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

[Steely Dan]

central illinois is home to one of the largest corn fields on our planet, and sprinkled amongst it are 5 moderately sized cities spread fairly equidistantly apart from each other arranged in a neat little isosceles triangle.

tuesday breakfast specials


the cities are all around 40 - 45 miles from each other, with the exception being springfield up to peoria which is around 60 miles.

individually, they are all relatively small potatoes, but they contain a lot of important anchors to the state's economy, governance, and education, and the combined UA populations of these 5 cities is ~800K (i'm using UA here because i'm not really concerned about all of the corn farmers in the region who would still be there regardless of how the cities got arranged).

Peoria (2010 UA: 266,921) is the largest of the group and has the biggest geographical reason for existing as a port city on the IL river (and was until recently home to Caterpillar, now HQ'd in suburban dallas).

Springfield (2010 UA: 161,316) is the second largest of the bunch and of course is IL's state capital.

Champaign/Urbana (2010 UA: 145,361) is home to the U. of Illinois, one of the largest and most prestigious public universities in the midwest.

Bloomington/Normal (2010 UA: 132,600) is home to Illinois state university, the state's #3 public university, and is also home to state farm insurance.

Decatur (2010 UA: 93,863) was, until recently, home to Archer Daniels Midland (or ADM, a large argribusiness conglomerate now HQ'd in chicago).


i wonder had IL been able to coalesce these 5 cities into a single urban center in the central part of the state (perhaps at peoria, which has the most obvious geographical reason for being where it is), creating an MSA somewhere around 1M people, might that have created enough critical mass for the whole to be even greater than the sum of its parts? perhaps ADM and caterpillar don't move their HQ's to other cities if they were already in a 1M+ MSA with multiple other F500 HQ's? perhaps the state capitol/flagship university synergy builds enough self-sustaining momentum to turn this hypothetical city into a more dynamic place like madison, or perhaps even something approaching a columbus level? perhaps this hypothetical city is big enough to anchor a single major airport with much better connections such that people aren't tempted to drive to STL, ORD, or IND to chase lower fares? would downstate IL feel different with a bona fide urban center all its own that was separate from chicagoland (and not one glommed onto a large metro area anchored in a neighboring state (ie. st. louis' metro east)?


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?

[Gantz]

Looking at NYS experience, it would not have changed much.
Whenever you have such lopsided concentrations of population like IL and NYS, there are bound to be serious governance issues. Its truly the tyranny of the majority.

[eschaton]

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?

The first thing that came to mind to me was South-Central Pennsylvania and the relationship between Harrisburg/York/Lancaster. Though they're even closer together (25-30 miles apart) and in the case of Lancaster and York, their suburban sprawl is coming close to touching. Though except for the decision to make Harrisburg the state capital, I'm not sure what could have been done differently, since they were all county seats which grew organically.

Actually, I do kind of wonder why they didn't relocate the capital from Harrisburg. If they made the decision to move the capital to State College when it was first being set up (back in the mid 19th century) There likely would have been a nice mid-sized city near the dead-center of the state.

In general state flagship universities are often placed in head-scratching places, which only make sense when you realize they grew out of land-grant agricultural colleges, hence they were supposed to be out in the sticks. But it's interesting to consider what ifs like University of Iowa in Cedar Rapids or Des Moines, or WVU in Charleston instead of Morgantown, or Ohio University...anywhere but where it ended up.

[suburbanite]

It obviously would've helped them maintain a critical mass that might have helped buffer against late 20th century population drops, but that is with the benefit of hindsight. When these places were founded and growing, the Midwest was obviously in a more agrarian economic state, and smaller dispersed towns probably acted as local collection points for the surrounding farmland and their output. If all three merged into a larger urban centre at the location of Preoira, it wouldn't have been very efficient for farmers to the east of Bloomington to get their goods to market. Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa all have a similar dispersion of mid-sized cities which were likely guided by the free hand of the 19th century market determining optimal locations and distances between population centers.

[Kngkyle]

Agree 100%. The only way I could see this happening now is if UofI builds a major new campus in Springfield. There is no shortage of available land for it right downtown. Madison would certainly be a great model to try and replicate. That ship has probably long since sailed though.

Illinois in general has way too many municipalities draining tax dollars on inefficient governance. There should be significant consolidation to benefit from economies of scale.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Gantz

Looking at NYS experience, it would not have changed much.
Whenever you have such lopsided concentrations of population like IL and NYS, there are bound to be serious governance issues. Its truly the tyranny of the majority.

New York isn't a great example because he's talking about cities which only became prominent by accident, due to a state capitol or major university. All of the smaller cities in Upstate NY exist for a reason. Even Albany was a very logical place that a small city would have formed due to its position along the Hudson.

[Gantz]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

It obviously would've helped them maintain a critical mass that might have helped buffer against late 20th century population drops, but that is with the benefit of hindsight. When these places were founded and growing, the Midwest was obviously in a more agrarian economic state, and smaller dispersed towns probably acted as local collection points for the surrounding farmland and their output. If all three merged into a larger urban centre at the location of Preoira, it wouldn't have been very efficient for farmers to the east of Bloomington to get their goods to market.

