Great Lakes Cities

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by The North One

Detroit and Chicago literally have the same exact grid/streets and mile road system, these LA comparisons don't hold up, maybe the Detroit region is more centralized along the Woodward corridor instead of the waterfront but it doesn't have big random nodes all over the place like in LA. Earlier uptake of the automobile? where exactly do you see this in planning other than Chicago being larger at an earlier time? Pretty sure all cities dedicated themselves to the highway after cars were mass produced and the government pushed that sort of planning. There wasn't some timeline gap between Detroit and the rest of the country having cars because of the auto industry, that doesn't make any sense.

Chicago is also very SFH dominated, densely packed SFH detached neighborhoods exist very close to the downtown core, Chicago isn't very rowhousey which is obviously because of the great fire. Any difference in past density was probably negligible to the similar overall form although Detroit does have more old spacy mansion districts closer to the center of the city.

My point was that Detroit was one of the later rust belt cities to begin booming. Cincinnati was one of the 10 biggest cities by 1830, St. Louis by 1850, and Chicago by 1860. Detroit only cracked the top 10 by 1910, which was even later than Cleveland and Buffalo (the same as Pittsburgh, but Pittsburgh's late annexation of Allegheny City in 1906 means that 1/3rd of the core urban area was kept out of the count in earlier censuses. It wasn't until 1920 that Detroit grew to be the second-largest city in the rust belt, leapfrogging to being the fourth largest U.S. city. It certainly had at one point an "old urban" core, but it was basically a city of the streetcar and early automotive era, which expanded from a city of 286,000 in 1900 to nearly 1.6 million by 1930.

[Steely Dan]

unfortunately, this graph is only US midwestern cities, so it doesn't include great lakes cities such as buffalo, rochester, and toronto, but it's still interesting none-the-less. (the top of the graph is skewed because of chicago's astronomical growth)




milwaukee and detroit had nearly identical growth trajectories until 1900, when detroit just took off for the stars.

[Centropolis]

a few notes:

the st. louis census is dubious at 1870, chicago very likely overtook it at that point. drawing a line between 1860 and 1880 is likely more accurate.

also interesting that kc and indianapolis were neck and neck, they are probably the two most similar cities on there, although kansas city has an older core city that was absorbed at westport south of downtown (basically an 1850s instersection) and i think is a generally more historically interesting city.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

the st. louis census is dubious at 1870, chicago very likely overtook it at that point.

yeah, that 1870 kink in st. louis' growth curve has always been suspect.

sensing that their city was quickly losing ground to rival chicago, st. louis city officials intentionally withheld their population number in 1870 until after chicago had released its figure, and then inflated st. louis' population number to barely surpass chicago in a vain attempt to try and stay ahead of the windy city.

unfortunately, we'll never know the real 1870 st. louis figure, so st. louis' cheating becomes a historical data point, even if it's wrong.

Originally Posted by Centropolis

drawing a line between 1860 and 1880 is likely more accurate.

drawing a straight line between 1860 & 1880 puts st. louis' 1870 population at ~258,000, ~17% lower than the 310,864 figure that they reported.

and that same straight line growth has chicago surpassing st. louis right at the close of the civil war in 1865, 6 years earlier than the graph above with st. louis' bogus 1870 figure shows.

that would also line up with chicago first surpassing cincinnati in 1863. because chicago was so much further away from southern confederate raiders compared to cities like cincinnati and st. louis, it was seen as a much safer place for NE investment money during the war.

the civil war was the turning point for the balance of urban might in the midwest.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

yeah, that 1870 kink in st. louis' growth curve has always been suspect.

sensing that their city was quickly losing ground to rival chicago, st. louis city officials intentionally withheld their population number in 1870 until after chicago had released its figure, and then inflated st. louis' population number to barely surpass chicago in a vain attempt to try and stay ahead of the windy city.

unfortunately, we'll never know the real 1870 st. louis figure, so st. louis' cheating becomes a historical data point, even if it's wrong.




drawing a straight line between 1860 & 1880 puts st. louis' 1870 population at ~258,000, ~17% lower than the 310,864 figure that they reported.

it took st. louis probably 100 years to get over losing "king of the midwest" title (we are at the least still annoyed by it). it also resulted in wresting the olympics from chicago to disastrous result, the success of the 1904 worlds fair, expanding banking hinterlands to oklahoma, arkansas, texas and withdrawing from some of the midwest, excessive, egregious, battlefield-scale demolition and urban renewal schemes, and construction of the arch.

