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.
I think it's St Louis.
It's flat and has huge area to develop on all directions.
On the river and so can be a big transportation hub.
In the geographic center of the country and so again can be a major transportation crossroads.
Was the 8th largest city in the country with almost 900,000 people , could have easily been a few millions by now but dropped to 60th place today with less than 400,000 people.
I think it's St Louis.
It's flat and has huge area to develop on all directions.
On the river and so can be a big transportation hub.
In the geographic center of the country and so again can be a major transportation crossroads.
Was the 8th largest city in the country with almost 900,000 people , could have easily been a few millions by now but dropped to 60th place today with less than 400,000 people.
I think the issue would be the lack of annexation, if you are just referring to the city proper and even if the city was doing “better”.
Cleveland definitely comes to mind. The city was major league at one time, but sadly has not kept up. Population is still declining from the metropolitan area.
I think it's St Louis.
It's flat and has huge area to develop on all directions.
On the river and so can be a big transportation hub.
In the geographic center of the country and so again can be a major transportation crossroads.
Was the 8th largest city in the country with almost 900,000 people , could have easily been a few millions by now but dropped to 60th place today with less than 400,000 people.
I guess a question I have is what's the maximum potential particular cities could have achieved? St. Louis is fairly close to the huge Chicago region. Could that proximity have capped its growth? Also, once the West developed and became less of a frontier, perhaps the need for a gateway city to the West faded.
It is a shame that a once prominent city like St. Louis lost its status. It seems like a treasure trove of historical beauty. A store manager I worked under in Atlanta back in the 1980's often talked about visiting St. Louis with his wife. They enjoyed traveling there simply because it was old, unlike ultra-modern Atlanta.
I think most of the cities in upstate NY would thrive if they weren't in NY. I'm talking Buffalo, Rochester, and Albany. They all have walkable neighborhoods. Lots of great ethnic food. Strong working class/blue collar mentalities.
I guess a question I have is what's the maximum potential particular cities could have achieved? St. Louis is fairly close to the huge Chicago region. Could that proximity have capped its growth? Also, once the West developed and became less of a frontier, perhaps the need for a gateway city to the West faded.
It is a shame that a once prominent city like St. Louis lost its status. It seems like a treasure trove of historical beauty. A store manager I worked under in Atlanta back in the 1980's often talked about visiting St. Louis with his wife. They enjoyed traveling there simply because it was old, unlike ultra-modern Atlanta.
St. Louis could've been the Midwest's Boston to Chicago's NYC. It might not have been the #1 in the region, but a strong #2 or 3 like Minneapolis-St. Paul or Detroit. It's centralized location and history of corporate headquarters made it a strong "B" city for much of its history, but deindustrialization and corporate mergers and consolidation (like TWA being bought out by American Airlines) definitely hampered its growth and potential. There's also the fact that Chicago became a railroad city and the hub of the American Railroad system quite early while St. Louis focused on riverboat transportation a lot longer than it should have (and charged high tolls on the Eads bridge back in the day) that affected it as well. St. Louis "should" have a major air hub like Atlanta or Dallas-Ft. Worth and be a major transportation and logistics hub in general like those two cities, but fate gave it another hand.
Thus far, all the cities mentioned have valid reasons (e.g., deindustrialization, changes in dominant modes of transportation, etc.) as to why they aren't bigger or more prominent today. My vote goes to Jacksonville, FL which is a sizable, healthy city but could have been a lot more given its built-in advantages and geographical location.
Philadelphia--although it has been realizing its greatness more and more the past 10-15 years.
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.
