Cities that belong in other states

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Bailey

Chicago didn't flash out of nowhere....

Relatively speaking, and from a St. Louis perspective, it did.

From a muddy little backwater frontier marsh village with a couple hundred people in 1830 to 2nd largest city in nation by the close of the 19th century.

And I've read "Nature's Metropolis". it's one of my favorite books about Chicago. I know all about how this city came to be.

[downtownpdx]

Originally Posted by pdxtex

Savannah is like New Orleans' long lost cousin. Portland should just admit it wants to be like California and ask to be annexed. Seattle is fine where it is and is satisfied being the Boston of the west.

Hahaha that’s funny, but I don’t know that I agree about Portland. Yes, it has been massively influenced by California migration. But the local culture really doesn’t scream “we wanna be like California “ - perhaps SF..? but def not LA. The early push for light rail, urban growth boundaries back in the 1970s… all this was to avoid being like LA.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by FromSD

Interesting, but what were the pivotal decisions that undercut Cleveland's future growth?

Well, there may have been decisions made that undercut future growth, but economic circumstance has likely more to do with Cleveland's decline.

The fact is that Cleveland was (and is still) among the top primary steel/metals manufacturers. And unfortunately, this quite often coincides with decline. The domestic steel industry crashed and literally hundreds of thousands of jobs were shed within a few decades. Cleveland is obviously not the only example.

If Cleveland had developed more of a higher education and research-related economy along with manufacturing, it's decline may have been lessened. Cleveland (and Detroit) in hindsight should have directed more of the immense wealth generated towards higher ed and research industries like Chicago did, but they really doubled down on heavy manufacturing and didn't develop the sustaining middle and upper class white-collar population.

Originally Posted by Bailey

Chicago didn't flash out of nowhere...it was a strategically placed satellite city/ investment to serve the Northeast cities and their ports.

Once the Erie Canal was completed in 1821, the northeast cities needed a trading post to connect the Mississippi through the Great Lakes to the Atlantic.....hence, the boom of Chicago.

Yes, St. Louis was on the Mississippi but it's purpose quickly turned to serve Chicago which in turn would funnel exports to the northeast cities.

Not really accurate... the Erie Canal had basically nothing to do with Chicago back in the early part of the 19th century. Chicago's massive boom came much later. Chicago went on a tear because of the steel industry which built the railroads and made Chicago to be the central node for land and water transport. But it was not just a trading post. Chicago developed an enormous manufacturing industry to fuel its growth, being among the biggest steel producers on the planet by the turn of the century.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by pj3000

the Erie Canal had basically nothing to do with Chicago back in the early part of the 19th century..

Not really accurate either.

The opening of the erie canal, connecting NYC to the great lakes, and Chicago's own I&M canal that connected the great lakes to the mississippi, absolutely played a role in NYC capital first becoming interested in investing in Chicago.

Again, I absolutely IMPLORE anyone who's actually interested in this topic to read "Nature's Metropolis".

It's so freaking well written and factually based, with all kinds of stats and data that nerds like us love.

Not exactly a light read, but it should be required for anyone who wants to understand how the urban power structure in the interior of the continent came about in the 19th century.

[iheartthed]

I don't think there's really any scenario where St. Louis would've come out ahead of Chicago once the latter was linked to the Mississippi. St. Louis also wasn't only leapfrogged by Chicago. It was also surpassed by Detroit, while Cleveland pulled even to it well before 1950. The Great Lakes were, overall, a stronger economic bonanza than the river cities.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Not really accurate either.

The opening of the erie canal, connecting NYC to the great lakes, and Chicago's own I&M canal that connected the great lakes to the mississippi, absolutely played a role in NYC capital first becoming interested in investing in Chicago.

Again, I absolutely IMPLORE anyone who's actually interested in this topic to read "Nature's Metropolis".

It's so freaking well written and factually based, with all kinds of stats and data that nerds like us love.

Not exactly a light read, but it should be required for anyone who wants to understand how the urban power structure in the interior of the continent came about in the 19th century.

Well, this is what I was replying to... "Once the Erie Canal was completed in 1821, the northeast cities needed a trading post to connect the Mississippi through the Great Lakes to the Atlantic.....hence, the boom of Chicago."

Chicago didn't really even exist in the 1820s... and didn't have much of a population until after the Civil War. Chicago's boom happened much later than the Erie Canal's opening and operation.

Obviously the Erie Canal played the major role in opening up the Lakes and interior to significant trade (and a role in Chicago's continued growth)... but by the time Chicago came into real prominence, the railroads were already running full steam (pun intended ). That's not to say that investment in Chicago didn't take into account the canal/water route. I think it went hand-in-hand with the railroad/land routes... which only made even more sense for investment/building Chicago into the hub of the expanding nation.

Basically, I was just pointing out that Chicago's boom was not quite a direct result of the Erie Canal opening... since the boom happened half a century later.


