Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Saint Louis truly was a special case of stupid. They bulldozed dozens of historic rowhome neighborhoods and replaced them with crime-filled project highrises. Coupled with urban renewal, was the hubris of the place.
They split off from Saint Louis County in 1877 because they didn't want to "share the wealth" only for de-industrialization and the loss of Mississippi River importance to bite them hard 70 years later. Then they realized how awful being a death spiral independent city can be.
Couple it with corruption (Lacy Clay included), and a really myopic political elite and you have the makings of Saint Louis - one of the most depressing failures in American urban history.
But Cincinnati I think had far more potential.
In 1840, it was the 6th largest city in America, only surpassed by: Baltimore, Boston, New Orleans, New York, Philadelphia. It had 2.5 times more people than Saint Louis and 12x Chicago. It was THE Midwest city.
It never had to lose that title. It could have become what Chicago became. But even though Northeast cities were able to maintain their industrial and commercial wealth even when the nation moved West, Cincinnati failed horrifically.
By 1890, Chicago would have 1.2 million. Cincinnati would have 296,000, or the same it had in 2010, 120 years later.
I also voted Cincy as it seemed on a very clear path to being an inland rival to NYC and then never even hit 10,000 ppsm. Its also interesting to note that outside of the U.S., inland river cities continue to easily maintain dominance over ocean coast cities.
Not sure I'd call Kansas City a "decline" city in the same way most of these rust belt cities are. Kansas City is definitely more a sunbelt city than a rust belt city.
St. Louis has a very impressive interurban rail system for the midwest. Are you talking about pre war streetcars?
St. Louis never developed heavy rail public transportation for the city itself the way other cities did, such as Chicago's L system. I believe that's what was being referred to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Losfrisco
Yeah, I get that feeling too. Did Chicago gain the advantage through annexation? Don't know. Both cities declined but it seems St. Louis has the much more significant geographic location, but times change and rivers became less important.
Chicago historically has been able to annex, albeit nowhere near as much as many sunbelt cities and certainly not as recently. St. Louis, meanwhile, has had the same political boundaries since the 19th century.
But that's not what dethroned St. Louis. What did it were two decisions: Chicago to go all in on the railroads and St. Louis to shun the railroads in favor of river transportation until it was far too late. St. Louis would have been able to give Chicago a run for it had it thrown all in on the rails but it didn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarketStEl
St. Louis' last streetcar made its last trip to the carbarn in 1963, and thus the city had to start from scratch when it decided it needed a light metro after all.
When MetroLink opened in the 1990s it almost entirely utilized existing right of ways, especially in downtown. It wasn't zero as much as transforming the existing right of ways to work for light rail transit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by manitopiaaa
I voted Cincinnati.
Saint Louis truly was a special case of stupid. They bulldozed dozens of historic rowhome neighborhoods and replaced them with crime-filled project highrises. Coupled with urban renewal, was the hubris of the place.
They split off from Saint Louis County in 1877 because they didn't want to "share the wealth" only for de-industrialization and the loss of Mississippi River importance to bite them hard 70 years later. Then they realized how awful being a death spiral independent city can be.
Couple it with corruption (Lacy Clay included), and a really myopic political elite and you have the makings of Saint Louis - one of the most depressing failures in American urban history.
You act like these problems were St. Louis' and St. Louis' alone, but ok.
St. Louis also realized its error in separating well before its population peak in 1950. It had been trying for decades to reunify with the county before 1950 because by the turn of the 20th century the county was growing and the city had slammed into its political barriers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by manitopiaaa
Kansas City is doing great, so I don't understand that option. I wouldn't be surprised if CSA passes 3 million in 20 years. In fact, it surpassing Saint Louis is a near certainty before 2050 in my opinion.
Because KCMO proper only looks respectable population wise due to its annexation. The original core city lost a substantial amount of its population, but annexation hid that fact. Metro St. Louis also had decent population growth up until the last decade.
It at times feels like the metro area has been stuck in neutral since the recession. This is in spite of St. Charles County being one of the most populous and fastest growing counties in Missouri.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Losfrisco
I also voted Cincy as it seemed on a very clear path to being an inland rival to NYC and then never even hit 10,000 ppsm. Its also interesting to note that outside of the U.S., inland river cities continue to easily maintain dominance over ocean coast cities.
St. Louis stole its thunder, just as Chicago stole St. Louis', and Detroit attempted to steal Chicago's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCrest182
Not sure I'd call Kansas City a "decline" city in the same way most of these rust belt cities are. Kansas City is definitely more a sunbelt city than a rust belt city.
See my above comment about the decline in the urban core. KCMO is more of a story of growing suburban sprawl with a semi-rusty city at its core that benefitted from annexation.
It's sort of an odd hybrid to be perfectly honest.
The story of the rivalry between St. Louis and Chicago could fill a few books. The Civil War played a role along with Jesse James and the Chicago fire and dime novels. Chicago set out to eclipse St. Louis while St. Louis was preoccupied and discounted the challenge. By 1880 St. Louis was playing catch up and got caught falsifying the census to pad the population figures. They had to do a recount. Both places had great geographic assets but steamboat travel was being replaced by rail. That made both places a rail hub. The city's decision to separate from St. Louis County sealed its fate as far as expansion goes. Meanwhile, Chicago was rebuilding after the fire and was issuing propaganda and dime novels about how lawless St. Louis and Missouri was due to the outlaws and lingering animosity from the Civil War. Chicago had a worlds fair and St. Louis had its own ten years later and hosted the Olympics but was falling behind. By 1920 Chicago was #2 and St. Louis was #6 (#4 in 1910). It never reached one million population in its artificially constrained city limits.
Sometimes I look at the skyline of Chicago and think that it should have 5 million people at the very least. But yet there is just 2.7 million people there. I think Chicago could have been a lot stronger nd never reached its fullest potential on a rw number basis.
Howevr by a % wiise, I think Baltimore. It has the bones, location and potential to be huge. But you know..
Sometimes I look at the skyline of Chicago and think that it should have 5 million people at the very least. But yet there is just 2.7 million people there. I think Chicago could have been a lot stronger nd never reached its fullest potential on a rw number basis.
Howevr by a % wiise, I think Baltimore. It has the bones, location and potential to be huge. But you know..
Cleveland from the air at night looks like a top five metro, Pittsburgh at any time doesn't look like a 300K city. Conversely, Detroit looks a bit lacking for a once 1.8 million city.
It would be interesting to uncover some Chicago booster articles from the 1920's and 30's. Los Angeles was already gunning for NYC at this time.....were they? They were much closer.
It would be interesting to uncover some Chicago booster articles from the 1920's and 30's. Los Angeles was already gunning for NYC at this time.....were they? They were much closer.
Go back a little further. Fear of Chicago eclipsing New York was one of the reasons why the boroughs were consolidated into NYC in the 1890s. There was a legitimate fear that without consolidation that Chicago would soon become the largest city in the United States.
Go back a little further. Fear of Chicago eclipsing New York was one of the reasons why the boroughs were consolidated into NYC in the 1890s. There was a legitimate fear that without consolidation that Chicago would soon become the largest city in the United States.
Chicago would go on to pass Manhattan in population by about 1915. Though of course, Manhattan is a pygmy of 23 square miles. Chicago by 1900 had just completed massive acquisitions. Something like 75% of modern-day Chicago was annexed from 1889-1900.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
