What if San Diego was the largest/major city in Southern California?

[jd3189]

I recently learned in the SD development thread that the city was originally planned to be the Western terminus for a southern transcontinental railroad. It apparently lost that chance to LA and the rest is history.

But what makes this interesting is the fact that early on, San Diego had a good port that was comparable to SF's in the Bay. Had it gotten the railroad as well as maintained the position of having the best port in Southern California, things would have been switched from our current timeline.

To throw my two cents in, I think SD would have been much more denser than it is currently. It would be more world-class and probably a grander version of SF without the limitations of land area. The LA basin probably wouldn't be as crowded as it is now and many the movie industry would moreso be in SD over Hollywood. LA itself may still be a major player, but it wouldn't be the undisputed dominant city in the area that it is now.

But what do you guys think? What stopped SD from it's potential and how would it look if it did reach its potential?

[LA21st]

Its interesting, but didn't the railroad realize there was more flat land in the LA basin, or something to that effect? San Diego is more hilly/mountainous.
It's kind of Chicago and St. Louis. One just had an advantage the other didn't and it was meant to be.

[SIGSEGV]

The border dynamic would be interesting there.

[saybanana]

I don't think the railroad was the main reason why SD didnt grow like L.A.
It was the building of the LA Aqueduct which made LA a desirable area with growing water needs. San Diego had limited water supplies like LA and much less rainfall than LA and it wasn't until starting World War 2 when it got a reliable water supply with the building of the Colorado River aqueduct.
Water in those decades wasn't mainly for the people but for profitable agricultural industry especially after the Dust Bowl in middle America. Thats why millions moved to the agricultural lands of central and southern california.
Also LA before the 1950s was rich in oil (black gold). There was a huge oil field from Santa Barbara down to Orange County. Something that SD didn't any of.

Overall pretty much why LA area grew faster than San Diego is the ability to get the natural resources needed to grow a city. Without the water, most of Southern California would be pretty much a desert--ish today. San Francisco bay area would be the premiere area of California. Of course the ports of San Diego and Bay area are naturally superior to Los Angeles but LA/LB ports is mostly artificially built to become one of the biggest hubs in the world.

[M II A II R II K]

And then there was Hollywood

[MolsonExport]

Tijuana would be bigger than it is today.

[Will O' Wisp]

Well since I think my post in the San Diego general thread inspired this post I'll do my best to contribute

SoCal culture would be even more Mexican influenced than it already is. Immigration and cross border issues would have a completely different discourse in national politics when America's second largest city is dependent on workers crossing the border daily.

San Diego wouldn't be a military town, since the military presence was encouraged by city leaders in the early days to regain some clout after losing the commercial race with LA.

Likewise, North Island would be an extension of Coronado. Miramar would be the city's primary airport. DTSD as a whole would stretch further, covering the Midway district and parts of Golden Hill likely.

LA would be a much, much smaller city and might not even be the most prominent city in the LA basin. With relatively little trade going inland Long Beach would probably be economically dominant.


Either Long Beach or Oakland would be the Navy's primary west coast homeport, with the latter being more likely. It's unlikely SF would be the bastion of liberal culture it is today if that happened.

It's likely the LA region would still be a hub of aerospace manufacturing, even moreso than today. If the Navy didn't move into Long Beach, the Air Force certainly would move into the Inland Empire in the 1940s for the good flying weather. But it's possible that we wouldn't think of the IE and the LA Basin as parts of a large whole as like we do today.

[jd3189]

^^^ A lot of great insight, thanks.

So I'm guessing Long Beach would be the second city instead of LA. I still wonder how all of this affects the origins of Hollywood. Seems like LA grew for many reasons besides the movie industry being there but areas like Beverly Hills and the other communities on the North and Westside were known for housing celebrities. Would the celebrities just be in SD instead?

[JManc]

Real question is what if California City was the largest city in all of California? It even has a Central Park.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Will O' Wisp

Either Long Beach or Oakland would be the Navy's primary west coast homeport, with the latter being more likely. It's unlikely SF would be the bastion of liberal culture it is today if that happened.

Isn't SF's tolerant nature due in part to being a choice destination for gay veterans after WW2 and Vietnam?

[MolsonExport]

Wouldn't a larger San Diego be just another Toronto, since there is no difference between Canada and the United States? Crawford? DC Denizen?

[edale]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Wouldn't a larger San Diego be just another Toronto, since there is no difference between Canada and the United States? Crawford? DC Denizen?

wait, what? I understand you're attempting to troll, but this doesn't even make sense.

This question is actually pretty interesting, and I'd be interested to know more about the constraints that have limited SD's growth thus far. I think the relative lack of flat, easily developable land is the biggest issue. The fact that greater LA has massive flat valleys/basins (LA basin, San Fernando Valley, San Gabriel Valley) allowed it to grow into the mega region it grew into. San Diego has much less land area that could easily be developed, and of course with Mexico being to the south and the city being right on the coast, there are only two directions the city/region could grow.

Water is also an issue, but the aqueduct easily could have continued down to SD if that was the bigger city of the time. It didn't have to terminate in LA.

[MolsonExport]

it isn't supposed to make sense, except maybe to Mr. Presume to Know Everything (Crawford) and Denigrate Canada_Denizen

[jd3189]

Originally Posted by edale

wait, what? I understand you're attempting to troll, but this doesn't even make sense.

