What would Vancouver be if U.S-Canada border was at the 48th Parallel ?
 

What would Vancouver be if U.S-Canada border was at the 48th Parallel instead of 49th parallel?
If the US-Canada border was at the 48th parallel, how different would the geography of Vancouver, BC area be?
Or near the 48th parallel.. Following the watershed and follow the Columbia river after the 48th parallel meets the Columbia River..


https://www.alternatehistory.com/for...on-jpg.562625/

OR

https://www.alternatehistory.com/for...a2-jpg.562627/

It would have made more sense for the Canada/US border to head west from Duluth, Minnesota a (46th or 47th parallel) till it hit the Columbia River, then to follow it to the Pacific Ocean.

That would have had huge consequences for the development of western Canada.

The oil field in North Dakota could have been ours. $$$
Then we also wouldn’t have had to deal with the awkward situation of having only one cross-country highway.

Not entirely true. The border would have remained above Lake Superior, and we thus would still have had to deal with that pesky Thunder Bay - Nipigon segment.

I too have often felt that Canada was robbed by the 49th parallel. It makes so much more sense just to go due west from Duluth. :yes:

That, and the stupid thumb of northern Maine that sticks up into Quebec. Everything north of Houlton ME should belong to Canada.

After the traitors got their independence ;), they were like the camel nosing into the tent. Consistently pushing the boundaries of what they could get away with. Other stupid indents, NW Angle, Point Roberts, Alaska:D.

Responding to the OP’s proposal:

Not much different, except Vancouver would sprawl a little more, since farmland and flat, developable land wouldn’t be so scarce, especially around the Abbotsford chokepoint.

The Grand Coulee dam probably wouldn’t have been built, since the Americans probably would not have been able to convince Canada to pay for half the costs of such an astronomical project.

A Puget sound city would’ve still formed, but wouldn’t be as big as Seattle, and May have been further south.

Mt Baker would have been “our” mountain. There would probably be more infrastructure at the base.

I guess Metro Vancouver would have been lot bigger in area, had more people and more affordable housing.
Could have become more populous than Montreal.. And It would spread southward instead of east..

Vancouver would be much smaller being less significant as part of the US. It stands alone in Canada. It has a lot more competition in the US in all aspects.

Which Vancouver are you referring to here??

The border would fit the geography a little better around the Lower Mainland. The current border is strange in how it bisects the Lower Mainland and cuts off Point Roberts. But I don't think there would be a big impact on the development of metro Vancouver.

Vancouver may or may not have developed into a railway terminus. But all else being equal, the US tends to be more developed than Canada. There's nothing particularly special about Seattle's location as far as its large corporate employers (Boeing, Microsoft, Starbucks, Amazon) are concerned. I think it's possible that Vancouver could have been a much larger city as part of the US. Another factor to think about is that Americans tend to move around more and Vancouver has an interesting natural setting that's pretty appealing.

We are talking about Vancouver BC not Vancouver Washington..I think you have confused cities of vancouver

I agree with that, but with all that extra land to develop the population would be much larger, perhaps as big as Toronto, since we would have much of present day Washington's area and population in Canada. It would have affected the balance of power in Canada and shifted it west.

It wouldn't happen, either Okanagan territory dispute is resolved in favour of the British or the Americans.

Imagine if the 49 parallel boundary cut straight through Vancouver Island as well.

I would say Vancouver would be a couple hundred thousand more.

Mt. Baker would be a symbol for the South Coast.

There would likely be another Penticton sized town in the Okanagan between Osoyoos and the border.

Always irks me that it continued along the 49th in BC. The borders on the OP would have been far more sensible (for both the Lower Mainland and the Okanagan).

On the flip side if the 49th continued through Vancouver Island (which was a serious proposal by the US) it is hard to say what would have become of Victoria and Nanaimo.

Nanaimo could have become our answer to Victoria, maybe becoming 2 or 3 times larger than today, or the Canadian portion of Vancouver Island could have far less people than today, Nanaimo maybe only being the size of Campbell River.

Victoria could have become somewhat smaller or larger. The US, unlike Canada, would have likely built a bridge with an interstate between their portion of Vancouver Island and the mainland.

Without an open water treaty through the Juan De Fuca straight Vancouver Port would have suffered and maybe Prince Rupert would have become larger and more important.

