The biggest advantage Detroit had was that Ford and Olds already lived there. Had they lived in say, Cleveland, then they would probably have focused on building factories there. Once it started snowballing then there was no reason to look elsewhere.

Here's a decent article: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...merican_car_companies_based_in_michigan_.html
Yeah, that's true. I've never seen that particular combination of factors offered as key, before.

It also gives me the excuse to bump.:openedeyewink:

Thx for the link, too.:cool:
 
I'm going to second Kenosha, Wisconsin. As the home of Nash it could have been the home of the Nash successor companies, but it would have been in competition with Detroit, not a replacement. I apologize for not reading the preceding comments yet so this may have already been mentioned (or be common knowledge), but Ford's higher wages allowed it to poach talent from rivals in Detroit. This geographical dispersion of talent could prompt automakers to invest more in their employees training and retention.
 
Top