The 1904 World’s Fair in St. Louis is remembered by some as the high-water mark of the city’s history—the moment when all the world was assembled in tribute to the city’s greatness, the moment at the crest of the rise, before the beginning of the long decline.
Suppose SF were at the beginning of a long decline. What would the signs be, specifically?
It seems an interesting question for a few reasons. SF is one of the most influential cities in the world; the question generalizes to SV rather than SF; and COVID has forced a lot of non-remote ideas to suddenly become remote (e.g. YC batches).
If you were teleported back to 1904 and viewed St Louis in all its glory, what signs would you see that would make you go "This place will become much less relevant within a couple generations"? Are those signs applicable to today's cities? (They may not be, and perhaps likely aren't – but it seems worth studying.)
I grew up in the St Louis area. The intro of this article was shocking, because the world now certainly wouldn't assemble in tribute to the greatness of St Louis. It makes you wonder: which other powerful cities soon won't be? Regions? Institutions? Why – and are there useful correlations between the categories?
It wasn't sudden, and was already in progress by 1904, but St. Louis in the 1850s was the second largest port in the United States after New York. As railroads became a thing they favored Chicago, possibly because St. Louis politicians were protecting the river boat industry.
At the dawn of railroads St. Louis was three times the size of Chicago, by 1904 it was reversed.
␄
Caveat: I didn't vet those numbers too closely and in the case of St. Louis it matters. St. Louis is one of several US cities whose urban centers are politically separate entities from their surrounding suburbs. So when you see a list of "Cities with the highest X rate!" and X is correlated with population density then St. Louis and Baltimore will usually be high on the list.)
Arrogance and hypocrisy I think are the biggest signs. SF, SV, CA generally I think, lecture the world on morality and politics. They push their innovations on the rest of the world for an enormous profit, and use their innovations to push their own ideological agendas. And I would say a very small amount of those profits are used for the betterment of man-kind.
The arrogance is clearly seen in the "we are always right" air that tech companies have. Their press releases talk down to people. Their pontificating on world events - as if being the first to come up with yet another CRUD app and receive $1b in VC money for it, suddenly makes you a moral authority - is sickening.
They lament the state of the homeless, while living in mansions. They lament the plight of refugees, while taking in none. They lament the plight of minorities, while thinking the problem is solved by just hiring more of them. They wage war on authoritarian governments, while implementing authoritarian rules over their own platforms. They argue for fairness, while evading taxes. They argue for privacy of their own affairs, while violating the privacy of yours.
All in all, the entire area reeks of arrogance and hypocrisy. Babylon, Greece, Rome, England, America (more broadly in the 20th century) - they were all the same at their height. The reign of the technocracy in CA has reached its zenith and will soon be in decline. COVID has popped the bubble. And we will all be the better for it.
There were 2 primary reasons I believe St. Louis as a city and a metro failed to emerge as a large area with great prosperity.
1. The scheme and charter. In 1875 the city forced a divorce from the county. The county at the time was a large rural area and the city wanted to expand. Everything wrong with the area sprung from this decision. The latest effort failed spectacularly. It'll be a generation before they come back together.
The course organizer believed in intentional dehydration, so there was no water until the 11 mile mark, with some trainers instead using alcohol when runners became thirsty. It was 90 degrees in the shade.
The winner was periodically dosed with strychnine mixed in brandy, and suffered hallucinations for the last 10 miles of the race, was carried over the finish line, and would have died if doctors didn't immediately treat him.
Another competitor hadn't eaten in 40 hours, so he stopped at an orchard and ate some apples that turned out to be rotten and gave him incredible stomach pains, so he had to lie down.
Another competitor almost died from the dust clouds kicked up by the cars driving ahead and behind the participants.
Another competitor was chased off the race by aggressive dogs.
Just so many crazy things all at once.
There's a fantastic episode from The Memory Palace about the race:
”Come spend a day enjoying yourselves, the fair beckoned; lay down your placards and your pistols, and take up your rightful place in the front rank of civilization and the “march of progress.” The fair exhibits were designed to domesticate the restive immigrant workers of St. