Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 5:30 AM ET, 02/24/2011

The making of America’s most dangerous city

By Adam Arenson
Guest Blogger

Arenson-final-cover1.jpg
About this blog: St. Louis has earned a dubious distinction again this year – named by U.S. News and World Report as the nation’s most dangerous city. What is it that puts St. Louis in the forefront of American crime? Adam Arenson looks to history for an answer. In his book, “The Great Heart of the Republic: St. Louis and the Cultural Civil War,” recently released by Harvard University Press, Arenson charts the quest of St. Louisans to make their city the cultural and commercial capital. But their efforts ultimately failed and decisions taken as far back as the Civil War have repercussions today, as Arenson, an assistant professor of history at the University of Texas at El Paso, reveals here.

**************************

U.S. News and World Report is out with another ranking of America’s most dangerous cities, using analysis from FBI crime data. And, once again, St. Louis has been ranked #1.

This is the sort of headline that provides fodder for late-night hosts and pundits: One colleague asked if it was the Mississippi River water; another suggested it was Albert Pujols’s salary demands. The notoriety will surely provide headaches for city officials, local tourism efforts, and the St. Louis Chamber of Commerce.

Yet at moments like these I am reminded of a maxim favored by of one of St. Louis’s famous residents, Mark Twain: “there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.”

This is pretty evident for the city where I teach; another recent ranking placed El Paso as the second-safest large city in the United States, a statistic that surely did not take into account the extreme suffering of Ciudad Juárez, “the murder capital of the world,” just across the Rio Grande, where more than 3,000 people were killed in 2010.

And I think about how St. Louis’s problems, both real and computational, can be traced back to the city’s Civil War years. As my new book argues, St. Louis’s leaders were some of the first to grasp the possibilities of the rising American West to reshape the politics, economics, and culture of a newly continental United States, and the city’s leaders saw western aims as the way to get beyond the deepening conflict between North and South.

Thomas Hart Benton, Missouri’s longtime senator, envisioned the time when the transcontinental railroad would be “a band of Iron, hooping and binding the States together east and west … a cement of union north and south.” From the Golden Spike to Route 66 to Hollywood and the rise of the Pacific Rim, the bounty of the American West did come to command the national priorities in the 20th century — but St. Louis, despite its early investments in the cause, was left behind.

Why, and what does it have to do with the city’s current ranking as the nation’s most dangerous? Despite the early embrace of railroads, St. Louis suffered delays and disasters while Chicago’s lines steamed ahead; despite nearly bloodless Civil War years, the city suffered during Reconstruction from the obstructionist policies of former slaveholders.

Finally and most significantly, the city embraced home rule in the 1870s, emancipating the city of St. Louis from its county but hemming itself in between the Mississippi River and Illinois on one side, and a new, independent St. Louis County on all other sides.

In the age of the automobile, and then the racially restrictive housing covenant, the county grew prosperous while the city withered, losing one hundred thousand residents each decade between World War II and the turn of the millennium. Once the fourth-largest city in the nation, St. Louis has slipped to 52nd, with a population about the same today as when my book ends, in 1880.

The primary cause of St. Louis’s “undercrowding,” its disappearing tax base, and its rising crime rate is that city-county split, more than a century ago, and the middle-class flight that followed. Within a decade of celebrating their home rule, St. Louis officials sought to combine again with their county, and annex new, prosperous communities — an effort they have tried again and again ever since, to no avail.

Over the years that St. Louis shrunk, the county grew and grew. As a bi-state metropolitan region, St. Louis ranks eighteenth in the country, and the population was up five percent in the last decade, just below San Diego and above Tampa Bay. The city has problems today, including crime — ones that the whole region needs to address. But in this case, the damn lie of the statistics hides the city’s far more important urban and Civil War history.

By Adam Arenson  | February 24, 2011; 5:30 AM ET
Categories:  Guest Blogger  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Tom Ricks responds to Donald Rumsfeld
Next: BOOK WORLD - February 27, 2011

Comments

There is another reason. Most big cities grow by sprawl. So far, Saint Louis does not have that option. It is hemmed in by its own fence. Sprawl is the key to growth because if cheap, powerful transportation and communications. Even Seattle is quickly responsive to downtown crowding, and put a hold on new constructions for several years while it assessed the impact. New center-area constructions are much slower because they are not as necessary as they were thought to be.

All this is the result of the discoveries that came with reaching the Moon. No aliens, no monsters or demons, no other habitable worlds in the Solar System, and all other star systems too bloody far to reach in THIS thousand years anyway. Earth is the only, only place to live.

Partly, people move away from Saint Louis to bring the absolute population density down. Partly, the crime rate is high because Saint Louis is not facing its urban problems the same way more cosmopolitan cities do. It's still struck with an old ideological dispute about religion, for instance, and at the same time harkens to the Kings of France. In that, even the United States has complex and sophisticated plans, because the primary reason for royal families was an attempt to keep blood lines and genetics (well understood only recently) in line.

Traditional royal families are being questioned more not only because of common sense democracy, but because dna analysis of the cell's genetic nucleus solved so many genetics problems. The whole thing is subtle, deep and again, sophisticated problem that stock-yard feedlots, cattle and lumber trains and mail order catalog thinking can't deal with.

Posted by: macadamius | February 24, 2011 1:20 PM | Report abuse

St. Louis City "home rule in the 1870s," and separation from the county as the cause of the city's decay is an interesting speculation. While I would agree that middle-class flight from the city had a negative impact, tracing the city's "withering" to post-bellum causes sounds like a "what if" speculation that would be difficult to prove or disprove. I suspect there are other thriving cities similar in geographical size to St. Louis that do not share their surrounding communities tax bases. In contrast to the crime and poverty in some areas of St. Louis, there are St. Louis neighborhoods with low-crime, as well as areas of affluence and culture in St. Louis that should not be discounted by "damned lies and statistics." For example, two leading American universities - St. Louis University and Washington University - are in the heart of the city. The St. Louis Art Museum, St. Louis Zoo and sports stadia are better than those in most other large cities. And there is no better baseball player than Albert Pujols.

Posted by: drj_nih | February 25, 2011 11:47 PM | Report abuse

"another recent ranking placed El Paso as the second-safest large city in the United States, a statistic that surely did not take into account the extreme suffering of Ciudad Juárez"

That's because it's in ANOTHER COUNTRY.

Posted by: Chris95 | February 27, 2011 1:24 PM | Report abuse

St. Louis and Baltimore have a lot in common. By being independent political entities (that is, not part of a county), they find themselves drained of population (and a tax base) as residents move to nearby jurisdictions but still commute to work in the city. That's left Baltimore overly dependent on property taxes, which exacerbates the situation. Contrast this with Chicago, which is not only the economic engine of Cook County, but maintains revenue raising flexibility because of its jurisdictional tie.

Posted by: jhpurdy | February 28, 2011 9:59 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company