Cities that could have been much larger

[SealTheRealDeal]

Churchill Manitoba if it was connected to the rest of Canada by road and oil pipeline. Also slap a Canadian Forces base in there to round out the government stimulus package.

I'm not sure why the government put so much effort into developing a port capable of servicing four Panamax ships at a time, only to do nothing with it, but it seems like a really dumb idea.

 

[Fearless Leader]

I wonder how much religion impacted that. AIUI, the Church retarded economic development, meaning Anglo businesses fled. I also wonder how much the separatista mania for French-only everything hurt.

And Detroit could be much bigger than now. It peaked at over 1mil, but has been plagued by industry withdrawal from downtown & some of the worst, most corrupt administrations in the U.S. Butterfly either... Or even keep Lockheed (Detroit A/c)? Win the Olympic bid? (Would building the St. Lawrence Seaway earlier help?)

Certainly much of modern Montreal's woes stem from the BQ's nationalist policies driving away anything that even smelled of Anglophone sympathies. Get rid of these policies and Montreal probably is not eclipsed by Vancouver as Canada's second most prestigious city.

Though pre-Quiet Revolution Quebec is often portrayed as being dominated by an overly powerful church, the reality is a bit more complicated. Certainly the Church held considerable sway over periods of Quebec's history (including the period right before the Quiet Revolution!), but it also went through periods where it was not as influential. A big thing that inhibited early growth were ethnic tensions between the burgeoning French professional/merchant class and the English. Burgeoning French Canadian nationalism was then utilized by the Church and local aristocracy to preserve the seigneurial system which in turn retarded development.

Ferdinand Oullet argues that had Melville not created upper Canada to assuage the Loyalists, and instead instituted the legal reforms they had actually asked for, Canadian politics could have been vastly different. Without the artificial political division, development would continue along the lines that it was in the 18th century and the economies of both regions would be improved over OTL especially as canals were built to connect Upper Canada to Quebec. These developments would in turn create less political competition along national lines (this is his argument as I understand it, I'd be more than willing to hear counterpoints). Instead of shaping up along national lines, Oullet argues that class divisions would have become more important and could have led to a peasant/liberal coalition against the seigneurial system which had far more to do with the economic crisis in Quebec than the English did.

In such a scenario the 1837 rebellions likely don't take place and Canadian politics continues to evolve towards responsible government without Durham's interference. This likely means that *Canada remains formally bi-lingual and with an unintentionally liberal constitution (in OTL poor wording and property requirements allowed both Indigenous people and women to vote and Jewish people to take office until various actors forced amendments). Montreal actively competes with New York and likely has an edge due to earlier St. Lawrence canals reducing shipping costs. As Canada's main port and political capital, I could see it easily doubling or even tripling in size as the expense of cities like Toronto and the rest of Ontario.

 

[1940LaSalle]

And there's the obvious one: Boston, if the Erie Canal isn't built (for some reason).

How's that again? The Erie Canal linked Lake Erie at Buffalo with the Hudson River at Albany. Getting goods over the Berkshires from upstate New York and then across the entirety of Massachusetts would quite likely have been more arduous, uncertain, and expensive than getting them as far as Albany and going downriver to New York. I'd like to see your reasoning that no Erie Canal yields a larger Boston.

 

[1940LaSalle]

Churchill Manitoba if it was connected to the rest of Canada by road and oil pipeline. Also slap a Canadian Forces base in there to round out the government stimulus package.

Tough to keep a road in good repair in that terrain / climate. I imagine there would be two seasons: snow-covered and construction / maintenance. Either way, traffic is going to be slow.

 

[phx1138]

I'd like to see your reasoning that no Erie Canal yields a larger Boston.

Boston was bigger before the Canal. Take away from NYC the trade increase due to the Canal, Boston is likely to be bigger.

 

[phx1138]

Certainly much of modern Montreal's woes stem from the BQ's nationalist policies driving away anything that even smelled of Anglophone sympathies. Get rid of these policies and Montreal probably is not eclipsed by Vancouver as Canada's second most prestigious city.

