Also, you forgotve used LG's figures, so any discussion as to the validity of the present day figures will need to be hashed out here. It would be nice, also, if separate pages, or at least paragraphs, could be written about major cities. I have done this for Toledo and Berlin. This page is a "proposal" due to the figures and rankings being tentative.
Also, if anyone has 1980 figures of the Canadian cities, pleas feel free to add them to the chart. If anyone needs to change the European list into a chart, feel free to borrow the format for the chart I used for North America. SouthWriter 22:01, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
- UPDATE: ADD must have took over after I wrote this, for I never did make a separate article about these two cites. I like what LG has done with the article so far.
Evansville, Indiana (Now part of Kentucky.) 130,000 on Doomsday. Think it would grow after Doomsday, maybe from refugees?--Sunkist- 23:09, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
- Question: How do they feed those refugees and keep them from dying so they can become productive members of the town? Also how do they do this at the expense of the current citizens? Mitro 02:04, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't think a huge refugee population would get to Evansville. I'm sure rations could be strict, Kentucky's History doesn't go into detail over Evansville, I might return to working on Southern Indiana..--Sunkist- 03:15, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
Been looking over Toledo's page, how was the city able to regain control after such needed resources, oil, food, electricity for the greater area of Toledo, and also handle the (if any) Detroit refugees? The looters and gangs wouldn't appear?--Sunkist- 03:26, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
They never lost it. Take any discussion about Toledo to that page.
As for Evansville, the 1983 population would be around the present atl one.
Lordganon 04:24, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
On another note, I'll see if I can scare up the Canadian figures, as well as adjusting my numbers slightly/adding a couple.
Lordganon 04:28, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
Just wondering where did you get your figures from LG. I couldn't find the 1980 figures anywhere and how are you calculating the 2010 figures.--Vegas adict 19:51, December 21, 2010 (UTC)
A combination of wikipedia, google, and the city population site I listed on the main DD page and the externals list. The 1980 is an estimate - the figure is a year somewhere from 1978-1983, in reality - and I made an estimate in several cases using the differences between a couple numbers.
2010 is normally either a figure or estimate I lift from that nation's page on here, or crib from the 2010 figures (or nearly that year) based on the population of that country atl v.s. otl. For example, the capital of Ethiopia, while 3 million plus otl, decreases atl because the population of Ethiopia is much smaller.
I did make a few estimates too, or course.
Lordganon 02:39, December 22, 2010 (UTC)
Cambridge, ON would be on the list too I think. It had a higher population than Waterloo as of 1991 (Couldn't find earlier numbers), and still has a higher one today OTL.Oerwinde 07:12, December 28, 2010 (UTC)
I did consider it at the time, but when I read the Wikipedia article, I noticed that Cambridge was forced to join into one city, and that the forced cities still consider themselves to be inhabitants of their own cities. Way I figure it, they would go back to being separate cities after DD. Also, Wikipedia gives a 1981 figure of 77,183 for the city.
Lordganon 07:41, December 28, 2010 (UTC)
Cambridge splitting up goes against the Waterloo article though, its still one city.Oerwinde 09:00, December 28, 2010 (UTC)
I'm well aware of what it says - as far as I'm concerned (no offense) it's something that was overlooked when it was being written. If I'd have looked at the article for Cambridge on Wikipedia when Waterloo was up for graduation I would have opposed it, quite frankly. Lordganon 11:15, December 28, 2010 (UTC)
City Growth?[]
Great list, but one thing that's left me baffled, is the growth of some of these cities by astounding numbers. Jervis Bay went from 500 to 500,000? And it's not even a city, but a village.
Then there's the American cities. With all the starvation/fallout plus the refugees, it would likely stay around 1980 levels in many cities, though this varies with what city we're dealing with.
Also, I've brought this up before, but irregardless of any growth, Cape Coral and Fort Myers are still two cities. There were much, much smaller back in the day building wise, and believe me I visited both cities in October, it's pretty hard in a Doomsday world for them to be considered one city. I'm sure there'd be some bigger growth, but there's more to uniting a city than just it growing and touching borders. 8 miles is a lot more than you think it is if your going to build it up. No doubt they're in the same metro area, but still two cities. St Paul and Minneapolis are still two cities, no? Arstar 06:48, December 29, 2010 (UTC)
The ANZC figures were retrieved from the ANZC article - and you forget that Jervis Bay is now the ANZC capital. I'd like to hear any others you think grew too much.
