AHC: St. Louis doesn't split from St. Louis County in 1876

[Big Mike]

Hello. I’m kind of new to this site, though I’ve visited it frequently on occasion. So I thought I’d start this first post with a potential POD.

A little over two years ago, there was a thread detailing how some American cities could’ve been more prominent, and it got me to thinking about my birthplace of St. Louis, Missouri might’ve become much bigger than it did in OTL
(for the record, here’s the thread in question:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=152074)

My POD would have to be 1876, which was the year that the city of St. Louis voted to split from the county of the same name and limit its land area to 61 square miles. In hindsight that decision is said to have been at the root of the region’s many present-day problems, as many historians have pointed out, though at the time it was seen as a good thing, since at the time St. Louis County was largely rural. The split occurred after the pro-separation forces appealed the bitterly contested election to the Missouri appeals court, leading to a recount that shifted the result in favor of the city. (For those who don’t know the history of the 1876 split, I suggest that they google “1876 city county split” to find out. Also they might want to check out the definitive history of St. Louis by the late historian David Primm called Lion of the Valley.)

So suppose St. Louis didn’t split from the county. Suppose the opponents of the city-county split decided to appeal to the highest court in Missouri (in this case, the Missouri Supreme Court). How might St. Louis have developed differently than it did in OTL and what would it look like today? How might the history of St. Louis, and for that matter the state of Missouri, have played out if there was no split? What would it have taken to convince city residents and prominent civic leaders of that time that a city-county split was a bad idea?

[FONT=&quot]Feel free to offer any suggestions as to what the alternate history of St. Louis and surrounding area might’ve been and please be civil.
[/FONT]

 

[President Sam Houston]

Interesting post. I just happened to be reading a little about this subject the other day, and then here is your post. I love St Louis, as it is my wife's hometown (but like most people I know from St Louis, she is not from the city, but from one of the suburbs out in west St Louis County. Anyway, its hard to say, why St Louis did not retain its prominence among American cities. For most the the 19th century it was larger than Chicago, and even as late as 1910 it was the fourth largest city in the country. For a while in the early part of the 20th century at had a budding auto manufacturing industry, but that lost out to Detroit.

However, I wouldn't say that its decision to split from the county really doomed the city at all. It grew rapidly for many decades after the split. Not until after WWII and the flight to the suburbs did its population begin to shrink. Of course this happened to most cities in the East and Midwest. Some cities annexed land to allow them to continue to expand, but for reasons I don't know, St Louis did not or could not do this. But look at Detroit, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Cincinnati, and even Chicago. All of these cities have suffered large population shrinkage during the last 50 years (mostly to their neighboring suburbs).

I don't think there is any American city except for maybe San Francisco that has been able to keep up its population densities, as people have fled the inner cities for the suburbs. Obviously St Louis has lost over a half million in population over the last 50 years.

I guess the primary reason the city of St Louis (and the entire St Louis metro area) could not keep up with the growth of metro areas in other parts of the country in the second half of the 20th century and 21st century, would be that river transportation became less and less important.

But the St Louis metro area is certainly a big metro area, however, it does have a much smaller population than Chicago, to its north and then Dallas Fort Worth to its south west.

So lets say that the city and the county don't split in 1876. By the 1940s, St Louis residents are still fleeing the city and moving to the suburbs. Perhaps without the split, it is easier for the city to annex additional lands to allow for suburban growth inside the city limits. But unless there is another POD, like the auto industry thrives in St Louis, then I don't think that St Louis city or the County are much different with or without the split.

 

[Big Mike]

Interesting post. I just happened to be reading a little about this subject the other day, and then here is your post. I love St Louis, as it is my wife's hometown (but like most people I know from St Louis, she is not from the city, but from one of the suburbs out in west St Louis County. Anyway, its hard to say, why St Louis did not retain its prominence among American cities. For most the the 19th century it was larger than Chicago, and even as late as 1910 it was the fourth largest city in the country. For a while in the early part of the 20th century at had a budding auto manufacturing industry, but that lost out to Detroit.

However, I wouldn't say that its decision to split from the county really doomed the city at all. It grew rapidly for many decades after the split. Not until after WWII and the flight to the suburbs did its population begin to shrink. Of course this happened to most cities in the East and Midwest. Some cities annexed land to allow them to continue to expand, but for reasons I don't know, St Louis did not or could not do this. But look at Detroit, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Cincinnati, and even Chicago. All of these cities have suffered large population shrinkage during the last 50 years (mostly to their neighboring suburbs).

I don't think there is any American city except for maybe San Francisco that has been able to keep up its population densities, as people have fled the inner cities for the suburbs. Obviously St Louis has lost over a half million in population over the last 50 years.

I guess the primary reason the city of St Louis (and the entire St Louis metro area) could not keep up with the growth of metro areas in other parts of the country in the second half of the 20th century and 21st century, would be that river transportation became less and less important.

But the St Louis metro area is certainly a big metro area, however, it does have a much smaller population than Chicago, to its north and then Dallas Fort Worth to its south west.

So lets say that the city and the county don't split in 1876. By the 1940s, St Louis residents are still fleeing the city and moving to the suburbs. Perhaps without the split, it is easier for the city to annex additional lands to allow for suburban growth inside the city limits. But unless there is another POD, like the auto industry thrives in St Louis, then I don't think that St Louis city or the County are much different with or without the split.

