WI the UN stayed in San Francisco?

FDW

Banned
Hello everyone I'm back from a self-imposed break with a burning question on my head. OTL the UN charter was signed on April 25, 1945 in San Francisco, California. Now lets assume that the "how" and "why" have been solved, and what we are focusing on are the potential local ( Development in and around the Bay Area would certainly be greater, and BART if it is built, might be larger than OTL) and International ( how would the world perceive america if the UN headquarters wasn't placed in what was america's greatest city at the time?) I want to head what AH.COM thinks about this idea Because I always like to hear opinions on the situation:D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_Nations
 

FDW

Banned
Any ideas people? i'd especially like to hear hear from people who know have lived around the Bay Area:D:D
 

MikeTurcotte

The problem here is the why. NYC was the premier world city at the time, untouched by WWII, with the best infrastructure and connectivity to support the UN - a 'world capital'. SF was also a big, important city, but not in NYC's league - for one thing a little too far away from DC too.

Also, NYC doesn't have all those pesky earthquakes.

Handwaving that, what do you get? A more internationalist SF to be sure. The development of infranstructure to support the UN (I'm not talking BART, I'm talking hotels, mission buildings, highways, etc). It's very far away from Europe, making it a nightmare trip in the pre-jet age. As time prgressed, and hand-waving to a history similar to OTL, the UN becomes the focal point of SF's counter-culture, with protests, peace rallies and the like.

Is this what you're looking for?
 

FDW

Banned
MikeTurcotte said:
The problem here is the why. NYC was the premier world city at the time, untouched by WWII, with the best infrastructure and connectivity to support the UN - a 'world capital'. SF was also a big, important city, but not in NYC's league - for one thing a little too far away from DC too.

Also, NYC doesn't have all those pesky earthquakes.

Handwaving that, what do you get? A more internationalist SF to be sure. The development of infranstructure to support the UN (I'm not talking BART, I'm talking hotels, mission buildings, highways, etc). It's very far away from Europe, making it a nightmare trip in the pre-jet age. As time prgressed, and hand-waving to a history similar to OTL, the UN becomes the focal point of SF's counter-culture, with protests, peace rallies and the like.

Is this what you're looking for?
Click to expand...

you are right about the nightmare trip from europe pre jet-age, but one could also argue that the reverse was true with New York for asian countries and besides even with the distance their is still pretty fast contact with europe via telephone and telegraph lines and BTW did you know that one of the OTL sites for the UN suggested was the black hills in south dakota? (sorry about the additude just exicted) but one question remains, where in the bay area would this new infrastructure go? one of my ideas is Rincon
hill which is just south of the financial district, but i would assume that there are also potentially better areas to put the headquarters, no?
 

Enigmajones

They would be more flamboyant? They would make love not war? Naw Im just messing, I dont think that the city really made any difference
 

DuQuense

Well San Frisco has a lot of hills to roll those -non Ticket paying Diplomats- cars Down.

Sorry Mr. Ambassador, You knew those Non Parking Spaces are marked because of how slippery those hills are.
 
Redem

Redem

Enigmajones said:
They would be more flamboyant? They would make love not war? Naw Im just messing, I dont think that the city really made any difference
Click to expand...

Just imagine how much more the UN would be part of Right-Wing Conspiracy theory if it was in San Franscisco
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top