A north-south running railway is also possible from Toronto thru Barrie to North Bay and Sudbury.
BTW, can Sudbury be larger? the Laurentian U. filed bankruptcy.....
Cities that could have been much larger
- Thread starter Centralen
- Start date
-
- Tags
- cities urban urban development
- Status
BTW, can Sudbury be larger? the Laurentian U. filed bankruptcy.....
)
What about Detroit? It’s population is like what, a third of what it once was? Would probably require a fair few changes to be made in order to keep people and business from leaving.
Some ways?
Less corrupt city administration, going back at least 40yr. (IDK if that actually keeps population, but it should keep the city from declining.)
Have Detroit submit a better bid for the Olympics, so the city wins & hosts it. (This was a real proposal, but Detroit lost; search the forums, you'll find a thread.)
I also think containing sprawl would be a good idea. Detroit is much bigger by area than its population would justify. (Containing sprawl is generally a good thing, but in this case, even moreso, IMO.) It would keep downtown from being sucked dry by the 'burbs & help keep the city alive.
Attracting more industries would be a very good idea; relying entirely on automotive means, as car plants close, the city takes serious hits. Frex, could Detroit have kept (what became) Lockheed?
Yeah diversifying it’s economy should probably be a major must do for Detroit to do better. Not electing corrupt asshats can only help. Would the Olympics really help though? I once heard it be said that the Olympics hurt the cities they're hosted by, but I haven’t looked into that.
The Olympics tend to operate in a cycle where one city is successful, subsequent cities gradually spend more and more in an attempt to impress, but eventually there's a spectacular failure and/or budgets become too high for anyone to pay, so the next host (who probably didn't have much competition) runs it on the cheap and turns out to be successful, and...
A good example of this was the 1976 and 1984 Summer Olympics (the 1980 Olympics were in a weird spot due to the boycott and being hosted by the Soviets, so tended to be ignored). 1976 was, at the time, an infamous, over budget (it had a 720% cost overrun!) fiasco with overspending on facilities not justified by ticket or television revenue and was disastrous for Montreal, the host. Then in 1984 Los Angeles reused a lot of facilities, allowing them to host it for a very low cost (it helped that they had hosted in 1932, so they had some of the facilities already), and it proved enormously successful. That led a lot of later games to try to emulate its success, but gradually budgets went back up and you had a series of massively expensive games from 2004 to 2016 that dampened enthusiasm enough that the IOC took the unprecedented step of awarding the 2024 and 2028 Games simultaneously--to Paris and Los Angeles, respectively, both of which have already hosted the games twice in what is definitely not a coincidence (and in fact the Los Angeles bid was specifically complimented by the IOC for using a huge number of existing facilities and relying on corporate funding, which of course makes it much more likely that it will make money).
Moreover, just because the Games lose money doesn't necessarily mean that they represent bad value for money. It's conceivable that hosting the Games can motivate a city to build infrastructure and facilities that have utility beyond the game in excess of their cost. To return to Los Angeles 2028, part of their proposal for the game was to accelerate several existing transit projects so that they would be finished by 2028, in particular the D/Purple subway line, which appears to be going fairly well. Obviously we'll have to wait and see whether everything turns out okay in the end, but preliminary indications are definitely positive for LA 2028 being a solid, successful Games.
So with good leadership at the city and national level, it's certainly possible that the legacy of a Detroit Games would be a financially successful Games coupled with revitalized infrastructure setting up the city to move forwards into the future. It's not necessarily likely, and probably depends on a combination of other PoDs ("not electing corrupt assholes") and luck, but it's possible.
Got yah. Makes sense that it would be smarter for a city that already hosted the Olympics to host them again because they’ve got the facilities to do so.
I've heard of it going both ways. This is the best explanation I've seen. Thx. (That it can go both ways is why I wouldn't argue it being a clear gain to Detroit.)
Coach bus service would be greatly reduced because ppl taking this HSR? Greyhound closed down recently.
I think a high-speed network across Canada could work if it was subsidized initially and very selectively chosen to "funnel" the necessary ridership along the same lines.
I see the "Saint-Laurent" line which runs from Quebec City to Ottawa with stops in TR and Montréal.
The Shield line connects Sudbury and Ottawa through North Bay, then continues to Thunder Bay and Winnipeg. The Sudbury-Winnipeg is an overnight.
From Ottawa, the Ontario line goes south to Brockville, then west along the Lake to Downtown Toronto. From downtown Toronto, there are 3 separate lines:
One west through the airport to Kitchener-London-Windsor (and the border eventually).
Another south along lake Ontario through Hamilyon to the border.
Another north through Barrie to meet up with Sudbury.
This way, anyone travelling from Quebec or Ontario out west will meet up in Sudbury for the Sudbury-Winnipeg overnight, and there just might be enough ridership to make it work.
Calgary-Edmonton.
Calgary and Edmonton both connect to Saskatoon.
The "Prairie Line" Runs from Saskatoon to Winnipeg through Regina.
I'm pretty sure HSR through the Rockies is either physically impossible or prohibitively expensive with current technology.
This network would make Sudbury a hub city and revive its growth.
Last edited:
Winnipeg, & even Ottawa, might be a bit of a stretch, given the population, but any Windsor-Toronto-Montreal route is a moneymaker; that covers something like 80% of Canada's population.
I'm a bit dubious about a link to Saskatoon; if you buy that, one to Regina would also work. A Regina-Saskatoon link might (just).
I wonder about something out of Vancouver to Seattle (& points south?), or Toronto-Buffalo (& points south?).
Honestly, I don't think there is such a thing. It's none or "Six Minute War" & A Canticle for Leibowitz.
Near me is Preston, Lancashire which is a city, obtained city status in 2002 in OTL, and has 16 district electoral wards (as per our British system).
But to really make it a city you'd have to take in parts of South Ribble which border it such as Penwortham and Walton-le-Dale; however, it wouldn't make it a huge city, though. South Ribble would have to still remain somehow ITTL.
Wolverhampton in the West Midlands would need to take in parts of bordering Walsall and bordering Dudley (perhaps up to Sedgley).
A map of the area:
But to really make it a city you'd have to take in parts of South Ribble which border it such as Penwortham and Walton-le-Dale; however, it wouldn't make it a huge city, though. South Ribble would have to still remain somehow ITTL.
Wolverhampton in the West Midlands would need to take in parts of bordering Walsall and bordering Dudley (perhaps up to Sedgley).
A map of the area:
Seems like Baltimore could have been a good bit bigger/ avoided the slow decrease in population. I mean a big part is the large amounts of crime, white flight, and the death of industry common in Rust Belt Cities.
Not sure how to avoid it. But it would be interesting if Baltimore had somehow remained industrialized and the port and shipyards had retained their prior importance.
Not sure how to avoid it. But it would be interesting if Baltimore had somehow remained industrialized and the port and shipyards had retained their prior importance.
Yeah absolutely, connect to Chicago through Detroit/Windsor, from Buffalo south to Pitt and east to Albany, where it meets the Hudson line (NYC-Mtl).
Vancouver to San Diego, baby!
Last edited:
When you talk about cities growing, consider the other locations that won't grow if we assume the total world population remains about the same. I will start in my own back yard. Fifty miles north is the town of Nauvoo, Illinois, population 1,000. A haven for Mormon settlement until 1846, it could have been much larger. Metro Salt Lake City, Utah is 1.2 million. Now, if Brigham Young stayed in Nauvoo, the town could have became a major metro area. But would the town have attracted so many settlers? Where would the first transcontinental railroad have traversed? Would the Rocky Mountains have been less settled? In other words, when one city grows, some other places do not.
- Status