A1, A2, and B4 all seem like variations on a theme to me. For lack of a better way of saying it, from the outside it looks like metro Detroit somehow or other retained a leadership class separate from its political leaders, while it isn’t apparent that St. Louis did. I have gotten the impression that St. Louis lost more HQs, doesn’t have as much philanthropic money or clout, and doesn’t have as many (or any?) entrepreneurs who have been as successful as the mortgage guy.
I also suspect that Detroit benefits from more national press coverage as well. The big 3 automakers were so important to the US that stories about Detroit generate more interest than stories about other Rust Belt cities. I can’t prove this, but I believe that people behave differently when they think that people in the rest of the country might care about what they are doing. It’s conceivable that if you accomplish something in Detroit, you might get a write up in the NYT. I don’t think that is nearly as likely to happen with any other Rust Belt/river town except maybe Chicago.
The "Great Divorce" in St Louis definitely explains a lot. Honestly, if even just the first ring of inner suburbs were part of the city proper (Clayton, Richmond Heights, University City, etc), that would go a long way toward improving the city's outlook. Everyone knows that Clayton/U City are where the tax base is -- they're urbanized, vibrant places with large private businesses and a university community. They're indistinguishable from the city proper if you're just driving around, but nevertheless get to be their own independent munis that support the county but contribute nothing to the city. In any other jurisdiction, Clayton would be a real part of the city that it sits next to. In St Louis -- legally, psychologically, and emotionally -- it's a completely different world.
Actually Chicago, Cincinatti, Cleaveland, Milwaukee, and Hartford, CT (just off the top of my head) all have at least some of the same dynamic of having vibrant urban areas just outside of but having relatively little identity or social connection to the core city, though Cleaveland not nearly to the same degree (but Cleaveland itself is still very depressed both in absolute terms and relative to its suburbs).
Meanwhile, Chicago has a vibrant downtown and northside, and most of the region at least has mostly shared partisan politics, unlike St Lous with many very politically red outer suburbs (and still some red leaning inner ones) on largely hostile terms with the blue city core and most of its inner suburbs. This is true in Cincinnati, too but Cincinnati has more gentrification these days compared to St Lous and much less continued urban decline (both have plenty of inner suburban decline however).
And while one might imagine Clayton or University City as part of St. Louis, in truth if those areas were part of the same city, I think it's highly questionable that they would be nearly as job dense or vibrant as they are now. Suburban sprawl and job rich "edge cities" can and do sprawl further out in many regions, leaving older suburban job centers similer to Clayton, Mo behind.
I agree with a lot of what you say about St. Louis. I would correct you in that some things have changed - there is an emphasis on growth in the biolifesciences and other knowledge economies since the loss of its manufacturing base. This can be seen in the central corridor in the Central West End and St. Louis University area. The downtown area is still struggling. The pandemic and remote work destroyed a once rekindling downtown. Up until the new administration came in, there was strong growth in immigrants. But I think you left out one difference from Chicago and Detroit - Missouri. Missouri government is controlled by strict conservatives and they hate St. Louis. They recently closed their offices in the famous Wainwright building and moved their employees to the suburbs. They used to help the city with historic tax credits but have since taken them away.
A1, A2, and B4 all seem like variations on a theme to me. For lack of a better way of saying it, from the outside it looks like metro Detroit somehow or other retained a leadership class separate from its political leaders, while it isn’t apparent that St. Louis did. I have gotten the impression that St. Louis lost more HQs, doesn’t have as much philanthropic money or clout, and doesn’t have as many (or any?) entrepreneurs who have been as successful as the mortgage guy.
I also suspect that Detroit benefits from more national press coverage as well. The big 3 automakers were so important to the US that stories about Detroit generate more interest than stories about other Rust Belt cities. I can’t prove this, but I believe that people behave differently when they think that people in the rest of the country might care about what they are doing. It’s conceivable that if you accomplish something in Detroit, you might get a write up in the NYT. I don’t think that is nearly as likely to happen with any other Rust Belt/river town except maybe Chicago.
The "Great Divorce" in St Louis definitely explains a lot. Honestly, if even just the first ring of inner suburbs were part of the city proper (Clayton, Richmond Heights, University City, etc), that would go a long way toward improving the city's outlook. Everyone knows that Clayton/U City are where the tax base is -- they're urbanized, vibrant places with large private businesses and a university community. They're indistinguishable from the city proper if you're just driving around, but nevertheless get to be their own independent munis that support the county but contribute nothing to the city. In any other jurisdiction, Clayton would be a real part of the city that it sits next to. In St Louis -- legally, psychologically, and emotionally -- it's a completely different world.
Actually Chicago, Cincinatti, Cleaveland, Milwaukee, and Hartford, CT (just off the top of my head) all have at least some of the same dynamic of having vibrant urban areas just outside of but having relatively little identity or social connection to the core city, though Cleaveland not nearly to the same degree (but Cleaveland itself is still very depressed both in absolute terms and relative to its suburbs).
Meanwhile, Chicago has a vibrant downtown and northside, and most of the region at least has mostly shared partisan politics, unlike St Lous with many very politically red outer suburbs (and still some red leaning inner ones) on largely hostile terms with the blue city core and most of its inner suburbs. This is true in Cincinnati, too but Cincinnati has more gentrification these days compared to St Lous and much less continued urban decline (both have plenty of inner suburban decline however).
And while one might imagine Clayton or University City as part of St. Louis, in truth if those areas were part of the same city, I think it's highly questionable that they would be nearly as job dense or vibrant as they are now. Suburban sprawl and job rich "edge cities" can and do sprawl further out in many regions, leaving older suburban job centers similer to Clayton, Mo behind.
I agree with a lot of what you say about St. Louis. I would correct you in that some things have changed - there is an emphasis on growth in the biolifesciences and other knowledge economies since the loss of its manufacturing base. This can be seen in the central corridor in the Central West End and St. Louis University area. The downtown area is still struggling. The pandemic and remote work destroyed a once rekindling downtown. Up until the new administration came in, there was strong growth in immigrants. But I think you left out one difference from Chicago and Detroit - Missouri. Missouri government is controlled by strict conservatives and they hate St. Louis. They recently closed their offices in the famous Wainwright building and moved their employees to the suburbs. They used to help the city with historic tax credits but have since taken them away.