Yep, I think it's possible that Prince Rupert would have been a big winner relative to what it is now, perhaps ending up with the West Coast naval base.

I think Vancouver Island would have remained a total backwater if it had been bisected by an international border. It would not have made sense as a location for BC's capital. New Westminster would probably have remained the capital.

Maybe it would have stayed Granville.

In such a scenario I think it would have really stunted Vancouver’s growth.

It would likely be BC’s capital (New West) but without the Port far less important economically.

In this scenario I feel Metro-Vancouver would be about 1 million people and Prince Rupert about 500 000 people. Prince George might have also seen a slight population bump from this, being around 150 000 today.

Interestingly I think bisecting Vancouver Island along the 49th would have altered BC far more from what it is today than if the border had followed the 48th.

How would it affect Bellingham if the boundaries were like on the map above?

Not much, if at the 48 Bellingham would have just become a suburb of Vancouver, but probably still around the same size.

If the order went through the island, maybe a little less than now given Vancouver’s decreased size and importance.

Point Roberts would also be a part of Canada.

FFS. Are you guys serious? Is Vancouver Washington in Canada? Not a reason to be a stupid ass homer. I'll say Toronto would be a fucking Buffalo or Rochester if that helps.

You have to consider all of the US if Vancouver was part of the US. Not just Washington and Oregon. There are much warmer and much drier places that consistently steal population from as good or better urban centres on the Northern half of the continent. There are just as many amazing settings if that is a priority. If would be irrelevant against the juggernaut California. I can't think of an Amazon, Boeing or Microsoft to raise the city's profile from the D list to the A list since you seem so engaged in the closest regional rival. My opinion stands at a smaller city, more industrial, less resort due to a larger developed port.

A huge defining moment. What percentage chance do you think Vancouver would have had in hosting Expo86 against other American urban centres?

That's just my opinion. I'll gladly have someone tell me otherwise. The stupidity, the homerism just pisses me off.

The OP was not asking about how Vancouver would fare if it were in the US... the question was what if the Canada-US border was further south.

Agreed. That was his intent. I'm not sure why some people are misinterpreting the question.

If the international boundary were located as indicated on the map by the OP, I don't think too much would have changed really. Vancouver would still be Canada's premiere west coast port and main population centre. The only real change is that there would be more lebensraum for Vancouver to grow, and more of that growth would have been directed southward rather than eastward along the Freser River. Farmland would have an easier time being preserved, and Vancouver might be a million people larger. Otherwise, not much change.

As for the southern Okanagan, I believe the US portion of the Okanagan would be pretty arid, like Osoyoos. Maybe there might be another small city in the southern Okanagan, and some irrigated farmland, but that would be it.

^ I generally agree with your take. Vancouver would probably be a bit more spread out, it could be a bit more affordable as a result. I guess what it would gain in affordability it might lose in overall urbanity.

Bellingham would be a bedroom community of Vancouver, so it might have more people, but its stature and character would be diminished. Bellingham’s purpose is to be a regional centre for people in Washington state who live north of the Seattle metro along I-5.

A smaller role of Bellingham used to be catering to Vancouver area cross-border shoppers, which would also disappear.

So it would be more like an Abbotsford and less like a Nanaimo.

OT, but between its downtown and the charming Fairhaven district, Bellingham has better historic architecture than any BC cities except Vancouver, Victoria and maybe Nelson. If it were a Vancouver bedroom community it would have none of this.

I don't think that Bellingham would be a bedroom community of Vancouver.
For example Hamilton is not a bedroom community of Toronto
Even Hamilton is closer to Toronto than Bellingham - Vancouver distance

Bellingham Vancouver 86 KM
Hamilton Toronto 68 KM



.

Its becoming pretty common for you to completely misunderstand a discussion and then become unacceptably offensive when people try to explain things to you. Settle down.

Hehehe


Wouldn’t Bellingham likely have developed into BCs premier city if were part of Canada? Closer to the ocean, closer to the states, less constrained by mountains?

What would Toronto be if 'Canada' (Province of Quebec) had retained Ohio, Michigan, and Illinois?
https://cdn.britannica.com/12/79712-...uebec-1774.jpg
britannica

Yes it would be..
I never thought this way.
even if it wasn't the biggest city in BC it would have at least 500,000 population

What indeed.......... :)

The Brits really snookered Canada during the Treaty of Paris negotiations in 1783. They should have maintained the borders of the Province of Quebec. Canada would have been a much different country.

