Spots in the New World that are bound to become large cities

At the greatest confluence of all, Cairo exists - but is for some reason overshadowed by St. Louis and Memphis.

St. Louis is itself located at the confluence of the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers, for one thing. Although the Missouri isn't quite as important as the Ohio, it still has value for reaching the Great Plains. In any event, between St. Louis and Memphis, both of which were founded before Cairo, the city did not have an overwhelming advantage. Probably natural environment (being on a low, flood-prone plain) has played a role as well.

-Houston: If Galveston isn't the main port of *Texas, then Houston will snatch that role up

Galveston will never be the main port of Texas in the long run. It's just far too exposed to hurricanes to survive for long, especially if you haven't invested in multiple defenses. If the Dutch settled it and really wanted to make a go of it, I suppose it might work, but it would be much easier to just move to the mainland.

I'm curious why you think Houston is superior to, say, Beaumont as a port. Both, so far as I can tell, required substantial artificial improvements to be useful (in fact, this seems to be the case with Texas ports generally, either because the natural harbor is not sufficient to host modern vessels or because of other natural hazards like hurricanes)

-Salt Lake City: Totally dependent on the Mormons settling in Utah.

Isn't Salt Lake City in one of the most habitable areas of Utah? Yes, perhaps without the Mormons there wouldn't be significant settlement of the state, but given non-Mormons extensively settled other areas of the Mountain West...
 
Chicago, NYC, New Orleans, St. Louis, Mobile (it's not huge but it will be some sort of urban area in any case, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia.
 
Yeah, it sits just north of the Fraser delta, and I believe that the area is actually one of the most fertile in world.

Yes. But it is at the north border of that fertile farmland - beyond the Burrard Inlet steep mountains and fiord coastline starts.

The port of the Fraser Delta and route across mountains could instead have been on the south edge of Fraser Delta - at Bellingham Bay. Also access to rather more of Puget Sound Lowlands, closer to Juan Da Fuca Strait, etc.

The only reason Vancouver is a big city is the border at 49th latitude.
 
Galveston will never be the main port of Texas in the long run. It's just far too exposed to hurricanes to survive for long, especially if you haven't invested in multiple defenses. If the Dutch settled it and really wanted to make a go of it, I suppose it might work, but it would be much easier to just move to the mainland.

I'm curious why you think Houston is superior to, say, Beaumont as a port. Both, so far as I can tell, required substantial artificial improvements to be useful (in fact, this seems to be the case with Texas ports generally, either because the natural harbor is not sufficient to host modern vessels or because of other natural hazards like hurricanes)
Well, part of that is my own ignorance of Texan geography. :eek: I always just assumed that after the Galveston hurricane that Houston just took its mantle as the biggest city of East Texas. And you're absolutely correct about Galveston. It would take a lot of foresight and excellent civil engineering in order to make it more hurricane proof. Possibly after a "mild" storm that's large enough to scare people, but small enough that people will still want to stay, the city government puts in massive anti-hurricane measures.

Isn't Salt Lake City in one of the most habitable areas of Utah? Yes, perhaps without the Mormons there wouldn't be significant settlement of the state, but given non-Mormons extensively settled other areas of the Mountain West...
Yes. My hypothesis is that if the Mormons had settled elsewhere, that OTL Utah would just be settled like all of the other mountain states, and would have been absorbed by the surrounding territories. While Salt Lake City would certainly have a large town, it would be no where near as large or important as it is today.


Chicago, NYC, New Orleans, St. Louis, Mobile (it's not huge but it will be some sort of urban area in any case, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia.
That's actually something I was wondering. Philadelphia is very well placed. However, if Philadelphia hadn't been founded, would another city farther down the Delaware and closer to the Atlantic have become more important? Like Wilmington?
 
Cities that will NOT become important
-Washington DC: Useless swampland whose only reason for existing is the Federal Gov't. Otherwise, all of the non-governmental business would go to Baltimore
I'll disagree a little-DC had two earlier river ports(Alexandria and Georgetown) and is pretty much the head of navigation on a fairly large river. I think most TLs will have a locally important port city here, albeit one very much in Baltimore's shadow.
 
No where is 'bound' but many places are probable. There are probably many places that 'should' have, but did not OTL. It will be similar in ATL, except one with very odd events. Nothing is certain.
 
More on the grounds of "should have" or "could have":

Could a major city have developed somewhere in southern Patagonia due to trade around Cape Horn? The biggest problem, of course, is the harsh climate, but it seems like it could be a South American analog to Cape Town. Anyone know of any decent harbors in the area?