Though pre-Quiet Revolution Quebec is often portrayed as being dominated by an overly powerful church, the reality is a bit more complicated. Certainly the Church held considerable sway over periods of Quebec's history (including the period right before the Quiet Revolution!), but it also went through periods where it was not as influential. A big thing that inhibited early growth were ethnic tensions between the burgeoning French professional/merchant class and the English. Burgeoning French Canadian nationalism was then utilized by the Church and local aristocracy to preserve the seigneurial system which in turn retarded development.

Ferdinand Oullet argues that had Melville not created upper Canada to assuage the Loyalists, and instead instituted the legal reforms they had actually asked for, Canadian politics could have been vastly different. Without the artificial political division, development would continue along the lines that it was in the 18th century and the economies of both regions would be improved over OTL especially as canals were built to connect Upper Canada to Quebec. These developments would in turn create less political competition along national lines (this is his argument as I understand it, I'd be more than willing to hear counterpoints). Instead of shaping up along national lines, Oullet argues that class divisions would have become more important and could have led to a peasant/liberal coalition against the seigneurial system which had far more to do with the economic crisis in Quebec than the English did.

In such a scenario the 1837 rebellions likely don't take place and Canadian politics continues to evolve towards responsible government without Durham's interference. This likely means that *Canada remains formally bi-lingual and with an unintentionally liberal constitution (in OTL poor wording and property requirements allowed both Indigenous people and women to vote and Jewish people to take office until various actors forced amendments). Montreal actively competes with New York and likely has an edge due to earlier St. Lawrence canals reducing shipping costs. As Canada's main port and political capital, I could see it easily doubling or even tripling in size as the expense of cities like Toronto and the rest of Ontario.

I didn't know most of that, so thx. Also, that goes exactly where I wanted. (And it screws Toronto, which is also good. )

 

[Dunning Kruger]

Carthage. Damn Romans...

 

[Duke Andrew of Dank]

Maybe of Studebaker somehow expanded, South Bend, IN could be on this list.

 

[Arkenfolm]

Carthage. Damn Romans...

Blame the Arabs since it was eaten by Tunis in the Middle Ages, and more distantly, lost its status of foremost city in the area to Kairouan in that same time period.

 

[Histor32]

3 cities for your thought pleasure

Saginaw, Flint and Detroit Michigan
You could toss in Cleveland and Toledo Ohio as well as Fort Wayne Indiana.
Good management, diversification could have gone a long way when times were good. especially management.

Gary or Michigan city could have been more strategic, but they are very close to Chicago and fell victim to . well .. Chicago

Roanoke Virginia
Buffalo NY

Nuremburg Germany had that remained one of the primary seats of the Holy Roman Empire

Konigsberg if that was the capitol of Prussia and then Germany

I concur that Vladivostok could also be a lot larger than it is.

 

[TheKutKu]

3 cities for your thought pleasure

Saginaw, Flint and Detroit Michigan
You could toss in Cleveland and Toledo Ohio as well as Fort Wayne Indiana.
Good management, diversification could have gone a long way when times were good. especially management.

Gary or Michigan city could have been more strategic, but they are very close to Chicago and fell victim to . well .. Chicago

Roanoke Virginia
Buffalo NY

Nuremburg Germany had that remained one of the primary seats of the Holy Roman Empire

Konigsberg if that was the capitol of Prussia and then Germany

I concur that Vladivostok could also be a lot larger than it is.

Yeah for Vladivostok, with 600k inhabitant it’s a surprisingly small city for such a strategically important and culturally well known city, I guess we can blame communism for limiting trade from the city. Sapporo, which was founded at around the same time, has similar climate, is less strategically important for japan than Vladivostok is for Russia and has a smaller hinterland (Hokkaido = 5 millions, far eat = 8 millions), is more than 3 times larger.


For a non communist Russia Vladivostok would be the main and busy port city that links the populous China, Korea and japan with the ressource rich and industry rich Russian hinterland, it could be as large if not larger than Novosibirsk, third only to st Petersburg and Moscow

 

[EternalCynic]

was

 

[1Big Rich]

I would think Cheyenne, Wyoming in the US would be a candidate. If the Union Pacific hadn't run the Moffet Tunnel through the Continental Divide, Cheyenne would have been the rail gateway to the west instead of Denver.