This question is actually pretty interesting, and I'd be interested to know more about the constraints that have limited SD's growth thus far. I think the relative lack of flat, easily developable land is the biggest issue. The fact that greater LA has massive flat valleys/basins (LA basin, San Fernando Valley, San Gabriel Valley) allowed it to grow into the mega region it grew into. San Diego has much less land area that could easily be developed, and of course with Mexico being to the south and the city being right on the coast, there are only two directions the city/region could grow.

Water is also an issue, but the aqueduct easily could have continued down to SD if that was the bigger city of the time. It didn't have to terminate in LA.

Yeah, geographic limits might as well been the major obstacle. Seems like it was the same with SF as well. LA just had a lot of land to spread out into.

Despite this, we all know cities can continue to grow and increase density if they are geographically constrained. Manhattan is a perfect example. Tokyo, Hong Kong, Seoul, and Mexico City are also good examples in seismically active areas.

[badrunner]

There wouldn't be much difference today. I looked into this issue a while ago and concluded that San Diego getting a railroad first wouldn't have been the game changer that people are claiming. It's not like that would have precluded LA from getting its own line a few years later anyway - a lower cost, faster, safer and higher capacity one at that.

San Diego did eventually end up building a line heading east, and guess what? It sits unused to this day. It's barely a goat trail clinging to a mountainside and maintenance on a track like that is an absolute nightmare. It might be the most rugged mainline in the country. The geography of the area just makes it a poor candidate for a viable transcontinental route. It certainly wouldn't have been able to compete with the quadruple track going through Cajon pass, or the double track through Banning pass.

San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railway:
• Video Link

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by jd3189

I recently learned in the SD development thread that the city was originally planned to be the Western terminus for a southern transcontinental railroad. It apparently lost that chance to LA and the rest is history.

But what makes this interesting is the fact that early on, San Diego had a good port that was comparable to SF's in the Bay. Had it gotten the railroad as well as maintained the position of having the best port in Southern California, things would have been switched from our current timeline.

To throw my two cents in, I think SD would have been much more denser than it is currently. It would be more world-class and probably a grander version of SF without the limitations of land area. The LA basin probably wouldn't be as crowded as it is now and many the movie industry would moreso be in SD over Hollywood. LA itself may still be a major player, but it wouldn't be the undisputed dominant city in the area that it is now.

But what do you guys think? What stopped SD from it's potential and how would it look if it did reach its potential?

This kind of hypothetical question has infinite possibilities, such as:

1. What if downtown Los Angeles was built on the Pacific (e.g. Santa Monica/San Pedro)?

2. What if a Buffalo was the largest city in NY?

3. What if CA and the southwest was still part of Mexico etc.

San Diego is fine. Would it really be better if L.A. sized? More traffic. More crime. More pollution. I say this as an L.A. native now in S.D.

San Diego could be better if it made the waterfront a pedestrian promenade, if it had a gondola from downtown to Balboa Park, if it solved the housing affordability and homeless problem, etc

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by badrunner

There wouldn't be much difference today. I looked into this issue a while ago and concluded that San Diego getting a railroad first wouldn't have been the game changer that people are claiming. It's not like that would have precluded LA from getting its own line a few years later anyway - a lower cost, faster, safer and higher capacity one at that.

San Diego did eventually end up building a line heading east, and guess what? It sits unused to this day. It's barely a goat trail clinging to a mountainside and maintenance on a track like that is an absolute nightmare. It might be the most rugged mainline in the country. The geography of the area just makes it a poor candidate for a viable transcontinental route. It certainly wouldn't have been able to compete with the quadruple track going through Cajon pass, or the double track through Banning pass.

San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railway:
• Video Link

Wow that looks like it would be an awesome tourist train ride. Looks like the railway dips into Mexico too?

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Wow that looks like it would be an awesome tourist train ride. Looks like the railway dips into Mexico too?

I would love to take a train ride through there. It does go into Mexico which is another reason it doesn't get much use. This line was completed in 1919. The original proposal for a transcontinental route would have been completed in the 1880s, and maybe they would have been able to avoid an alignment that takes it into Mexico, but there's no avoiding the rough terrain. It would have been a twisting single track with sidings not large enough to accommodate modern mile-long freight trains.

Another way to look at it is this - over a hundred years later, San Diego still does not have a transcontinental rail link. Its only rail link to the outside world is the Surf Line (opened 1882) to LA.

[Maldive]

On the plus side, the SD region boasts the (accidentally appropriately named) "Coaster" which will soon make a splash as a train ride scarier than any roller-coaster "on earth".

[edale]

Originally Posted by badrunner

There wouldn't be much difference today. I looked into this issue a while ago and concluded that San Diego getting a railroad first wouldn't have been the game changer that people are claiming. It's not like that would have precluded LA from getting its own line a few years later anyway - a lower cost, faster, safer and higher capacity one at that.

San Diego did eventually end up building a line heading east, and guess what? It sits unused to this day. It's barely a goat trail clinging to a mountainside and maintenance on a track like that is an absolute nightmare. It might be the most rugged mainline in the country. The geography of the area just makes it a poor candidate for a viable transcontinental route. It certainly wouldn't have been able to compete with the quadruple track going through Cajon pass, or the double track through Banning pass.

San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railway:
• Video Link

Interesting, thanks for sharing these insights.

It's probably also important to note that LA didn't become a big city just because it was the terminus for a transcontinental railroad. There have been so many industries in the LA area over the years that have led to it growing to the size it is. Oil was a huge industry for a while, obviously entertainment, aerospace/defense, the giant port of LA/Long Beach and the gigantic network of freeways and trains that allow goods to leave the port and head all over the continent...all of these things and more explain how LA became LA. But it is fun to think about these what ifs from time to time.