With the North American cities, you forget that these are the areas that largely escaped the fallout and refugees - and the refugees would make up for any dead due to the fallout. And you'll notice I did take the degree of damage into account with the figures.
I'm not arguing with you over the Florida city - you have your opinion, and I have mine. As for St.Paul and Minneapolis, both are large cities and quite frankly, if St, Paul wasn't the state capital it'd been annexed into the other one long ago.
Lordganon 10:58, December 29, 2010 (UTC)
I agree that Jervis Bay may have grown a little too fast. It may be the capital of the ANZC, but gaining 500,000 people in about 20 years... construction would have to be pretty shoddy in order to get housing up for that many people that fast. Having a population like that is doable though. Look at planned capitals such as Abuja or Brasilia. Although both of those are capitals of countries with ten times the population, and the resulting migration resulted in huge shanty towns.Oerwinde 12:10, December 29, 2010 (UTC)
Then too though, the ANZC is also better off tech-wise, etc. than either of those two countries - and they also would not plan for a city of a certain size at maximum, which is where Brazil and Nigeria screwed it up, lol (Brasilia, for instance, was planned to have a max of around 500k people in it.... couple million now)
I never said I like the population for Jervis Bay, but that's what the article says:
"Other cities have also become prominent since Doomsday, none more so than Jervis Bay. In 1997, its location along the Pacific Ocean and the government's desire to have a capital more easily accessible than Canberra led to Jervis Bay being designated as the new capital. The full transition to Jervis Bay took ten years and was completed in 2007. The national government operates completely out of Jervis Bay today, and incentives have helped pushed the area population to just over 600,000."
Lordganon 12:46, December 29, 2010 (UTC)
- Regarding hyphenated cities, the lists are based on metropolitan areas that very well could have consolidated in order to survive after DD. I assume that LG's figure for Greenville is for an enlarged city that takes in Greer and Mauldin, at least. However, even if not, as the capital of the new state (or nation), the increase is justifiable. The planned population shift to Jervis Bay makes sense and would include a large portion of the population from the old capital of Canberra. SouthWriter 17:22, December 29, 2010 (UTC)
For the majority of these it's based off the urban figures. If not that, the city ones - there's a couple cities where the urban is lower or doesn't exist.
Jervis Bay, supposedly, has a lot of the survivors from Melbourne and Sydney - Canberra has remained much the same population.
After some thought, I decided to fulfill both Oer and Arstar's wishes. Net result is a few lower populations, and Cambridge switched for Cape Coral-Fort Myers (by themselves neither is big enough to make this list). Made the West Texas city to just Midland, and adjusted as need as well. Added impact of the War to Florence too.
Lordganon 09:22, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
Fargo-Moorehead[]
Well, that one caught my attention. It looks like I'm going to have to build up the Dakotas a bit! It makes sense that a twin city on the other side of the Red River would bond with Fargo. I am not sure of the population, or whether the capital of the Dakotas should be moved up to Fargo, but it gives us pause to think of the area given the Dakotas (Dakota?) becoming the next state of the USA. Or at least if we can get the stub into the present! SouthWriter 20:47, April 18, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, don't know why this one didn't occur to me months ago, lol. All the figures need updating a touch now too. But, all things considered, Fargo city atl is more or less the same as otl, population wise, so Moorhead's probably about the same too. Another 45k, maybe, population in the Dakotas and 35k in the city itself. Lordganon 09:33, April 19, 2011 (UTC)
Former USSR[]
Interesting that the surviving Soviet cities of any note are, so far anyway, in the European part not now controlled by the Siberian government. Are there any cities of note in Siberia itself? I ask because that "superpower" seems to have retained its prestige, while the USA became a bunch of struggling "wannabes." At least North America retained some 100K + cities. Are there any in Siberia as large as, say, Greenville, RoP (120,000)? SouthWriter 13:16, July 27, 2011 (UTC)
I'm working on a list right now of the rest. The ones on there right now I copied from my earlier work on Europe itself.
