Canadian Border Cities as Suburbs of US Cities?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Nite

Toronto being chosen for the capital of Upper Canada is what made it the largest and most important city in upper Canada. Detroit would not have been chosen for the capital for the same reason why the capital was moved from Niagara, so Detroit would not have grown to be larger than Toronto. At best Detroit would be similar to the size of Ottawa is now

I'm not sure that's really relevant. Why isn't Ottawa Canada's biggest city then?

[Steely Dan]

as i discussed recently in the rust belt thread: geography alone almost never preordains that certain places on the map are destined to become mighty metropolises.

people (and their politics) are also an incredibly important part of the story as well.

it is impossible to know if metro detroit would be the same size it is today if it had been in the canadian province of michigan for the past 2 centuries instead of the US state of michigan.

henry ford was the son of an irish immigrant. let's say that his father had emigrated from ireland to a small farm outside of buffalo or cleveland or milwaukee because he was going to the US and in this alternate reality michigan isn't part of the US anymore. and let's imagine that when this alternate henry ford left the family farm as a young man to go find work in the city, he ended up in buffalo or cleveland or milwaukee, instead of detroit. all 4 of those cities were around the same size in 1900 and rapidly industrializing. and then detroit started skyrocketing to the moon after ford started his automobile company there in 1903. henry ford played an important role in detroit's meteoric rise in the early 20th century, but if he had gone to one of those other great lakes cities with the same access to the raw industrial materials of the great lakes region, perhaps one of those other cities would have become the "motor city" instead of detroit.

today, perhaps cleveland would be a metropolis of 5M people and detroit would be a more modest industrial city of 1 to 1.5M people in the province of michigan, more like a buffalo or a milwaukee than the detroit we know today.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

as i discussed recently in the rust belt thread: geography alone almost never preordains that certain places on the map are destined to become mighty metropolises.

it is impossible to know if metro detroit would be the same size it is today if it had been in the canadian province of michigan for the past 2 centuries instead of the US state of michigan.

henry ford was the son of an irish immigrant, let's say that his father had emigrated from ireland to a small farm outside of buffalo or cleveland or milwaukee because he was going to the US and in this alternate reality michigan isn't part of the US anymore. and let's imagine that when this alternate henry ford left the family farm as a young man to go find work in the city, he ended up in buffalo or cleveland or milwaukee, instead of detroit. all 4 of those cities were around the same size in 1900 and rapidly industrializing. and then detroit started skyrocketing to the moon after ford started his automobile company there in 1903. henry ford played an important role in detroit's meteoric rise in the early 20th century. but if he had gone to one of those other great lakes cities with the same access to the raw materials of the great lakes region, perhaps one of them would have become the "motor city" instead of detroit.

today, perhaps cleveland would be a metropolis of 5M people and detroit would be a more modest industrial city of 1 to 1.5M people in the province of michigan, more like a buffalo or a milwaukee than the detroit we know today.

Michigan's large forests fed Detroit's carriage industry pre-automotive (one of the largest, if not the largest in the country at the time). That was the catalyst for the auto industry ending up in Detroit.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Michigan's large forests fed Detroit's carriage industry pre-automotive (one of the largest, if not the largest in the country at the time). That was the catalyst for the auto industry ending up in Detroit.

and wisconsnin's large forests could have also fed a large carriage industry in milwaukee in the pre-automitve era. and if henry ford's father had landed there.........

there is absolutely nothing exclusively specific to the geographic location of detroit that predestined it to be the automobile capital of the world in the early 20th century.

if michigan had been a candadian province instead of a US state, history could have definitely played out differently regarding the stratospheric growth of detroit in the early 20th century.

[Razor]

ya these alternate history scenarios, while interesting to think about are hard to pin down, because so many dynamics change. For example, let's say Buffalo did indeed become Motor city, perhaps Hamilton would remain Canada's steel city, but also benefit from the spillover from the 5m metropolis that is now Buffalo..Maybe Windsor wouldn't even be there, and Detroit itself?
The history domino effect is really hard to guage..I think Montreal would of remained unchanged, but an alt Hamilton, Toronto and Detroit is interesting to think about..Would Ontario currently have an Ohio scenario?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

and wisconsnin's large forests could have also fed a large carriage industry in milwaukee in the pre-automitve era. and if henry ford's father had landed there.........

there is absolutely nothing exclusively specific to the geographical location of detroit that predestined it to be the automobile capital of the world in the early 20th century.

if michigan had been a candadian province instead of a US state, history could have definitely played out differently regarding the stratospheric growth of detroit in the early 20th century.

