Would IL have benefitted by concentrating urban development in its central region?

[lio45]

A Canadian example proving Steely right (already brought up by MolsonEx) would be Halifax’s much larger profile than NB’s three cities combined, in a way that is far from in line with the NS:NB population ratio.

Not that it’s not obvious that a single big city can pull off things that five separate small cities can’t … not that I don’t like discussion, but this thread didn’t need to exist

[The North One]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

No... Brownfields can stay contaminated for centuries or longer. The city of Detroit has been sitting on the Uniroyal Tire factory brownfield site for over 40 years, partly because the land has to be remediated before it can be developed. It is theoretically a prime piece of real estate as it is located on the city's waterfront right next to the bridge to Belle Isle Park, but no private developer can justify the cost to develop it.

The cost of remediation for the property will be well into the 10s of millions of dollars. This would be a large line item even in a city with high land values, like NYC. In a city like Detroit putting 10s of millions of dollars into remediating a piece of property is basically just charity work, since the land values don't support that investment.

You're not making much sense here. Brownfields are always "charity work" since it's the government's responsibility to clean up these sites and they cant stay contaminated forever. The developer is not paying the cost in either situation. They have already spent millions of dollars cleaning up the Uniroyal site, and like half of the major developments in the city of the last 30 years are brownfields, so... Has little to do with land values.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by Gantz

The way to get around that is what happened in NYC:
1. Lobby to designate the area as a superfund site. When that happens, the federal government provides the $$$ to do the remedial work. This is what happened to Gowanus in NYC.
2. Market the site as some kind of "green initiative" "climate" "global warming" environmental thing, and hope for a non-profit grant or government funding from some kind of climate bill. You'd be surprised how many minute pet projects and grift manages to get on as a line item in those big Congress omnibus bills. For this, you'd have to lobby your congressmen to put it on the bill. Its still a lot cheaper than do the remedial work yourself.
^The issue is the project and land have to be big enough to justify years of this paperwork/political/lobbying circus. It may be worth it in NYC when billions of dollars are at stake, but not so much for other cheaper areas like Detroit.

Huh? I have no idea how things work in New York state. But Michigan has brownfield laws. The state gives out money and subsidies for these things constantly. There is no lobby/political circus required.

[James Bond Agent 007]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

are there other examples around the country of groupings of relatively closely spaced, but also fully independent, small cities (let's say UA's <250K) that together could've amounted to a much greater whole had the people, economy, and culture of the region all coalesced into a single city?

Ever since I moved to KC I've thought Missouri would have been better off if they put the University of Missouri in Jefferson City rather than in Columbia. You could have a city more akin to Madison, WI, with both the main university as well as the capitol in a medium-sized city in the middle of the state rather than 2 small cities 20 minutes from each other.

[James Bond Agent 007]

OK, I have come up with the perfect spot for a major new, southern Illinois metropolis.

Here.

[AviationGuy]

I was surprised to find out a few years ago (via Google Earth) that Peoria has some significant topography, including part of the city being about 300 ft above the river, with really great views. There aren't many Americans who would believe Illinois would be anything but flat corn fields. I've learned that other parts of Illinois have some decent scenery as well.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Emprise du Lion

Back in the 1950s and early 60s, it didn't used to be that way. Belleville and Edwardsville were the further out county seats while East St. Louis, Granite City, and Alton were the major population centers right by the river. Now they've experienced decades of population decline, and the population has sprawled further and further east to this very day, leaving a hollowed out core along the river.

yeah, the movement of people out of the old core heading eastward in the metro east is very pronounced, but what i meant by "disjointed" is that there seems to be a lot of leftover spaces in between the cities/towns.

looking at the population density map below, there are a lot of low density greens in between the population centers of the metro east. it's very leap-frog.

perhaps there are a lot of flood plain issues from the mississippi and its tributaries around there?






there's a very dispersed feeling to the area when traveling through it, even compared to another "over the state line" hardcore rustbelt MSA sub-region like NWI.

[Xing]

It’s the floodplains and the low land value caused by high crime, industrial greed, and a exodus that began in the 1960’s. If you look at a map, you’ll see that whole area is surrounded by small sized cities, many of which were created by industries that didn’t want to pay the high taxes of cities like East St Louis and Granite City. This caused those bigger cities to lose out on tax income, which then was further amplified by the closure of prominent facilities in those towns. As people began moving out (interstate expansion, closure of factories, suburban growth, and racism) those cities lost more tax dollars.

As far as the flood plains go, the liability of building in that area, coupled with the lack of attraction, essentially ensures very little is built there.

Now if the only exposure to that area is to drive through it from Chicago, then it’s going to look worse, since the area of I-55, near downtown STL, runs just north of Cahokia Mounds and south of Horse Shoe Lake (basically a swamp).