As for the question.... have a look at how big the Siberian capital is on Wikipedia or the city population site - it's the largest of all of said cities. Goes down from there. So, let's just say a very emphatic "Yes," lol.
Lordganon 13:29, July 27, 2011 (UTC)
Okay. I was just wondering. Who'd want to live in Siberia, really? But, as they say, "more power to them." --SouthWriter 15:14, July 27, 2011 (UTC)
I can honestly say I wouldn't mind it too much, and most Canadians could tolerate it, lol. Lordganon 20:11, July 27, 2011 (UTC)
Northern China and Mongolia[]
I know I'm late to the discussion, but I'd just like to add that a few prominent cities have been left out, which would have a substantial amount of people. Namely Ulan Bator and Urumqi, among others. Now of course, they wouldn't have the same number of people they have today, but certainly a substantial amount of people would still be there. Also, the Manchurian Socialist Republic would have a few "big" cities, by Doomsday standards.Vladivostok 17:40, November 30, 2011 (UTC)
Neither of those cities would qualify for the Former USSR list, nor would any of the ones in Manchuria. And none would be large enough to go on the Asia list. Lordganon 03:57, December 1, 2011 (UTC)
And right you are, I must have been looking at the 1980 est., not at the 2010 est., my mistake.Vladivostok 07:19, December 1, 2011 (UTC)
Post Doomsday Cities[]
I believe that there are not enough articles in the 1983 Doomsdays cities category. Thus, I plan making an article for that category. I am leaning towards a Fort Collins article because my father went to Colorado State University. Thus, I have someone who can serve as a consulate on the city However, I may decide to make an article on Midland or Salem instead. I am open to any suggests of a city to make an article on. ~Gold
Since you adopted Toledo, I'd suggest you do one on the city itself. Lordganon (talk) 11:12, August 25, 2013 (UTC)
More Cities to add[]
Many cities miss from the list and had a big population before Doomsday. I think they should be added to the list:
Lodz: 800.000 people, 110 km from a bombed city
Timisoara: 300.000 people, 150 km from a bombed city
Vigo: 200.000 people, 300 km from a bombed city
A Coruna: 200.000 people, 250 km from a bombed city
Oviedo: 190.000 people, 300 km from bombee city
This are five of many out there. Please rewrite the article to include them.
Andreas.martonosy (talk) 00:30, September 15, 2014 (UTC)
Told you before, saying it again: Actually look at the articles and maps.
Lodz? Basically covered in direct fallout. Very little people survive. Closer than that to bombed cities too.
Vigo? Not only is the Galician population ~2/3rds of otl, but this "city" is in recently recovered lands. Population far lower than otl.
A Coruna? Lower the population by at least a third. Guess what doesn't make the list then?
You can basically assume the same thing about Ovideo. At least a third lower.
Those three Spanish cities, given the juntas, etc. there, likely fell even more than that.
Timișoara is in an area that got fallout from Belgrade, refugees from all over, and lost order after DD. Many died. Population much lower than that.
Andreas, you took otl numbers. Those do not even come close to applying atl.
Lordganon (talk) 22:19, September 18, 2014 (UTC)
I've written you down the population numbers just before Doomsday. I ddidn't make an estimate of the population. If Timisoara would have get fallout then from Szeged. Belgrade is too far away. I am from there. Also the Transylvania article, which you own, states that the wind blew to the west. That means fallout would be little. As for chaos, it's pretty far away even from Szeged. But there could have been at least 200.000 refugees.
Andreas.martonosy (talk) 13:15, September 20, 2014 (UTC)
Also, you forgoy Trondheim, the capital of Norway and Trieste in Venice and what about Venice itself or Reykjavik? What about them?
Andreas.martonosy (talk) 20:06, September 20, 2014 (UTC)
Before Doomsday is irrelevant. The current, modern, atl population is.
That article says east, not west. And northeast to east is the wind direction most common in Europe. It got nothing from Szeged.
Horribly wrong about the distance fallout goes. Belgrade's fallout goes much further than Timisoara.
Refugees got to that area, and were only kept out of the majority of Transylvania by a dogged defense based in the old castles.
Basically, the area was very damaged. And most of the refugees died - heck, the locals would have fled further into the mountains themselves.
As such, the population is well below that.