NYS upstate cities are bigger, but they were not spared from population drops. So did many other former industrial places. I don't see how IL could've been an exception.

[eschaton]

Two states that stick out to me as ones which really would have benefitted from more consolidation of cities are New Hampshire and Montana. Yeah, I'm aware the cities of Montana are mostly much further apart. But in both cases I think it's arguable if the state capital was also the site of a flagship university it might have given the state more of a focal point that could have grown to be more of a hub for the entire state.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by eschaton

In general state flagship universities are often placed in head-scratching places, which only make sense when you realize they grew out of land-grant agricultural colleges, hence they were supposed to be out in the sticks. .

but OH, WI, and MN all married their flagship universities to their state capitals, which in hindsight looks like it was a pretty damn good idea.

start naming "successful" cities in the midwest, and the twin cities, columbus, and madison are usually found toward the top of that list.

[Gantz]

Originally Posted by eschaton

New York isn't a great example because he's talking about cities which only became prominent by accident, due to a state capitol or major university. All of the smaller cities in Upstate NY exist for a reason. Even Albany was a very logical place that a small city would have formed due to its position along the Hudson.

Albany would not have been nowhere near its size if it wasn't the capital. It would've been a relatively tiny town otherwise, similar to other Hudson river towns.

Second, the other cities didn't get prominent by accident, Bloomington was a major trading point for ag goods from around the area, and for example, Decatur sits on the Sangamon river, which was a fairly important trading river back in the 19th century.

[Gantz]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Two states that stick out to me as ones which really would have benefitted from more consolidation of cities are New Hampshire and Montana. Yeah, I'm aware the cities of Montana are mostly much further apart. But in both cases I think it's arguable if the state capital was also the site of a flagship university it might have given the state more of a focal point that could have grown to be more of a hub for the entire state.

The state that really needs to consolidate cities is New Jersey. Small cities in a tiny densely populated state. Imo at the very least, Jersey city and Hudson county should merge, but this is off topic.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Gantz

Decatur sits on the Sangamon river, which was a fairly important trading river back in the 19th century.

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.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

(...)

Springfield (2010 UA: 266,921) is the largest of the bunch and of course is IL's state capital.

Peoria (2010 UA: 161,316) has the biggest geographical reason for existing as a port city on the IL river (and was until recently home to Caterpillar, now HQ'd in suburban dallas).

(...)

You got their numbers flipped, Steely: Peoria is the largest one.

[Steely Dan]

^ whoops!

you're right.

fixing it now.

[EastSideHBG]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Actually, I do kind of wonder why they didn't relocate the capital from Harrisburg. If they made the decision to move the capital to State College when it was first being set up (back in the mid 19th century) There likely would have been a nice mid-sized city near the dead-center of the state.

Harrisburg was fairly central to the major activity hubs at the time. Add in the geography, the Susquehanna river, its importance as a transportation hub at the time, etc., and it was a logical choice.

[WhipperSnapper]

Why the past tense? Isn't there a chance for migration to fully reverse in the next 50 years?

[Yuri]

Regarding the question, in an US context, one big city would probably more successful.

Down here in Brazil, urban areas ranging from 100k to 250k are very successful and most of them growing faster than national average. They usually work as regional centres for smaller cities.

I guess in the US, with excessive suburban layouts, they might not have critical urban mass.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Gantz

Looking at NYS experience, it would not have changed much.
Whenever you have such lopsided concentrations of population like IL and NYS, there are bound to be serious governance issues. Its truly the tyranny of the majority.

Patterns that are suggested by the success or decline of cities in one state are disproven by cities in comparable cities.

Would Chicago's life story be markedly different if it had been state capital this whole time? New York City? Los Angeles?

We hear people explain Nashville's rise with Tennessee's low (not really, actually) tax environment. Well what about Memphis? Why has that place stagnated, despite its identical tax environment?

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Gantz

Albany would not have been nowhere near its size if it wasn't the capital. It would've been a relatively tiny town otherwise, similar to other Hudson river towns.

That's not likely to be true. European settlement started in the Albany area in the early 1600s, and was one of the most important (and among the largest) cities in colonial and post-revolution America up to the 1850s, being a major transportation, manufacturing, and trade center. It became the capital because it was an important city at the time... not the other way around.

The region grew because of the Erie Canal and because it was THE major railroad center of the day, and became a manufacturing center as well... not because it was the state capital.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Would Chicago's life story be markedly different if it had been state capital this whole time?

no, likely not. chicago is a critical mass beast with or without the underpinnings of a state capital or flagship university.

and so much of the state government is de facto run out of chicago anyway, so......


but if peoria, the state's oldest permanent european settlement (founded by the french in 1691), had been chosen as IL's state capital, and if the state had then followed the lead of nearby states like OH and WI and placed the flagship university in peoria, i have to believe that peoria's fortunes would've have been significantly improved over the past 150 years or so.

that hypothetical peoria would likely have a real airport, and a critical mass of business/economy/culture to make it much more viable as a long term play for major corporations like caterpillar, state farm*, or ADM to stay put.


(*) state farm is still HQ'ed in bloomington for now, but there are always rumblings about them possibly leaving for bigger pastures too. corporate talent acquisition/retention can be a tough sell in these small cornfield cities.