My thoughts,

 

[sendô]

London- is constant British decline wasn’t so ingrained and persistent after WW2, If Labour hasn’t built the “New Towns” in the Home Counties shift majority of the inner London working class population out of the city. Don’t forget the dreaded green belt that was the death knell to the long mourned Northern Heights plan (I encourage you to look it up), I reckon you’d probably have a population of at least 10.5-11 million by now.

The dreaded green belt? You mean the strip of nice green land around London that prevented the spread of urban sprawl and the increase of crap inner city built up areas rife with crime and lacking parks, countryside and other green spaces that people enjoy?

The green belt was a great introduction for London, without which the city might be 15 million now and would have engulfed half of the home counties.

I'm not sure the want for cities to be "huge". They're crap places to live when they get to that sort of size. London is too big as it is.

 

[General Tirpitz]

If China didn't lost Outer Manchuria, Vladivostok (obviously wouldn't be called that) would have become a metropolis city of several millions. It's location and being tightly connected to the rest of China would make this inevitable.

It's not happening under Russia simply because it is too remote from the Russian core and Russia itself is not highly populated.

The common AH cliché of Japan annexing/puppetizing Russian Far East during the Russian Civil War might have also resulted with larger Vladivostok.

Yeah for Vladivostok, with 600k inhabitant it’s a surprisingly small city for such a strategically important and culturally well known city, I guess we can blame communism for limiting trade from the city. Sapporo, which was founded at around the same time, has similar climate, is less strategically important for japan than Vladivostok is for Russia and has a smaller hinterland (Hokkaido = 5 millions, far eat = 8 millions), is more than 3 times larger.

For a non communist Russia Vladivostok would be the main and busy port city that links the populous China, Korea and japan with the ressource rich and industry rich Russian hinterland, it could be as large if not larger than Novosibirsk, third only to st Petersburg and Moscow

Vladivostok also might have received immigrants from China and Korea if Russia had a more developed economy.

This is little off-topic, but it should be noted though that although Sapporo as a city isn't strategically as important to Japan than Valdivostok is for Russia, Hokkaido as an area is very important. Why they are important differs a lot though. The Russian Far East's importance stems from the fact that it allows Russia to exert influence to East Asia and helps it to connect better to the region. Hokkaido on the other hand is important to Japan because it works as a buffer against Russia and provides Japan with excellent agricultural land. In a way, Hokkaido and Far East are important to their respective countries for opposite reasons, as the former helps to keep outsiders out and while the latter makes it possible to spread Russia's influence outside.

 

[Joe Bonkers]

In my Fix-Your-Hometown Timeline, I made Wilkes-Barre and Scranton, Pennsylvania, considerably larger cities than they are now through a variety of means.

Going back as far as possible, the earliest way I can think of for Scranton to become a larger city is for the incipient steel industry not to have moved to Buffalo in the late 1800s. Had most of what is in OTL the Taylor area become instead the site of a large steel mill, with others being added later through Pittston and down into Wilkes-Barre, Scranton might have been a steel-making center along the lines of Pittsburgh (in OTL it was the third largest city in Pennsylvania as late as the 1920s). And if the local anthracite had been used, anthracite coal might have become a major supplier to the steel industry rather than just a home-heating fuel, which has enormous implications for the entire Northeastern United States.

 

[Chris Triangle]

Almost any French city other than Paris. Paris has been so economically and politically dominant for so long that it seems fair to say that its prominence came at the expense of other French cities. This is a common thing among small countries but more unusual for a nation as geographically large and as populous as France.

 

[General Tirpitz]

Almost any French city other than Paris. Paris has been so economically and politically dominant for so long that it seems fair to say that its prominence came at the expense of other French cities. This is a common thing among small countries but more unusual for a nation as geographically large and as populous as France.

This seems to be more common in countries with history of centralization compared to those with more fragmented political structures.

 

[Chris Triangle]

This seems to be more common in countries with history of centralization compared to those with more fragmented political structures.

Hence the contrasting example, Germany which has many medium sized cities but lacked of any sort of obvious "German hub" for most of its history.

 

[kernals12]

If the University of Michigan hadn't moved to Ann Arbor, Detroit might be less of a ghost town.
Obviously, if the Civil War had gone differently, Richmond, Virginia would be a major city.