Trondheim is below the lowest number on the table. Reykjavik is nowhere close.
Trieste and Venice suffered great damage - one through minor righting, fallout, and disease, and the other suffered a battle and military occupation in addition to that. More refugees in Venice too. In essence, both lost a lot of people. And they are barely over the low end of the table otl - they are well under atl.
In essence, ignore the otl numbers. They are not valid here.
Lordganon (talk) 05:12, September 24, 2014 (UTC)
Fort collins[]
I feel that 1983 doomsday needs more city articles. I hope nobody minds if i write an articel for Fort collinsGoldwind1 (talk) 20:57, December 30, 2014 (UTC)
Power to you. Lordganon (talk) 05:26, December 31, 2014 (UTC)
List of cities/Tallest Buildings[]
Could we make a page for a list of largest city and capital of each nation? And/or a list of the tallest buildings in the world? Daeseunglim (talk)
First one, maybe. Second one, no point. You'd also have to clarify: buildings, or structures? There is a difference - for example, a fair number of Guyed masts, (a structure) may still exist, and would likely be tallest if it is structures, making it meaningless. Lordganon (talk) 12:58, March 2, 2015 (UTC)
I mean like inhabitable buildings, not structures. And nothing still standing within a nuked zone. My only concern would be it may be a challenge in otl and ATL to find what buildings were still built after Doomsday, what buildings were not built, were different buildings constructed, etc. Like, I am guessing the Burji Khalif, Taipei 101, etc would not have been built as would any super tall structure no already in existence. No point in wasting resources. Daeseunglim (talk)
Very much so.
Yeah, none of those would have gotten built.
Lordganon (talk) 04:51, March 5, 2015 (UTC)
Also, is Sault Ste Marie in Superior a combination of otl Sault Ste Marie Ontario and Sault Ste Marie Michigan? Daeseunglim (talk)
Yes. Just across the river from each other, after all. Lordganon (talk) 11:25, March 31, 2015 (UTC)
NYC[]
Just curious, what does NYC look like now, 32 years after Doomsday? I am assuming most of the skyscrapers were knocked over like bowling pins, and some towards the epicenters of the blasts were completely vaporized. There were so many blasts in the city and surrounding area. Will the city ever be safe to explore within a reasonable amount of time? And would the site ever have a remote chance of being rebuilt or built over (Like Tenochtitlan/Mexico City). Or would the city just disappear into legend? I know cities like Wilkes Barre and Scranton were not as badly damaged, and Susquehanna has already begun exploration of the pair. I know short term there are no plans to rebuild the cities, but long term there is talk of rebuilding Wilkes Barre which was slightly less damaged due to the nuke going off course a few miles. That is how some people made it out and got away, and some people live around the southern half in awful conditions. Daeseunglim (talk)
A lot more than one hit in the area - several blast zones in the city itself.
The landscape would vary, with buildings in all manner of collapse or destruction. A few of them, the tops are peeking out over water, having fallen into craters or had ground collapse under them.
Will not be safe for centuries, if not more than a thousand. Even for building over that would be a no-go.
Exploration of the outer outskirts.
Few miles off course? That's gaming it.
Lordganon (talk) 14:23, March 15, 2015 (UTC)
I knew that NYC took like 7-9 nukes or something like that. I had read in a science magazine a few months ago, that in a nuclear war the second wave could/would be slightly off due to the indirect effects of the EMP on guidance systems. Considering the hit on Scranton would have heavily damaged Wilkes Barre as it is (and Scranton has a ton more industry, I live about an hour away from them, and have been to both cities), the Wilkes Barre nuke would be a secondary target. I didn't mean off course by miles, but I mean the nuke hits the north part of the city rather than the downtown. Eventually it may be possible for the southern part to be rebuilt. Now I am talking about like c. 2050 or later, and by then Hazleton and Bloomsburg may have grown large enough to replace them, rendering reconstruction moot. Daeseunglim (talk)
Thing is, the nukes are also really hardened against that. Slightly off would mean downtown versus the north end, true - but the blast would have been aimed for the industrial zone.
Reconstruction would indeed be moot.