The Amazon Basin also could have had larger cities.

I also think Los Angeles was NOT destined to be a major city. I understand what some people are saying about it having better inland access compared to, say, San Francisco, but inland access to what? It's mostly surrounded by mountains and desert. A preindustrial colonizer is unlikely to care that Los Angeles has easier access to the Mojave Desert or Great Basin than San Francisco (which by contrast accesses the valuable Central Valley). Also, without the US-Mexico border, the Colorado Basin is easier to access via its mouth at the Gulf of California.
 
People keep saying Chicago, but Chicago was actually pretty contingent on a lot of things going right for them (particularly becoming a rail nexus). The natural site is pretty awful for a city, swampy and low-lying. There are certainly better harbors on the Great Lakes, few admittedly with quite so easy access to the Mississippi basin, but there are areas to the North along Lake Michigan, areas along Lake Erie, and areas along Lake Superior with relatively easy access to the Mississippi watershed (sometimes via the Ohio). There were dozens of cities vying to become "Chicago" at the time the city was founded, so it was by no means preordained.

You're right that Chicago itself was not the only possibility. However, it's pretty much guaranteed that a large city was going to spring up on the western shore of southern Lake Michigan. Whether that happened along the Chicago River, Des Plaines River, Skokie River, or Calumet River is a matter of chance, but one of those rivers would have had a major city at its mouth.

Cheers,
Ganesha
 
Well, part of that is my own ignorance of Texan geography. :eek: I always just assumed that after the Galveston hurricane that Houston just took its mantle as the biggest city of East Texas. And you're absolutely correct about Galveston. It would take a lot of foresight and excellent civil engineering in order to make it more hurricane proof. Possibly after a "mild" storm that's large enough to scare people, but small enough that people will still want to stay, the city government puts in massive anti-hurricane measures.

Well, there were a couple of factors involved in Houston's rise. One was that it was already important--a major rail nexus and, if behind Galveston, nevertheless an important port. Another was that a considerable amount of port infrastructure and expertise already existed in the Houston area, most obviously in Houston itself and in Galveston, but also in the relatively important port of Texas City. Another is that Houston seems to have moved faster in the wake of the Galveston disaster; Beaumont, for example, seems to have taken rather longer to get a proper deep-water channel, but the Houston Ship Channel was finished by 1914.

Probably Beaumont would be the most plausible alternative--it's already about half the size of the Port of Houston OTL, so some slightly different history (eg., railroads choosing that city as their Texas terminus) could plausibly shift it to being the number one Texas port. It has the advantage of being right in the middle of the main East Texas oil fields, whereas Houston, AFAIK, is on their western edge (although you do see pumpjacks around here). The Galveston Bay area is probably always going to be important, but you could plausibly switch Houston and Beaumont's positions, I feel.
 
Phillys in perfect position. I suppose Wilmington may work, but the precise riverside position of Philly is uncomparable.
 
Minneapolis is at the upper-most navigable point of the Mississippi, the Falls of St. Anthony, which is also a good source of power for water-powered mills.
 
New York City and the surrounding area might not become as important as OTL depending on the geopolitics of the area and national/economical politics of whichever TL. The construction of the Erie Canal was what allowed New York City to become what it is today.
 
Cheyenne instead of Denver. I80 and the UP go through Cheyenne not Denver . It's due to the geological feature called the "Ramp"IIRC

Toledo, Erie or Cleveland instead of Detroit. Same advantages, just bad luck

There will be a major port at the mouth of the Hudson. It is just too good a port.

Major cities on the West Coast of NA and SA will be limited to good port areas. The Bay Area, Puget Sound, the Vancouver area, San Diego, Valperisio, given better water or the Colorado flows all the way to the sea I could see a major port at the head of the Gulf of California. It's just taht cities will not be in the same locations possibly

Other places that will see a large town/small city.

Duluth/Superior. Good harbor, head of navigation on HOMES

Green Bay, the Bay its self, not the town although it most likely would be

Albany, water transport

Pittsburg, same as above

Most major ports on the East Coast will see something there. In fact on the East Coast I could see the Chesapeake being the #1 urban area
 
New York City and the surrounding area might not become as important as OTL depending on the geopolitics of the area and national/economical politics of whichever TL. The construction of the Erie Canal was what allowed New York City to become what it is today.
Any polity controlling the Hudson river (or at least its West bank) and having a stretch of coast on Lake Erie will want to build it. And, as OTL proves, it's not that difficult.
 
Top