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

.

that would also line up with chicago first surpassing cincinnati in 1863. because chicago was so much further away from southern confederate raiders compared to cities like cincinnati and st. louis, it was seen as a much safer place for NE investment money during the war.

the civil war was the turning point for the balance of urban might in the midwest.

yes, not sure exactly how it impacted st. louis balance sheets, i actually am more familiar, funnily enough, with how it impacted chicagos. i do know that stuff wasn't getting built (it's sort of an urban legend that st. louis didnt invest in railroads...it started them quite early...the "pacific" railroad to san francisco and the pacific northwest chartered in the 1840s, but the financial backing was terribly erratic).

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

it took st. louis probably 100 years to get over losing "king of the midwest" title (we are at the least still annoyed by it).

what's interesting about that, if you use 1860-1880 straight line growth for st. louis, the city actually only held the " king of the midwest" title for 5 short years, from 1860 when it surpassed cincinnati to 1865 when it was surpassed by chicago.

those 5 years really seemed to have lived quite large in st. louis' psychology.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

what's interesting about that, if you use 1860-1880 straight line growth for st. louis, the city actually only held the " king of the midwest" title for 5 short years, from 1860 when it surpassed cincinnati to 1865 when it was surpassed by chicago.

those 5 years really seemed to have lived quite large in st. louis' psychology.

well, no. the old city gentry really liked to fall back upon the history of st. louis going back to the 1760s and the european settlement of the region going back to the 1600s. those french-colonial families had a certain amount of power and influence for many generations even though they became relatively few in number. there was a sense of almost royal entitlement that of course st. louis is the capital of the interior...the "founder" of chicago of course went back to the st. louis area and is buried here so chicago was considered an "upstart" for a ridiculously long time.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

well, no. the old city gentry really liked to fall back upon the history of st. louis going back to the 1760s and the european settlement of the region going back to the 1600s. those french-colonial families had a certain amount of power and influence for many generations even though they became relatively few in number. there was a sense of almost royal entitlement that of course st. louis is the capital of the interior...the "founder" of chicago of course went back to the st. louis area and is buried here so chicago was considered an "upstart" for a ridiculously long time.

my point was it was all a lie they told themselves.

cincy was always larger than st. louis up until 1860, then st. louis briefly took the crown, and then 5 short years later, chicago surpassed it in reality, if not in record.

regardless of what st. louis' city fathers believed in their own minds about their town, in reality the city was only the actual "king of the midwest" for a very brief moment in time.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

my point was it was all a lie they told themselves.

cincy was always larger than st. louis up until 1860, then st. louis briefly held the crown, and then 5 short years later, chicago surpassed it in reality, if not in record.

agreed. i don’t think st. louis ever saw cincy as a threat the same way it saw chicago. cincy never spun railroad lines around st. louis like a steampunk spiderman...st. louis always looked to the future bounty (including banking) of the west (and north and south up and down river) to fill city bank vaults. that was shattered by the reality that well financed chicago interests had crossed the rubicon/mississippi, and again with things like the IC.

i believe an armored riverboat was dispatched at one point...

[IrishIllini]

It's interesting to me that other highly urbanized cities in the Midwest never developed as strong an attachment or sense of pride for their cities as we see in Chicago. Some of Chicago's neighborhoods lost their souls after WWII, but most held on, even as instability and blight consumed neighboring neighborhoods. That wasn't really the case is St. Louis, Detroit, or even Cincinnati. Chicago has too many lost gems to count, but these cities are on another level. I wonder why that is.

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Detroit's inner core built form, if it had survived, would have been sufficient for large-scale urbanity, not that dissimilar from modern-day Chicago or Toronto.

Detroit was many times larger than Toronto in the prewar era. The same historic home types you see 2 miles from Toronto's core are like 8 miles from Detroit's core.

Obviously today, with most of the buildings gone, and the major arterials all massively widened, it's too late.

Detroit was about twice the size of Toronto in the pre-war era, not "many times larger". In 1931 Toronto had 810,000 people compared to Detroit's 1.7 million. A nitpick perhaps, but what would this site be without nitpicking?