Lordganon (talk) 14:47, March 15, 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, I didn't think about that much. Thanks!! I found the industrial center in Wilkes Barre is indeed north of the downtown area, about a mile or so outside. The one in Scranton is scattered about, but the concentration seems to be a bit east of the downtown area. Daeseunglim (talk)
Then those spots are where they get aimed. Lordganon (talk) 10:28, March 17, 2015 (UTC)
I will say, though on one hand the size of cities in North America is not surprising from the amount of strikes, but on the other hand it is a bit shocking! Some of the largest cities in the USA wouldn't even make the list of the top 100 in otl! I obviously understand why, it is still interesting though! Daeseunglim (talk)
Not as interesting as it could be - I think Europe and Asia have it more interesting, myself. Lordganon (talk) 11:26, March 31, 2015 (UTC)
I left you a message on your talk page and the DD homepage talk page. It seems you have seen these messages first, lol! Daeseunglim (talk)
General rule of thumb: Oldest message gets answered first. Longer posts tend to be put off longer too. Lordganon (talk) 09:37, April 8, 2015 (UTC)
Update[]
The article still has nations like Dakotas and Oregon, while they are by 2015 part of the USA. I am going to change that in a few moments. Also, what is Pristina's status? Is it Macedonia, or is it in that South Slavia state. I don't know which one is currently existing. Andreas.martonosy (talk) 17:06, April 28, 2015 (UTC)
It seems to me that Pristina is barely in Macedonia's borders. But I don't know if Pristina would be large enough to make the cut as the cut off seems to be 200,000. The city barely tops that in OTL and it seems that Yugoslavia had major issues. I could see the city being around 75,000-100,000 but not larger than that. Daeseunglim (talk) 19:14, April 28, 2015 (UTC)
Also, how in the heck did Victoria go from just over 64,000 to over 300,000 in thirty years. And the population on this page doesn't match the population on the Victoria page. It says that the city has a population of 102,847. Daeseunglim (talk) 19:18, April 28, 2015 (UTC)
Let's wait for Ganon to find out. Andreas.martonosy (talk) 06:00, April 29, 2015 (UTC)
The estimated populations are from a few years ago - hence, the states they are listed as being in. It'll get changed when the populations are updated.
...The "South Slavia" concept was, in theory, what Macedonia was going to turn into. both me and the author liked it to some degree, but he dropped off the face of the earth after that. So, the change is more or less cancelled. "Macedonia" it is.
Pristina, imo, has only been within Macedonia since the end of the war. Prior to that, it was just barely inside of Serbia. Have realized that I goofed on the original numbers, so it would be ranked much lower, but it would still be there. Yugoslavia has had major issues, true, but it has also had a lot of refugees added to it. Population amounts to the same as otl. Fixed it.
Victoria? Annex a few neighbors, a boost that comes from being a major port and capital, immigrants and refugees, etc. Remember, it's the biggest port in the Americas north of Mexico, by a significant margin, and is the stopover point for things being imported inland into the PNW and parts of western Canada. The Victoria metro is a lot larger than the city itself. As for what the article says... combination of ignoring it and considering it for something like the "inner" city of London, compared to London itself. The otl situation that it's based on doesn't work anymore.
Lordganon (talk) 10:42, May 18, 2015 (UTC)
Ok. My only problem is if a city grows that fast it is going to have problems with finding homes for the new population unless they live in shanty towns, lol.
Should the populations be adjusted?
Less of a problem than you think. Houses can be built pretty cheap, imo, especially with government help. Shantytowns are built without any, hence their conditions.
Adjusted the Pristina one, rest are fine. Will get a new round up, for 2015, sometime in early 2016.
Lordganon (talk) 11:33, May 19, 2015 (UTC)
Largest Cities by Nation[]
I am going to start this ASAP. I figure have the nation name, largest city, population of the lc, capital, and population of the cc.
Any help would be appreciated. Daeseunglim (talk)
Are going to put petty warlordships like the soviet kingdoms or angola and minor city sates like levenworht on the lisGoldwind1 (talk) 18:54, June 13, 2015 (UTC)
As many as possible. Probably at some point or another I will. Daeseunglim (talk)
Review of Largest Cities in Canada/USA[]
On the main talk page, I indicated I think we need to review the list of largest cities in the former Canada/USA region. Something that I think was overlooked are: surviving population from urban areas evacuating, modern day trade, food supplies, radioactive debris, and the size or stability of a nation.