I don't dispute that the city grew in population even after separating from the county up until the 1950s, but I do believe, and many historians agree, that their being limited to 61 square miles in land area served to limit their growth beyond the city boundaries. So I would submit that this was a decision that came home to roost sometime before or after the 1950s. It's why I focused primarily on the 1876 county-wide election as the POD for my proposed historical timeline.

Considering the city remains a part of St. Louis County and still sustains a population decline to the suburbs, much like many other cities in the East and Midwest, I do think that at the very least the city's problems would be a little less depressing than in OTL.

 

[Gunner's_Quadrant]

Big Mike: Hi, I'm originally from St. Louis and in fact I took a class from Dr. Primm many years ago at the University of Missouri, St. Louis. Whenever I return to visit my family in St. Louis, I was always wonder what went wrong with the city.

I do think that the city leaving the county was a critical point in its ultimate decline. No one foresaw the day when the city would need to grow beyond its boundaries. In the case of the St. Louis area, I also think another contributing factor has been the balkanization of St. Louis County. There are way too many small political entities, that really can't deliver the services and spend too much of their time bickering amongst themselves.

Through the 1950's, St. Louis City was the dominant political force in the area and was also the economic focus. With the spread into the suburbs after WWII, St. Louis County and the numerous municipalities started getting more economic clout and power. While St. Louis City was the biggest dog in the neighborhood, the rest of the pack was more than willing to turn on the City when they felt threatened or felt the City was getting too strong. The rest of the time they fought amongst themselves to prevent anyone from getting dominance in the area. With the City divorced from the County, the City was unable to expand or annex areas in the County and allow it to continue to maintain a stable, middle-class population. That's how many of the post-WWII boom cities (Atlanta, Dallas-FW, OK City to name a few) were able to grow and maintain their vitality. By the 1970's, the economic focus of the area had definitely shifted to St. Louis County and the city was fighting a losing battle for jobs, revenue and relevance.

I'd think that if St. Louis City had not left the County in the 1870s, it would have been able to annex much of unincorporated St. Louis County, especially to the south and north of the city, either just before or after WWII; that would capture a lot of the population movement out of the existing city. I think that many of the larger, established areas such as Clayton, Richmond Heights, University City, Kirkwood, Webster Groves and the like would have retained their independence. But in the 1960s and '70s, I could see an expanding St. Louis City moving around them into the areas of Chesterfield and far West County before the big influx of population and annexing that territory. In that case, the City would be the dominant political force in the area and control most of the economic wealth and tax revenue. In that case, you'd see a St. Louis that is much more vibrant than more, something on the terms of Atlanta or Dallas.

I've just picked up Terry Jones' book, Fragmented by Design, which I hope will discuss this topic in depth. Just haven't found time to start reading.

 

[Phenabob]

A St. Charles Expat weighs in.

Howdy,
A more "expansive" St. Louis in the Guilded age is going to spread out the Cultural sites (Museuems, Zoo, Parks) instead of concentrating them around the Forest Park Area. I also doubt that Lambert Field would end up being the site of the Main Airport , it probably ends up somewhere in the South county area or even the East side.

 

[Gunner's_Quadrant]

Big Mike: Hi, I'm originally from St. Louis and in fact I took a class from Dr. Primm many years ago at the University of Missouri, St. Louis. Whenever I return to visit my family in St. Louis, I was always wonder what went wrong with the city.
I do think that the city leaving the county was a critical point in its ultimate decline. No on foresaw the day when the city would need to grow beyond its boundaries. In the case of the St. Louis area, I also think another contributing factor has been the balkanization of St. Louis County. There are way too many small political entities, that really can't delivery the services and spend too much of their time bickering amongst themselves. Through the 1950's, St. Louis City was the dominant political force in the area and was also the economic focus. With the spread into the suburbs after WWII, St. Louis County and the numerous municipalities started getting more economic clout and power. While St. Louis City was the biggest dog in the neighborhood, the rest of the pack was more than willing to turn on the City when they felt threatened. The rest of the time they fought amongst themselves to prevent anyone from getting dominance in the area. With the City divorced from the County, the City was unable to expand or annex areas in the County and allow it to continue to maintain a stable, middle-class population. That's how many of the post-WWII boom cities (Atlanta, Dallas-FW, OK City to name a few) were able to grow and maintain their vitality. By the 1970's, the economic focus of the area had definitely shifted to St. Louis County and the city was fighting a losing battle for jobs, revenue and relevance.
I'd think that if St. Louis City had not left the County in the 1870s, it would have been able to annex much of unincorporated St. Louis County, especially to the south and north of the city, either just before or after WWII; that would capture a lot of the population movement out of the existing city. I think that many of the larger, established areas such as Clayton, Richmond Heights, University City, Kirkwood, Webster Groves and the like would have retained their independence. But in the 1960s and '70s, I could see an expanding St. Louis City moving around them into the areas of Chesterfield and far West County before the big influx of population and annexing that territory. In that case, the City would be the dominant political force in the area and control most of the economic wealth and tax revenue. In that case, you'd see a St. Louis that is much more vibrant than more, something on the terms of Atlanta or Dallas.
I've just picked up Terry Jones' book, Fragmented by Design, which I hope will discuss this topic in depth. Just haven't found time to start reading.

 

[MrHuman]

Howdy,
A more "expansive" St. Louis in the Guilded age is going to spread out the Cultural sites (Museuems, Zoo, Parks) instead of concentrating them around the Forest Park Area. I also doubt that Lambert Field would end up being the site of the Main Airport , it probably ends up somewhere in the South county area or even the East side.

Personally I liked that all of that stuff was around Forest Park when I lived in St. Louis. I thought it was nice.