It wasn't until around 1990 that Toronto surpassed Detroit's metro population. That seems like ages ago.

[maru2501]

now STL just cheats at baseball

[Docere]

Also, I suspect Toronto's early 20th century neighborhoods were more tightly packed than Detroit's which like Los Angeles was more car-oriented earlier than other NA cities.

[Centropolis]

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Docere

Also, I suspect Toronto's early 20th century neighborhoods were more tightly packed than Detroit's which like Los Angeles was more car-oriented earlier than other NA cities.

1900 popualtion is probably a decent enough proxy for pre-car development.

with the understanding that US cities (especially detroit) have lost far more of their 19th century development compared to canadian cities.

great lakes city populations in 1900:

1. chicago --------- 1,698,575
2. cleveland --------- 391,768
3. buffalo ------------ 352,387
4. detroit ------------ 285,704
5. milwaukee ------- 285,315
6. toronto ----------- 208,040
7. rochester --------- 162,608
8. toledo ------------- 131,822
9. duluth -------------- 52,969
10. erie ----------------- 52,733
11. hamilton ----------- 52,634

what's crazy to consider is that in 1900, chicago had almost as many people as the rest of those cities combined!

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

It's interesting to me that other highly urbanized cities in the Midwest never developed as strong an attachment or sense of pride for their cities as we see in Chicago. Some of Chicago's neighborhoods lost their souls after WWII, but most held on, even as instability and blight consumed neighboring neighborhoods. That wasn't really the case is St. Louis, Detroit, or even Cincinnati. Chicago has too many lost gems to count, but these cities are on another level. I wonder why that is.

chicago was large enough and had enough inertia to escape the worst of the damage i guess...i often cite metra and the cta for keeping the loop centralized as well...which kept entire core much more intact. i really believe this. i don’t think it was simple pride..st. louis has that in spades. but the city became desperate.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

i often cite metra and the cta for keeping the loop centralized as well...which kept entire core much more intact. i really believe this..

oh for sure!

chicago's vast rail transit infrastructure played a very significant role in keeping the core in the core in the post-war era.

[The North One]

Chicago didn't really keep much intact after the war if we're talking about the downtown core. River North is nothing like it was in the 20's, there's been tons of renewal and replacement of human-scaled walkable neighborhoods with mid-century towers on parking podiums. There's still parking lots and prairies west of the Near North Side.

I mean this is the city that lost everything to the great fire, the 2nd city. I don't consider Chicago lucky in terms of preservation although it's come a very long way with new development.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

chicago was large enough and had enough inertia to escape the worst of the damage i guess...i often cite metra and the cta for keeping the loop centralized as well...which kept entire core much more intact. i really believe this. i don’t think it was simple pride..st. louis has that in spades.

The L and Metra definitely made it easy for those further out to continue commuting into the Loop, but trains were viewed as antiquated and reserved for the poor following WWII. I haven't memorized yearly ridership stats for Metra or the L, but Metra didn't begin operating until the 80s and ridership then was fairly low. Low ridership carried through the 90s I believe, although it was increasing.

The L had declining/flat lining ridership after WWII as well, I believe. Obviously Chicago had a far more extensive transit network than the other cities in the Midwest, but I think it's entirely responsible for the city maintaining most neighborhoods. The people of St. Louis may take pride in their city, but they still abandoned most city neighborhoods in droves and did nothing as the communities they left behind met the wrecking ball.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

The L and Metra definitely made it easy for those further out to continue commuting into the Loop, but trains were viewed as antiquated and reserved for the poor following WWII. I haven't memorized yearly ridership stats for Metra or the L, but Metra didn't begin operating until the 80s and ridership then was fairly low. Low ridership carried through the 90s I believe, although it was increasing.

The L had declining/flat lining ridership after WWII as well, I believe. Obviously Chicago had a far more extensive transit network than the other cities in the Midwest, but I think it's entirely responsible for the city maintaining most neighborhoods. The people of St. Louis may take pride in their city, but they still abandoned most city neighborhoods in droves and did nothing as the communities they left behind met the wrecking ball.

i really think you are underestimating transit in keeping the focus on downtown chicago, here. also, the southside is generally intact in st. louis, and the city suffered greatly from multiple large, i mean really large urban renewal schemes that contributed to sending the city into a population spiral.

i think theres tipping points to these things...chicago didnt “pride” itself above the others.