I think most large cities would be in Canada, Florida, the North American Union, Texas, and Victoria. Populations in the urban areas around Toronto, Vancouver, Portland, Philadelphia, etc. would survive and evacuate.
The Canadian Remainder Provinces would likely see a major influx of survivors from Toronto, Quebec City, Halifax, Montreal, Ottowa, and the metropolitan areas, similar to what happened in Australia. Victoria would see survivors from Vancouver and Seattle. Salem would see survivors from Portland, Fort Collins from Denver, Billings from Helena and the northwestern corner of the state.
By 2020, Florida would have major trade with South America, Mexico, and the Caribbean. Victoria would have major trade with the NAU as well as the ANZC, Siberia, and Korea. Texas with Mexico and the NAU. Delmarva with Canada, the northeastern former USA, and likely the entire Atlantic fringe.
I don't think Toledo, Charleston, Manchester, Niagara Falls, Saint Catherines, London, Kitchener, Lexington, Asheville, Sault Ste. Marie, or Greenville have justifiable populations given the regional geography, post-Doomsday economy, existing population in 1980, or directional fallout from cities that were destroyed.
I would argue the largest cities should be as follows (as of 2020):
- Saint John's, Canadian Remainder Provinces - 240,000
- Victoria, Commonwealth of Victoria - 225,000
- Moncton, Canadian Remainder Provinces - 220,000
- Saskatoon, Provisional Canada - 215,000
- Sherbrooke, Canadian Remainder Provinces - 200,000
- Fort Pierce, Florida - 180,000
- Midland, Texas - 175,000
- Olympia, Commonwealth of Victoria - 175,000
- Billings, United States - 170,000
- Odessa, Texas - 160,000
- Cape Coral, Florida - 155,000
- Salem, United States - 155,000
- Lethbridge, Provisional Canada - 150,000
- Trois-Rivières, Canadian Remainder Provinces - 150,000
- Fort Collins, United States - 140,000
- Saint John, Canadian Remainder Provinces - 135,000
- Kelowna, Victoria - 130,000
- Lexington, Kentucky - 130,000
- Charlottetown, Canadian Remainder Provinces - 125,000
- Kingston, Canadian Remainder Provinces - 125,000
- Gainesville, Florida - 120,000
- Thunder Bay, Canadian Remainder Provinces - 120,000
- Manchester, Vermont - 110,000
- Charleston, Virginia - 100,000
- McAllen, Texas - 100,000
- Fargo, United States - 100,000
I think this is a more realistic take on the status of North America. Canada, Florida, the North American Union, Texas, and Victoria have international trade and connections that would cause new cities to replace destroyed ones.
I think a major issue in the United States/Canada is that we ignore refugees. There were over 16 million people in the New York Metro (covering 3,450 square miles), 3 million people in the Toronto Metro (2,752 square miles), over 1.1 million in the Vancouver Metro (covering 1,113 square miles), etc. While cities like New York, Washington DC, Toronto, Vancouver, Miami, etc. were targeted by multiple warheads, there would still likely be hundreds of thousands to millions of survivors, especially as you move further away from the downtown, airport, ports, and other critical infrastructure ICBM's would be targeting. Many cities in a condensed area or with low tactical or strategic value would have only been hit by a single warhead.
In a post-nuclear war world, surviving cities with economic or strategic value would be resettled or expanded on in the aftermath. Canada, Victoria, Texas, Florida, and the United States would be looking to find existing settlements to build new port cities and centers of commerce. Existing large cities that survived Doomsday as capitals or centers in small city states would likely see population loss as they lacked agriculture to feed the domestic population.
Canada would seek to replace Halifax, Ottowa, Quebec City, and Toronto. The United States would look to replace Portland. Victoria would look to replace Vancouver. Florida, several cities.
However, I think many nations would have cities in the range of 50k-100k people, such as Asheville, California, Greenville, Knoxville, Niagara Falls, Reading, Sierra Nevada, State College, Superior, and Virginia.
Daeseunglim (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Update[]
This list is in need of an update. I don't think I would do a good job of deciding how cities populations would have increased since 2010. So I hope some better that task will read this message and anwser the call.Goldwind1 (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2023 (UTC)