Very likely alot of Canadian growth would have gone to points further south with a milder winter. Toronto would have succeeded regardless but be a significantly smaller city than it is today.

Agree that Britain screwed its remaining American colonies (Province of Canada, Nova Scotia, etc) in 1783. They negotiated away so much prime territory. And it's no better today. In 2020, Canada should be the face of the Commonwealth in North America. The reality is that Britain, Australia, India, etc see the US and we're a peculiar after thought they no next to nothing about. Being in the Commonwealth has NO benefits whatsoever.

It surely would have. That said, what Canada didn't get back then we may end up getting in the long run. Climate change comes with lots of negatives but it's also making huge swaths of Canada more appealing from a climate POV. We may not see the benefits of that but I suspect Western Canada will be a vastly more populated place in 2100. The settled area will grow with the grain belt stretching north to Yellowknife.

So, here's my alternate history Canada/US boundary - extending due west from the western tip of Lake Superior until the Snake River, then following the Snake until the Columbia River and then on to the Pacific Coast (follow the red line).

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...83eeb609_b.jpg

Canada would have been given the top third of Minnesota, about 3/4 of North Dakota, half of Montana, the northern sliver of Idaho and almost all of Washington state.

Frankly, except for Washington state, the US wouldn't even notice the loss of this strip of land, but look at what a tremendous difference it would make to western Canada. In the Prairies, it would increase the amount of farmland and rangeland available by well over 50%. There would be room for 2-3 more major prairie cities. The Pacific coast of Canada would receive a huge boost. I imagine there would be a major megalopolis extending from Vancouver south to Puget Sound.

Instead of 12M people living in western Canada, I imagine the population would be over 20M. This would be close to the 25M living in eastern Canada and would certainly change the power dynamic of confederation.........

No, not necessarily, because Bellingham doesn't have as much land around it suitable for agriculture or development (the only suitable land spreads to the north), and Vancouver's harbour is better.

British Columbia was origianlly part of a territory that stretched down to the California border. Far more likely would have been Washington state and Oregon remaining part of Canada.

The focus on building the Canadian Pacific railway and keeping it so far south was to have a Canadian presence and provide a basis to justify having the Canadian boarder so far south. I think the terminus for the Canadian Pacific would have been as far south as possible.

Waterfront locations are generally prefered over inland, so all that population that has grown eastward into Abby and Chilliwack would likely end up along the coast from Blaine down into Bellingham.

There's also a lot of land masses between Bellingham and Victoria, so maybe a fixed link to the Island originating in Bellingham. That would give both Bellingham and Victoria a population boost.

Nah...I didn't realize how close the 49th is to the 48th.

68.61 mi (110.42 km) between 49th - 48th parallel

That would put the 48th hypothetical border at the northern point of Everett Wash., a northern suburb of Seattle. Somewhere around a million people live between there and the Canadian border. If this territory were part of Canada, that population would be higher as an extension of the Lower Mainland, increasing the flat land area by more than 50%; this would be more valuable to Canada than it is to the US as a population draw. This might have added 2 to 3 million in additional population to the Vancouver area.

Just whipped up a new border. I was very greedy... :tup:

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...095de9aa_b.jpg

it is nice, even if it seems a bit exaggerated..:)

:tup::tup:

Us Canadians are overly accommodating. We should have claimed Oregon and Idaho. We could give in on Idaho if the US does not make a fuss over Washington and Oregon.

Seems complicated, needs a legal description. This is much more than the OP meant, a large bit of Hamerica, but mostly uninhabited except for Washington.

The History of British Columbia by Sam Sullivan is pertinent here.

• Video Link

On the flip side what would have happened if the US followed through with 54.40?

Then The entire southern half of BC would be the US and Canada would only have a tiny sliver of Pacific access near Prince Rupert.

PS, really like that border above ;)

The only weird thing about it is how it gives NE Ontario (North Bay, Timmins...) to Quebec for some reason.

At least Sault Ste-Marie would eventually start to get pronounced correctly again under that scenario. ;)

Sweet thanks for sharing that. Most people don't know our history.

I actually meant something like this:

https://i.postimg.cc/2kVVbsLS/USACanada-Print-Text.jpg