New York has been U.S.'s largest city since 1790. Using July 4, 1776 as a POD date, can you think of a scenario where some other city would be in this position instead NY in the year 2011? United States still needs to be an independent country and have roughly the same borders.
AH Challenge: United States where New York City is not the largest city
- Thread starter DarkCrawler90
- Start date
A bank of America is chartered, and headquartered in Philadelphia. The Erie canal is never built. Rather its role is taken over by the Pittsburgh to Philadelphia rail connection, the world's first example of mass rail driven freight. Philadelphia therefore becomes America's financial center and the eventual outlet for the production of the great lakes region.
Another route is to prevent the merger of New York and Brooklyn, while having savvy Chicago real-estate speculators annex most of what would eventually be its initial ring suburbs.
Another route is to prevent the merger of New York and Brooklyn, while having savvy Chicago real-estate speculators annex most of what would eventually be its initial ring suburbs.
It would be difficult, as the Hudson River is a natural route into the interior, which is why New York became such a commercial hub in the first place. The only other city I could imagine would take its place would be New Orleans, at the mouth of the Mississippi.
Solomaxwell6
Banned
Agree with your first, not so much the second. Even if you take out Brooklyn, NYC is the largest city in the US, and by a wide enough margin I don't know if a slightly larger Chicago could surpass it (although I don't have hard numbers, and would certainly agree with you if you show me it would work). If you want to go with this route, just go one step further... Long Island isn't annexed at all. You lose Queens in addition to Brooklyn. We end up with LA, NYC, Chicago, Brooklyn, Queens as the top 5 cities (just saw this mentioned on reddit earlier today
).For your first, I was actually thinking of a very similar route. My difference is just to have the B&O railroad completed early as a result of the Erie Canal not receiving funding. Baltimore becomes this TL's New York equivalent.
Ignoring your request for the US having the same borders, we could perhaps have Canada annexed during the American revolution, and have the majority of Great Lakes shipping going through the St. Lawrence.
With the same borders though... a nuclear or mass anthrax strike on New York?
Though part of me would definitely like to see the entire San Francisco Bay Area united with a higher population density and a decent public transportation system ringing it. Not sure what POD you'd need to achieve that.
With the same borders though... a nuclear or mass anthrax strike on New York?
Though part of me would definitely like to see the entire San Francisco Bay Area united with a higher population density and a decent public transportation system ringing it. Not sure what POD you'd need to achieve that.
Agree with your first, not so much the second. Even if you take out Brooklyn, NYC is the largest city in the US, and by a wide enough margin I don't know if a slightly larger Chicago could surpass it (although I don't have hard numbers, and would certainly agree with you if you show me it would work). If you want to go with this route, just go one step further... Long Island isn't annexed at all. You lose Queens in addition to Brooklyn. We end up with LA, NYC, Chicago, Brooklyn, Queens as the top 5 cities (just saw this mentioned on reddit earlier today
Apologies, not the clearest of arguments. This challenge is a two parter as one as one needs to nerf NYC was simultaneously wanking another city so as to take its place. NYC's many national advantages in OTL, were amplified by a talented populous, it becoming America's largest port, becoming America's chief financial center, and becoming America's principal immigration nexus.
Chicago is a good option to replace NYC as America's largest city (me being midwestern has nothing to do with this
) As its located at the ideal location for a transportation nexus between rail, the Mississippi, and great lakes freight and it sits atop a flat area primed for future outward growth. Anyway, as cities grow in population, they need to grow in area. Annexations allow cities to both grow in population, and to provide space for future urban expansion. When a city develops an organized set of ring suburbs, they tend to serve as barriers to future growth. One of the reasons why Los Angeles (and Houston) grew as much as they did, were that annexed vast tracts of land in the early 20th century.
I'm mashing figures from two charts in Crabgrass Frontier, but this helps illustrate the problem of fixed size.
Territorial Growth in Square Miles
City 1890 1910 1930 1950
Los Angeles 29 85 440 455
Chicago 169 185 207 223
Last edited: