UN City

Originally, the UN wanted to build an independent city for the UN, however it was too ambitious and they decided that the UN will be based in New York city. What if they decided to build an independent city? How large and important would it be?
 
Its size and importance would probably depend entirely on its location and how much member states were willing to spend on its construction, defence and upkeep. Its size will ultimately be governed by its resources and economy it could grow into a hub for international banking and trade or languish as an enormous white elephant almost totally dependent of the willingness of nations to fund it with only revenue of tourism and the media supplementing it.

Just to throw something into the mix, make Jerusalem an open city state with the U.N head quartered there. I'm mot sure if this would help the situation when the state of Israel is formed or make things a whole lot worse as with Soviet and American peace keeping troops securing the U.N rather than war by proxy it could trigger a hot third world war.

Returning to the O.P as with any real estate deal location is key.
 
Its size and importance would probably depend entirely on its location and how much member states were willing to spend on its construction, defence and upkeep. Its size will ultimately be governed by its resources and economy it could grow into a hub for international banking and trade or languish as an enormous white elephant almost totally dependent of the willingness of nations to fund it with only revenue of tourism and the media supplementing it.

Just to throw something into the mix, make Jerusalem an open city state with the U.N head quartered there. I'm mot sure if this would help the situation when the state of Israel is formed or make things a whole lot worse as with Soviet and American peace keeping troops securing the U.N rather than war by proxy it could trigger a hot third world war.

Returning to the O.P as with any real estate deal location is key.

I wonder if Greece would have wanted to sell or rent a large chunk of Crete to the UN during its financial crisis to help its solvency.
 
Just to throw something into the mix, make Jerusalem an open city state with the U.N head quartered there. I'm mot sure if this would help the situation when the state of Israel is formed or make things a whole lot worse as with Soviet and American peace keeping troops securing the U.N rather than war by proxy it could trigger a hot third world war.

Didn't Tom Clancy have a book based around that concept with a Swiss Mech brigade as the defending/peace keeping force?
 
How about a relatively sparsely populated island in the Mediterranean?
Still European, mild climate, close to major powers but not within the borders of a major power.
 
No one is going to want to give up an actual city or some land with any real value. It's definitely has to be in North America and probably in the east. How about somewhere in Nova Scotia or Maine.
 
What about somewhere in an independent Quebec such as Montreal or even Quebec City itself?

In OTL Quebec City--where FDR and Churchill had two wartime conferences--did issue a formal invitation. https://books.google.com/books?id=BDAVCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA30 But I don't think it was ever considered seriously.

San Francisco was often mentioned, but "views of the Golden Gate could not erase the memory of the sixteen-hour flight to the West Coast" (for the 1945 founding conference). https://books.google.com/books?id=BDAVCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA206
 
Basically, it was always going to be somewhere in the US Northeast. At a very early stage, it was decided not to locate it in Europe, and that almost certainly meant it would be in the US, and that meant the Northeast as the area most convenient for diplomats, as I explain at https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...n-headquarters-location.450068/#post-17472805 It's just that at first they thought it should be somewhere fairly near but definitely not in New York City...
And you can't really blame them for the desicon. I mean, if you're making the closet thing to a world capital building, you want a city that's large and well-appointed, and easy for international diplomats to get to , but that's also well-defended, and has a low chance of economic disaster. The US has a lot of natural resources, were just about to become THE dominant economic power since Europe's manufacturing capacity was shot, already had one of the largest militaries, and, in terms of potential for attack, having it so that just about any attacker has to cross an ocean to get to you tends to deter invaders.
 
In OTL Quebec City--where FDR and Churchill had two wartime conferences--did issue a formal invitation. https://books.google.com/books?id=BDAVCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA30 But I don't think it was ever considered seriously.

Interesting

Staying with Quebec (as both an ATL independent state or Canadian province), could the UN establish an independent city not far from Quebec City possibly along the St Lawrence River or even at nearby Orleans Island?
 
Given the state of Europe at the end the second world war the construction costs would be born to a hugely disproportionate degree by the U.S.A.
This means that the location will ultimately be chosen by the nation footing the bill, if you don't like it then you pony up and you can build it where you want.
This means that unless the U.S.A elects to pick a non American location for symbolic and emotional reasons you will have your U.N city in the U.S.

possible symbolic locations as a reminder of the consequences when the world fails to act or act too late could be

Auschwitz or Hiroshima.

It would need to be a project based on a utopian idea of a better global world view that transcends narrow national ambition.
A peace city near on at the place of the consequences when humanity fails to take an early stand against aggression and evil. An idealistic city with a commitment from all nations Never Again.

Realistically North America it is (the idealism is so improbable as to be approaching A.S.B). Returning to the O.P the significance and success of the city will wax and wane will the success and relevance of the U.N.

 
Given the state of Europe at the end the second world war the construction costs would be born to a hugely disproportionate degree by the U.S.A.
This means that the location will ultimately be chosen by the nation footing the bill, if you don't like it then you pony up and you can build it where you want.
This means that unless the U.S.A elects to pick a non American location for symbolic and emotional reasons you will have your U.N city in the U.S.

possible symbolic locations as a reminder of the consequences when the world fails to act or act too late could be

Auschwitz or Hiroshima.

It would need to be a project based on a utopian idea of a better global world view that transcends narrow national ambition.
A peace city near on at the place of the consequences when humanity fails to take an early stand against aggression and evil. An idealistic city with a commitment from all nations Never Again.

Realistically North America it is (the idealism is so improbable as to be approaching A.S.B). Returning to the O.P the significance and success of the city will wax and wane will the success and relevance of the U.N.

Dang, a UN city at Auschwitz would be a PR coup for the UN.
 
Konigsberg? USSR still gets East Prussia, but the capital is turned into an international zone? Maybe in a situation where the Soviets do worse and Poland (or some "West Poland") remains Western aligned.

Trieste? It was a free city after WWII, so keep it as an international city between East and West instead of awarding it to either Italy or Yugoslavia?

Jerusalem? Very politically challenging, given the UN's plan for the city failed, and perhaps not the best capital, but still a thought.
 
While "hosting" the UN is one thing, giving up a city for the UN is another. You could look at the Canberra or Brasilia model, starting with a basically blank slate on an appropriate piece of ground, that would most likely be more acceptable. Ignoring all the other issues, once it gets built what then. Given the way the UN bureaucracy works, with civil service positions doled out by quota to be filled by member nations, the UN administration is a disaster. Imagine if the UN, instead of managing a relatively few buildings here and there, had to manage running a small to medium size city - maintaining the infrastructure, policing/jails, planning for expansion, paying for all of it etc. Good luck.
 
Top