Way harder to get to Milwaukee from the ocean on water than Detroit.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Way harder to get to Milwaukee from the ocean on the water than Detroit.

what?

before the the st. lawrence seaway opened in 1959, you couldn't even get large ocean-going cargo ships anywhere into the great lakes.

and detroit is "way harder to get to from the ocean" than toronto, and toronto had plentiful access to large forests too, so using your strange reasoning why isn't toronto the motor city?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

what?

before the the st. lawrence seaway opened in 1959, you couldn't get large ocean-going cargo ships anywhere into the great lakes.

This is all based off the assumption that the Erie Canal is still built, or there is another system to serve the same purpose. Without the Erie Canal, none of the Great Lakes cities would have been much of anything.

The other thing to realize is that if Canada controls Michigan then they also have effective control over the Great Lakes. Cleveland would be the only American city on the lakes navigable by water from the ocean. Lake Huron and Superior would be completely under Canada's control.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

This is all based off the assumption that the Erie Canal is still built, or there is another system to serve the same purpose.

when you start making gigantic assumptions like that while playing the alternate history game, you come off as a bit naive and foolish.

i'll say it again because the truth bears repeating:

There is absolutely nothing exclusively specific to the geographic location of detroit that predestined it to become the automobile capital of the world in the early 20th century.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

when you start making gigantic assumptions like that while playing the alternate history game, you come off as a bit naive and foolish.

i'll say it again because the truth bears repeating:

There is absolutely nothing exclusively specific to the geographical location of detroit that predestined it to become the automobile capital of the world in the early 20th century.

I just gave you the reasons why but we're all entitled to our own opinions.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I just gave you the reasons why but we're all entitled to our own opinions.

what reasons?

forests? fuckloads of places in north america have forests. that means jack shit. the entire great lakes region is forests.

what is exclusively specific about the geographic location of detroit that predestined it to become the automobile capital of the world in the early 20th century?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

what reasons?

forests? fuckloads of places in north america have forests. that means jack shit.

what is exclusively specific about the geographic location of detroit that predestined it to become the automobile capital of the world in the early 20th century?

Forests, direct water access, and existing expertise of the carriage industry. It had huge strategic advantages. Henry Ford didn't just plant magic beans.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Forests

90% of the places around the great lakes had access to vast forests.

that is not a geographic advantage exclusively specific to detroit's location.

Originally Posted by iheartthed

direct water access

100% of the places around the great lakes had direct water access.

that is not a geographic advantage exclusively specific to detroit's location.

Originally Posted by iheartthed

existing expertise of the carriage industry.

expertise in the carriage industry could have happened anywhere.

that is not a geographic advantage exclusively specific to detroit's location.





There is absolutely nothing exclusively specific to the geographic location of detroit that predestined it to become the automobile capital of the world in the early 20th century.

[edale]

The biggest thing that jumps out at me regarding this alternative history where Detroit/Michigan are part of Canada is that Detroit would not have become the black dominated city that it became. It's hard to picture Detroit largely devoid of black people, seeing how so much of the story of that city revolves around them. It'd lose so many of the cultural icons that have come to define Detroit- the whole Motown sound, Aretha Franklin and the gospel scene, etc.- but might also be considerably more intact, less abandoned, less destroyed (from 60s riots and subsequent white flight and decline). That's a pretty interesting alt history to think about.

[Razor]

If Detroit and by extension Michigan would of been part of Canada, I don't see any seeds planted for Detroit becoming what it became..The U.S already had a +/- population of what Canada has now during the Civil war..There would of been no carriage industry, as it would of most likely gone to another U.S city.Perhaps the underground rail road would of went in a different direction.

Canada was still a small colony in it's infancy at that time where the U.S was forging a strong identity for itself. There was no need for an industrial town to supply carriages, as Canada didn't have the same market. Montreal or Toronto would of filled that small need..I'm honestly finding it a little too difficult to even speculate a version of a Canadian Detroit. There are just too many variables..Would it of competed with Montreal or Toronto even? It's almost like wondering how Seattle would of unfolded, if Washington State was a province, or Vancouver if BC was a State for that matter. For all the challenges Detroit faced, it was also a centre of an incredible music scene, and achieved legacy status due to the way it's history played out.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

This is all based off the assumption that the Erie Canal is still built, or there is another system to serve the same purpose. Without the Erie Canal, none of the Great Lakes cities would have been much of anything.

I'm not sure why the Erie Canal is brought into this...? The Erie Canal connected the Eastern Seaboard to the vast resources of the Great Lakes region... and while, yes, it spurred early development in the Great Lakes cities, it did much, much more for NYC... it's what propelled NYC past Philly and Boston to become 1) the nation's top financial center due to the financing of the Canal, 2) the nation's leading trade/economic center because of the back-and-forth trade, and 3) the main port of entry for European immigrants.

