AHC: Super St. Louis

With a PoD anytime after 1850, make St. Louis at least the third largest city in the United States. Bonus points if it's the largest.


The following scenarios need not apply:
-Nuclear warfare
-Alien invasion
-Southern and/or Nazi victory scenarios
-Epidemics
-St.Louis Cardinals winning the World Series
 
You mean the Browns? the Cardinals are the good team.:)

Seriously, Detroit was really small before the auto industry made it explode, so there's a good start.

St. Louis actually hosted an Olympics in 1904. Have that be much more successful for some reason, with the city's growth then increasing enough they also get it in 1932, becasue of the success from before.

have the Greart Chicago Fire devastate even more of the city? If some of the big companies which went there go a little north to Milwaukee int he wake of the fire, it spreads the populace that would have migrated to Chicago out a bit. That might help diminish the size of Chicago enough that when L.A. grows really big St. Louis can be 3rd.

Another thought - railroads were really big with people going West, but when the frontier was closed it wasn't as important a city; it *was* one of the biggest, though probably never 3rd, OTL in 1900. So, as air travel replaces railroads at least one major airliner needs to wind up hedquartered there.
 
New York, Chicago, and LA all benefited from being major transportation hubs. New York and LA for shipping and Chicago for rails. Perhaps St. Louis becomes the mid american rail hub instead of Chicago. Not likely but hypothetically possible.

The other way cities become large is becoming the epicenter of a major industry. SF Bay Area with technology, Houston with oil & gas, Detroit with autos etc. Although none of them get to #3.

Dont think its possible. Geography is too much of a challenge. Make it a top 10 city in present day would be a challenge although feasible.
 
You mean the Browns? the Cardinals are the good team.:)
I know, I just really hate the Cardinals. Cubs über alles! :cool:

Seriously, Detroit was really small before the auto industry made it explode, so there's a good start.

St. Louis actually hosted an Olympics in 1904. Have that be much more successful for some reason, with the city's growth then increasing enough they also get it in 1932, becasue of the success from before.

have the Greart Chicago Fire devastate even more of the city? If some of the big companies which went there go a little north to Milwaukee int he wake of the fire, it spreads the populace that would have migrated to Chicago out a bit. That might help diminish the size of Chicago enough that when L.A. grows really big St. Louis can be 3rd.

Another thought - railroads were really big with people going West, but when the frontier was closed it wasn't as important a city; it *was* one of the biggest, though probably never 3rd, OTL in 1900. So, as air travel replaces railroads at least one major airliner needs to wind up hedquartered there.

So basically, screw Chicago and LA?
 
The decisions involved in routing the transcontinental railroad were made during the Civil War, and Chicago was chosen over the then larger Saint Louis as a railroad hub to keep the railroads away from Confederate territory. Change the timing of railroad development versus the Civil War, and Saint Louis could well have been the main railroad hub in the Midwest.
 
As a former resident, there are several reasons St. Louis got eclipsed by Chicago. The rails were a factor, though St. Louis was a decently-sized rail hub as it was. Another factor many have raised was that the Great Lakes river traffic eclipsed the Mississippi River traffic due to issues like the Civil War, lack of industrialization in the South, the relative decline of New Orleans as a port of entry ...

Maybe get the Mississippi River region industrialized?
 

Abhakhazia

Banned
Part of the reason the city of St. Louis itself has such as small population is because it set its land area rather early on compared to most major cities. This lead to the city of St. Louis being rather small population simply because of space. The Metro area is very large already, but to make the city of St. Louis itself the third largest city in America, you would need to have the city expand and annex some of the suburbs in St. Louis County or across the Missouri river.
 
Another factor many have raised was that the Great Lakes river traffic eclipsed the Mississippi River traffic...

Particularly once the Erie canal and St. Lawrence Seaway were developed. Also, I think a lot of ag from Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, Indiana and Minnesota went through Chicago. Seems like it could go to St. Louis via the Mississippi and Ohio but didnt.
 
In 1860 at the eve of the Civil War, St Louis was the 8th largest city with 160K people. Chicago was a distant 9th with 112K people. By 1870, while St Louis grew to be the 4th largest city with 310K people, Chicago was a close 5th with 298K people. By 1880, Chicago had blown by St Louis with over half a million people, while St Louis still only had 350K.

So, in order to get St Louis basically to switch places with Chicago in the post Civil War era, I think you need a couple of things to happen. There would have needed to be a tremendous amount of industrialization in the South, especially in New Orleans and along the Mississippi. Perhaps this could have occurred in the form of a more radical reconstruction that provided actual capital and opportunity to freedmen that encouraged them to industrialize. Probably a bit far fetched, but not necessarily impossible.

Then, with the river and the railroads, St Louis becomes both a transportation hub the equivalent of NYC, it also attracts even more immigrants and expands even more as an industrial center itself. There were a number of auto makers in St Louis in the early 20th century. If it becomes what Detroit was, then I think you see even greater growth.

Finally, the city isn't short sighted and does not break away from St Louis County, allowing it to expand its footprint as it grows.

With that, the city grows to about 1.5 Million by 1900. 3.2 Million by 1930, and 3.8 Million by 1960. Thereafter, it declines some as its suburbs grow, but by 2010, the city still has 3.4 million, with a metropolitan population of 10 million.
 
The decisions involved in routing the transcontinental railroad were made during the Civil War, and Chicago was chosen over the then larger Saint Louis as a railroad hub to keep the railroads away from Confederate territory. Change the timing of railroad development versus the Civil War, and Saint Louis could well have been the main railroad hub in the Midwest.

How much of it also was dependent upon upper midwest agriculture? Iowa, Nebraska, and Illinois are right there but Wisconsin and Minnesota somewhat farther. Its also easier to take the Great Lakes to move corn and wheat to the east coast than go around through the gulf where you need to change ships. Does this matter?
 
There were proposals along the lines of moving the American capital city westward, or having a summer or winter capital, or giving the president a second executive mansion in the west, and so on.

Not to say it'd be Saint Louis in those proposals, and I can't recall their details, but the fact that such thoughts did exist means you could argue someone could suggest a center capital to be more representative of America, or a second capital to represent the west. Such an infrastructure could mean a boost, albeit at the same time, as we get into an age of security concerns, it could lead to curtailment of growth. Washington DC doesn't have skyscrapers for a reason.
 
Top