Cities that wouldn't exist if borders were different.
- Thread starter Swede
- Start date
Miguel Lanius
Banned
If Brazil had not remained united, I find it fairly unlikely that the site of OTL!Brasilia would ever hold something significant. Its a super-dry planalt away from pretty much everything and everyone. Pretty much no one lived there at the time Brasilia was built. A more probable "inland capital" might be somewhere more defensive in Minas, like São João D'el Rey.
Without South America being divided between Spain and Portugal, I highly doubt most amazonian cities as we know would exist. Perhaps alternate cities in the same or similar sites. Belém, Macapá, Óbidos, Manaus, Salvaterra, etc. Say, a Spanish-only South America might only have forts built in the coastal area, to prevent foreigners from getting INTO the Amazon River, rather than how the Portuguese did, where they also had to fortify against both foreigners coming from the Atlantic AND Spanish invaders from the hinterlands of South America.
So, maybe Belém and Macapá, but not Óbidos or Manaus
Without South America being divided between Spain and Portugal, I highly doubt most amazonian cities as we know would exist. Perhaps alternate cities in the same or similar sites. Belém, Macapá, Óbidos, Manaus, Salvaterra, etc. Say, a Spanish-only South America might only have forts built in the coastal area, to prevent foreigners from getting INTO the Amazon River, rather than how the Portuguese did, where they also had to fortify against both foreigners coming from the Atlantic AND Spanish invaders from the hinterlands of South America.
So, maybe Belém and Macapá, but not Óbidos or Manaus
To be honest non of those city's would be nearly as big as they are if they weren't on a major international border.
If the Chilean-Argentinian border were post further to the east (aka western Cuyo (OTL Argentinian provinces of Mendoza and San Luis) remained part of Chile, how the city of Mendoza fared not just with Santiago de Chile, but also its other counterparts in the Central Valley (e.g Valparaíso-Viña del Mar, Concepción and Rancagua)?
I can imagine exactly one scenario where Michigan is part of Canada but the border is not fully on land: a border which starts at the Maumee River, then cuts along the 41st parallel to the Mississippi (afterwards, down to the Des Moines River and 42nd parallel to the Missouri River). That comes at the cost of Fort Wayne, Indiana however.
Zhuhai would not be prosperous today if it were not for Macau. Modern Zhuhai essentially piggybacked upon a European colony, similar to Shenzhen with regard to Hong Kong.
Also, had Brookline, MA not reject its annexation by Boston, there would have been a lot less cities serving as suburbs to others. DFW for instance might be down to just Dallas, Fort Worth, and possibly Arlington, McKinney, and Denton, with small, peripheral cities scattered outside of the urban core.
Another city that might not exist today with different circumstances is Canberra. Had either Melbourne or Sydney been selected as the capital, Canberra's location would probably be still rural (Weetangera would still exist however), and Queanbeyan would also have no reason to become an urban settlement.
Last edited:
Hmm, not sure about Óbidos and Manaus. Both of those are on pretty strategic spots; Manaus in the Negro-Amazon/Solimões river convergence, Óbidos on the narrowest point of the Amazon River('only' 2 km across). It makes sense building forts, which would grow on to become cities, on those places.
It's also important to mention that it was not like the Spanish didn't want to occupy the interior of South America, it's just that Brazilian geography is more conducive of being integrated, from Sao Paulo area an explorer can easily access all major river basins of South America, that's why bandeirantes were so successful. Something similar can also be said in the context of North America and Siberia.
Helsingborg was before the Swedish conquest of Scania just the eastern part of Elsinore with only 1/10 the population of Elsinore. If Denmark had kept Scania it would not have grown to its modern size. Flensburg only overtook Schleswig (town) as the major town of Schleswig because Schleswig (town) ended up under Gottorp rule. Kiel also only ended up as important as it is because the Gottorps placed a university there. In another world the major cities of Schleswig-Holstein could have been Schleswig, Sonderburg and Glückstadt.
I thought of this as well, but I'm not sure if I would consider that as not existing or not being anywhere near as big, as specified by the OP. It's possible that Windsor would be even larger without the border (either by having a higher population density or expanding outward), since without the border many Detroiters could choose to live there due to its proximity to the city of Detroit. You could even end up with a situation where Windsor becomes a true twin of Detroit, or at least close enough, like St. Paul is to Minneapolis or Ft. Worth is to Dallas (no doubt this would shrink suburban sprawl across Livingston County, Michigan as well as northern Macomb and Oakland counties). Of course, it's also possible in this scenario that Windsor would be carved up into several inner ring suburbs, reducing its population via division.
If Nigeria had a different colonial history and became independent as several countries rather than one, Lagos wouldn't have nearly as large a hinterland to draw migration from - it would still be a big city, but not the megacity of OTL.
Delaware in the form of Delmarva may not be this case. Wilmington alone has 70k people, mind you.
A separate El Paso and Juarez wouldn't exist. A mega-Paso Del Norte, maybe, with 2 million people, would be a key capital of the region. If still in Texas, it's second only to Houston in size.
Also disagree that it wouldn't be as big without the border ... this is a mountain pass and river channel. Railroad companies targeted El Paso as key to a southern passage to the Pacific. I think it would still have some significance ... and size.
Also disagree that it wouldn't be as big without the border ... this is a mountain pass and river channel. Railroad companies targeted El Paso as key to a southern passage to the Pacific. I think it would still have some significance ... and size.
Last edited:
Bookmark1995
Banned
New York City might still be separate cities if 1898 had not occurred.
Last edited:
You meant the consolidation, right? If so, then Brooklyn may be the largest city in the United States if Queens ended up in Brooklyn. New York City, however, would still be the core of the New York Metropolitan Area (likely known as New York-Brooklyn-Newark instead of New York-Newark-Jersey City).