The Erie Canal was already being eclipsed by the railroads when the Great Lakes cities started to boom. Detroit, Cleveland, and Chicago all experienced their booms because they became centers of industry/trade connected by rail. The iron ore/coal/steel/railroads industries are why the Great Lakes industrial cities boomed in the way and when they did, not the Erie Canal.

Originally Posted by iheartthed

The other thing to realize is that if Canada controls Michigan then they also have effective control over the Great Lakes. Cleveland would be the only American city on the lakes navigable by water from the ocean. Lake Huron and Superior would be completely under Canada's control.

I don't see how this makes any logical sense.

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Way harder to get to Milwaukee from the ocean on water than Detroit.

OK... this pretty much sheds light on your line of thinking...

Aside from the fact which was mentioned above that the St. Lawrence Seaway didn't open until 1959 and therefore proximity to the ocean would have zero to do with it, access to the ocean had nothing to do with the auto industry in Detroit.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by pj3000

The Erie Canal was already being eclipsed by the railroads when the Great Lakes cities started to boom. Detroit, Cleveland, and Chicago all experienced their booms because they became centers of industry/trade connected by rail. The iron ore/coal/steel/railroads industries are why the Great Lakes industrial cities boomed in the way and when they did, not the Erie Canal.

that's not the whole story.

great lakes cities grew with BOTH the railroads and the erie canal.

the first continuous railroad from NYC to chicago was completed in 1853.

but total tonnage shipped on the erie canal didn't peak until the 1880s, so the switch from barge to rail was not an overnight switch-flip. there was a good 3 decades of overlap from 1853 - 1880s when both erie canal and railroad shipping from the midwest to NYC was growing. that same 3 decade period also saw the initial booms of many great lakes cities: chicago, milwaukee, detroit, cleveland and buffalo.

iron, coal, steel, and railroads certainly figured very prominently into how and why the great lakes port cities grew, but you also can't forget about the agricultural/resource bounty of the great lakes/midwest region that was was shipped east through great lakes ports and ultimately to NYC rough the erie canal as a large aspect of these cities' early growth as well. yes, as time went on, the railroads did steal more and more of that shipping traffic away from the erie canal, but as i mentioned earlier, it was not an overnight switch-flip. that transition played out over decades in the mid/late 19th century.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

that's not the whole story.

great lakes cities grew with BOTH the railroads and the erie canal.

the first continuous railroad from NYC to chicago was completed in 1853.

but total tonnage shipped on the erie canal didn't peak until 1880, so the switch from barge to rail was not an overnight switch-flip. there was a good 4 decades of overlap from 1853 - 1890s when both erie canal and railroad shipping from the midwest to NYC was growing. that same 4 decade period also saw the initial booms of many great lakes cities: chicago, milwaukee, detroit, cleveland and buffalo.

iron, coal, steel, and railroads certainly figured very prominently into how and why the great lakes port cities grew, but you also can't forget about the agricultural/resource bounty of the great lakes/midwest region that was was shipped east through great lakes ports and ultimately to NYC rough the erie canal as a large aspect of these cities' early growth as well. yes, as time went on, the railroads did steal more and more of that shipping traffic away from the erie canal, but as i mentioned earlier, it was not an overnight switch-flip. that transition played out over decades in the mid/late 19th century.

Of course, I wasn't suggesting it was an overnight flip to the railroads. the Erie Canal was obviously the early vital link... but the addition of railroads to the transportation network allowed the Great Lakes cities to reach into their hinterlands and become much, much larger commercial hubs for trade.

It wasn't even so much "overlap", but more enhancement of each other and expansion in the early decades of coexistence of the Canal and railways... and then there became some overlap and redundancy and then Canal inadequacy and inefficiency, once the rail networks (because of the booming steel industry) flourished and spread. The advent of rail transport/connection really brought the goods and people and allowed the cities to develop as major hubs. Canal tonnage only continued to grow and peak because of the railroads' ability to bring exponentially more resources/goods into the shipping hubs on a daily basis. Population figures in the great Lakes cities directly reflect railroad expansion.

[Steely Dan]

^ well, i read your initial comment as "the erie canal had nothing to do with why the great lakes cities boomed, it was all railroads".

and that's just not really true.

it was both.




great lakes city ports were still extremely vital pieces of their economies thoughout the latter half of the 19th century, even while they were flinging railroads across the midwest prairies with wild abandon.

chicago's port sometime in the 1860s:

source: https://interactive.wttw.com/chicago...-chicago-river

[pj3000]

^ yes, but the Great Lakes ports really flourished because of their rail connections, which activated those ports and in their city commercial centers to levels way higher than they were prior to rail connections.