One country controls all northeastern America. Does Montreal become the biggest city?

Why? They're right across the river from one another, it's just a matter of urban planning which side will dominate, and for Canada having a river between you and the Americans is always a plus.

It isn't so much as issue of urban planning so much as politics. Upper Canada consolidated all of its politics and economy in York/Toronto, to the point that London and Kingston had a smaller growth rate for so being so far from the hub (London also had the additional burden of poor roads and not being a port). if Canada controls Michigan, the center of commerce for the new province becomes Detroit which probably looks a lot like York, which means that just being so close to a major center of influence and wealth Windsor gets a lot more growth (this probably has knock off effects on London too because it splits the difference between the two). In OTL Windsor was the edge of Canada, which means that everything across the border belongs only to Detroit, but a world where someone controls both cities means that Detroit can act as a hub for the western end of Upper Canada which is a big boon for Windsor.
 
It isn't so much as issue of urban planning so much as politics. Upper Canada consolidated all of its politics and economy in York/Toronto, to the point that London and Kingston had a smaller growth rate for so being so far from the hub (London also had the additional burden of poor roads and not being a port). if Canada controls Michigan, the center of commerce for the new province becomes Detroit which probably looks a lot like York, which means that just being so close to a major center of influence and wealth Windsor gets a lot more growth (this probably has knock off effects on London too because it splits the difference between the two). In OTL Windsor was the edge of Canada, which means that everything across the border belongs only to Detroit, but a world where someone controls both cities means that Detroit can act as a hub for the western end of Upper Canada which is a big boon for Windsor.

Assuming that Michigan doesn't get gobbled up by Upper Canada. Those two provinces were very prone to gobbling up new land. Plus London mostly suffered from just being in the back end of nowhere, it grew far more than it ever should have by shear stubbornness. Kingston meanwhile probably suffered more from the growth of Ottawa than Toronto. Eastern Upper Canada could only support so many major cities (especially major cities built around the running of the Rideau Canal), and Ottawa being the capital won.
 
I'm actually going to agree that in a unified-northeast scenario, Detroit is probably going to be your major centre of trade and commerce, and possibly even a candidate for capitol city. Likely your major population centres are going to cluster around the western Lake Erie basin and along Lake St. Clair, and the north shore of Lake Erie and on to Point Pelee is likely going to be one of the more popular places for high-wealth towns given that the microclimate there is incredibly pleasant. You might end up with a large bedroom-type city around where OTL Leamington or Kingsville is located, for ex, and possibly one on the coast north of Tilbury. Either way, in a unified country, that area would probably be a power region just because of how critical the area is as a logistics and shipping hub.

Or maybe I'm just a sucker for a Detroit River-centred country. Sue me, I'm a local partisan.

Montreal in this scenario looks like a monster city as a key port of entry.
 
Assuming that Michigan doesn't get gobbled up by Upper Canada. Those two provinces were very prone to gobbling up new land. Plus London mostly suffered from just being in the back end of nowhere, it grew far more than it ever should have by shear stubbornness. Kingston meanwhile probably suffered more from the growth of Ottawa than Toronto. Eastern Upper Canada could only support so many major cities (especially major cities built around the running of the Rideau Canal), and Ottawa being the capital won.

Kingston never got the first bank because of meddling from Toronto, and it was the first industrial hub (along with Niagara) from steam ships, but saw a sharp decline due to lack of traffic due to a lack of a major canal. Ottawa had nothing to do with Kingston's woes. but Toronto certainly did.

London was on the end of a chain that didn't go anywhere, because the border is sort of an economic wall, if the Canadian border doesn't end at the Detroit River London's prominence will grow as being a staging point west (this probably only happens during the rail era though). But it isn't much to a stretch to have Quebec City-Montreal-Kingston-Toronto-Hamilton-Niagara-London as being major urban centers in an alt Canada.

I'm actually going to agree that in a unified-northeast scenario, Detroit is probably going to be your major centre of trade and commerce, and possibly even a candidate for capitol city. Likely your major population centres are going to cluster around the western Lake Erie basin and along Lake St. Clair, and the north shore of Lake Erie and on to Point Pelee is likely going to be one of the more popular places for high-wealth towns given that the microclimate there is incredibly pleasant. You might end up with a large bedroom-type city around where OTL Leamington or Kingsville is located, for ex, and possibly one on the coast north of Tilbury. Either way, in a unified country, that area would probably be a power region just because of how critical the area is as a logistics and shipping hub.

Or maybe I'm just a sucker for a Detroit River-centred country. Sue me, I'm a local partisan.

Montreal in this scenario looks like a monster city as a key port of entry.

Detroit was the early capital until it got moved west (and had the benefit of being the only real community of any size for the whole era early Michigan), it doesn't take much of a POD to keep it in Detroit.
 
Kingston never got the first bank because of meddling from Toronto, and it was the first industrial hub (along with Niagara) from steam ships, but saw a sharp decline due to lack of traffic due to a lack of a major canal. Ottawa had nothing to do with Kingston's woes. but Toronto certainly did.

London was on the end of a chain that didn't go anywhere, because the border is sort of an economic wall, if the Canadian border doesn't end at the Detroit River London's prominence will grow as being a staging point west (this probably only happens during the rail era though). But it isn't much to a stretch to have Quebec City-Montreal-Kingston-Toronto-Hamilton-Niagara-London as being major urban centers in an alt Canada.

No, London is just in a bad spot. It's tolerably placed for rail, but nothing about London proper is useful. It's a total fluke city.
 
Top