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Xing

Now if the only exposure to that area is to drive through it from Chicago, then it’s going to look worse, since the area of I-55, near downtown STL, runs just north of Cahokia Mounds and south of Horse Shoe Lake (basically a swamp).

yeah, that's true. the drive into downtown STL from the IL cornfields on I-55 goes through a lot of strange-feeling "no-man's lands", then you get to the urban apocalypse of ESL, and before you know it, you're headed up and over the big river with the arch right there.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

yeah, that's true. the drive into downtown STL from the IL cornfields on I-55 goes through a lot of strange-feeling "no-man's lands", then you get to the urban apocalypse of ESL, and before you know it, you're headed up and over the big river with the arch right there.

Yeah, its a bit like the meadowlands or metro NOLA outside the levee system but with abandoned NW Indiana stuff.

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by James Bond Agent 007

Ever since I moved to KC I've thought Missouri would have been better off if they put the University of Missouri in Jefferson City rather than in Columbia. You could have a city more akin to Madison, WI, with both the main university as well as the capitol in a medium-sized city in the middle of the state rather than 2 small cities 20 minutes from each other.

The rural areas and small cities between KC and STL seem to be doing fairly okay. Both cities are growing and there are resort areas like Branson...

[Double L]

So I guess what you are proposing is that you take Peoria and make it the state capital and give it University of Illinois and Illinois state University. This would be a strategy to make Peoria a bigger city but wouldn’t be a strategy for anything else. I’m sure ranchers like having more options of cities they have access to when they need to get supplies. Also, this impossible to do. You have to go back to when Illinois state capital was first decided.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Double L

So I guess what you are proposing is that you take Peoria and make it the state capital and give it University of Illinois and Illinois state University. This would be a strategy to make Peoria a bigger city but wouldn’t be a strategy for anything else.

Well, the question being asked was if the above was the case and central IL had a single alpha city in Peoria with an MSA north of 1M people, would that have been to the greater benefit of the region than having all of that commercial, economic, governmental, educational, cultural, and industrial energy divided up amongst the 5 little relatively insignificant delta-level cities in the current arrangement?

Basically, would the whole be greater than just the mere sum of its parts?

I think yes.

Originally Posted by Double L

Also, this impossible to do. You have to go back to when Illinois state capital was first decided.

Well yeah, the entire premise of this thread is a hypothetical.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

maybe for canoes and other smaller craft, but i'm not aware of the Sangamon ever serving as a major river for barge traffic as far upstream as Decatur.

it was certainly nothing at all like Peoria's position along the highly navigable Illinois River.

here's a picture of the Sangamon River just downstream from Decatur.


source: wikipedia

that looks like it would've been a pretty rough go for any craft drawing more than a couple feet of water.

Why Lincoln's early home New Salem never thrived, and was later deserted, because it was on the barely navigable Sangamon also.

[Steely Dan]

and for comparison, here's the Illinois River at Peoria:


source: https://stock.adobe.com/images/river...nois/128810587



now that is a bona fide, fully-navigable, "working river".

the Sangamon is a humble little stream by comparison

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

and for comparison, here's the Illinois River at Peoria:


source: https://stock.adobe.com/images/river...nois/128810587



now that is a bona fide, fully-navigable, "working river".

the Sangamon is a humble little stream by comparison

Other than the Quads Peoria is the only other “metro” feeling city in Illinois besides Chicago and probably more so than the Quads. Peoria kind of feels like a small Kansas City (with a slower economy).

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

Other than the Quads Peoria is the only other “metro” feeling city in Illinois besides Chicago and probably more so than the Quads.

Rockford probably belongs in that group too.

Disregarding Chicagoland and however you wanna parse out the metro east from the STL urban area, these are the largest urban areas in IL.


2010 UA population:

Rockford: 296,863

Quad Cities: 280,051*

Peoria: 266,921

Springfield: 161,316

Champaign: 145,361

Bloomington: 132,600

Decatur: 93,863


(*) Shared with Iowa; roughly half of it is on the Illinois side of the big river.

[ChiSoxRox]

Peoria's bigger feel relative to the other downstate nodes might be a reflection of how it was historically a fair bit larger.

The top 20 cities in Illinois in the 1950 Census:

RANK CITY POPULATION
1 Chicago 3,620,962
2 Peoria 111,856
3 Rockford 92,927
4 East St. Louis 82,295
5 Springfield 81,628
6 Evanston 73,641
7 Cicero 67,544
8 Decatur 66,269
9 Oak Park 63,529
10 Joliet 51,601
11 Berwyn 51,280
12 Aurora 50,576
13 Rock Island 48,710
14 Elgin 44,223
15 Quincy 41,450
16 Champaign 39,563
17 Waukegan 38,946
18 Danville 37,864
19 Moline 37,397
20 Bloomington 34,163

[Steely Dan]

^ Waukegan had 46,698 in 1950 according to Wikipedia.

[ChiSoxRox]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ Waukegan had 46,698 in 1950 according to Wikipedia.

Wiki seems to be off. I am pulling directly from the 1950 Census reports.