Also, I'm going to buy Nature's Metropolis today.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I don't think there's really any scenario where St. Louis would've come out ahead of Chicago once the latter was linked to the Mississippi. St. Louis also wasn't only leapfrogged by Chicago. It was also surpassed by Detroit, while Cleveland pulled even to it well before 1950. The Great Lakes were, overall, a stronger economic bonanza than the river cities.

Right, and similarly Cinicinnati was leapfrogged by Lakes cities Cleveland, Buffalo, and Detroit, and by Pittsburgh, which was/is much more closely connected to the Lakes (i.e., by water and iron ore/steel).

[edale]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Cleveland, like St. Louis, strikes me as a city that could have been a lot more today if a few pivotal decisions had been altered. It's maybe the early 20th century version of St. Louis?

Cleveland has these huge, sorta hollowed out legacy attributes. A necklace of Rockefeller parks, Shaker Heights was built with amazing amenities for the elite, a ridiculous art museum and symphony, Terminal Tower was the tallest building on earth outside of NYC, etc. It boomed a bit earlier than Detroit, a bit later than Buffalo, and really piled up on the bedrock City Beautiful-era legacy assets.

What are the key decisions that could've been altered? Rockefeller not decamping for NYC would've certainly helped. Cleveland also chose to not pursue a Euclid Ave. subway, which was considered at one point. Not sure if either of those things would've prevented the typical Rust Belt decay brought on by deindustrialization, though.

One aspect where Cleveland absolutely shot itself in the foot though is tearing down so much of the city. I understand that happens when places become depopulated, but Cleveland tore down so much, it's left with few aesthetically pleasing, historic neighborhoods. There were huge commercial clusters and tertiary downtowns all over the city, particularly on the east side, but you'd not know it looking at the city today. Much of Cleveland looks pretty...utilitarian and isn't particularly charming or pretty. Had they preserved more of the historic building stock, the city would have more assets to build off of for revitalization efforts. In terms of major cities that have essentially torn themselves down, Cleveland is probably second only to Detroit. Still not sure that's the result of any one decision, especially not at the local level.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by downtownpdx

Hahaha that’s funny, but I don’t know that I agree about Portland. Yes, it has been massively influenced by California migration. But the local culture really doesn’t scream “we wanna be like California “ - perhaps SF..? but def not LA. The early push for light rail, urban growth boundaries back in the 1970s… all this was to avoid being like LA.

Portland reminds me of a PNW version of Oakland/Berkeley.

[Emprise du Lion]

Originally Posted by Yuri

There would be a room for a massive St. Louis despite Chicago. If Dallas can have 8 million in our world, in an alternate one, there would be a room for a 7-8 million people St. Louis.

If we reversed every major political decision that backfired in the last 150 years, maybe. Keep in mind that we've been making bad judgement calls since the 19th century.

As others have pointed out, waiting far too long to embrace the railroads is a huge one, but also divorcing the city from St. Louis County was another one. This left the city unable to expand, which first hurt it when our population started peaking, then hurt us again when we couldn't annex to expand the tax base when we started contracting, and it still hurts us to this day because the city and county fight over the same opportunities and resources.

The below song / music video came up on the /r/StLouis page earlier today, and it rather humorously touches on our strengths and glaring weaknesses. This line especially bites:

"Way back when river travel was all people cared about
We built the fourth largest town in America
mecca of culture and industry
but we epically mismanaged it.
Ever since then we’ve thrived in the ruins thereof."

• Video Link

[Bailey]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Relatively speaking, and from a St. Louis perspective, it did.

From a muddy little backwater frontier marsh village with a couple hundred people in 1830 to 2nd largest city in nation by the close of the 19th century.

And I've read "Nature's Metropolis". it's one of my favorite books about Chicago. I know all about how this city came to be.

Uh...Chicago was created to be a satellite city for New York City. They pumped a ton of money into building "the second city" from scratch.

The Erie canal allowed goods/products/crops to travel from the plain up the Mississippi to Chicago (via train or river) and then through the Erie canal up the Hudson up to New York City to be exported to Europe.

New York City was the puppet master behind Chicago's artificial growth.

New York also used Chicago to significantly weaken the Port of New Orlean's control of the Mississippi.

Houston then delivered the kill shot on the Port of New Orleans (and Galveston) by extend the Port of Houston to downtown, along with railroad connections from the north and west, to reign supreme for the exports coming out of the Gulf of Mexico.

Want to follow a US city's growth in the 1800s/Early 1900s, follow their water paths and railroad connections.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Basically, I was just pointing out that Chicago's boom was not quite a direct result of the Erie Canal opening...

But it was.

The Erie canal was the match that lit the fire that roared in Chicago for the following 100 years

Chicago's boom didn't start in 1870.

It started when the erie canal opened, and it didn't stop for over 100 years.

But because Chicago started from a base of essentially zero in 1830 (unlike Cincy and st. Louis), it took it a couple decades to accrue some mass. By 1850 it was already at 30K, and by 1870 it was at 300K, the largest inland US city, surpassing both Cincy and St. Louis (St. Louis notoriously cheated in the 1870 census in a vain attempt to "stay ahead" of Chicago).

And then Chicago KEPT booming with the railroads.

Just because the railroads super-sized the already large Chicago, that does not negate the earlier boom period when Chicago had the busiest port on the lakes, a direct result of the Erie and I&M canal creating the most magnificent through-continent water route the world has ever seen.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Yuri

There would be a room for a massive St. Louis despite Chicago. If Dallas can have 8 million in our world, in an alternate one, there would be a room for a 7-8 million people St. Louis.

Maybe, but the biggest problem hindering many of these Rust Belt cities are their own governments. The governments have become sclerotic and unable/unwilling to shift into addressing their problems with growth.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

But it was.

The Erie canal was the match that lit the fire that roared in Chicago for the following 100 years

Chicago's boom didn't start in 1870.

It started when the erie canal opened, and it didn't stop for over 100 years.

But because Chicago started from a base of essentially zero in 1830 (unlike Cincy and st. Louis), it took it a couple decades to accrue some mass. By 1850 it was already at 30K, and by 1870 it was at 300K, the largest inland US city, surpassing both Cincy and St. Louis (St. Louis notoriously cheated in the 1870 census in a vain attempt to "stay ahead" of Chicago).

And then Chicago KEPT booming with the railroads.

Just because the railroads super-sized the already large Chicago, that does not negate the earlier boom period when Chicago had the busiest port on the lakes, a direct result of the Erie and I&M canal creating the most magnificent through-continent water route the world has ever seen.

I guess I'm thinking more the Civil War-era growth when it vaulted up the national charts as its boom, but I'm failing to consider that its growth in the first part of the century was also a boom... which the Erie canal spurred. Make sense though.

I'll have to read the book. I can understand how the Erie Canal completion in the mid 1820s opened up the entire Great Lakes for development/growth, and resulted in booms in what were small settlements at the time. I just didn't think Chicago had an actual canal that connected to the Mississippi that early... I was thinking that was mid century on, once the railroads were also in place.

[benp]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Maybe, but the biggest problem hindering many of these Rust Belt cities are their own governments. The governments have become sclerotic and unable/unwilling to shift into addressing their problems with growth.

Perhaps, but the similarities of decades of Rust Belt cities' problems despite being in different states with different local and state leaders seems to imply that the problems and solutions transcend what is "solvable" by government leadership. It's not as if the cities haven't been trying for decades to address their problems, it's just that there are larger forces at work.

[Shawn]

Springfield, MA kinda feels like it belongs in Connecticut.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Shawn

Springfield, MA kinda feels like it belongs in Connecticut.

It IS on the Connecticut River...
(Likewise, St. Louis, New Orleans and Minneapolis belong in Mississippi, Louisville and Pittsburgh belong in Ohio, Omaha belongs in Missouri, and Yuma belongs in Colorado).

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by benp

Perhaps, but the similarities of decades of Rust Belt cities' problems despite being in different states with different local and state leaders seems to imply that the problems and solutions transcend what is "solvable" by government leadership. It's not as if the cities haven't been trying for decades to address their problems, it's just that there are larger forces at work.

Yeah, I agree. That’s what I was trying to get at/referring to when I mentioned economic circumstance above.

They all went through the same thing. No matter their size or what state they were in, they were driven by similar economies and suffered the same fates overall.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by pj3000

I'll have to read the book. I can understand how the Erie Canal completion in the mid 1820s opened up the entire Great Lakes for development/growth, and resulted in booms in what were small settlements at the time. I just didn't think Chicago had an actual canal that connected to the Mississippi that early... I was thinking that was mid century on, once the railroads were also in place.

The canal started construction in 1836, but the Panic of 1837 sent IL into a financial crisis that dried up funding for the canal for many years, it wasn't finished until 1848, the same year that Chicago's first railroad opened.

But in many ways, it was the very idea of a canal connecting the lakes to the Mississippi through Chicago that vaulted the city out of the mud and on a path to greatness. Once the Erie canal was opened, and shipping on the lakes took off, eastern capital began to zero in on Chicago because of its extremely significant location.

What's more, it's important to remember that the railroads did not supplant water transportation overnight. The I&M canal wouldn't reach its peak volume of barge traffic until 1882, and Chicago's lake port saw HEAVY shipping of lumber and grain throughout the 19th century.

Too often people think of it in either/or terms, but the reality of course is that all of these pieces interacted with each other, and in Chicago's case, they positively reinforced each other, with both major forms of transportation working together to transform the city into the main transportation hub in the interior.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by edale

In terms of major cities that have essentially torn themselves down, Cleveland is probably second only to Detroit.

St. Louis is in that discussion too.

Those are probably the top 3 major cities in terms of loss of traditional urbanism.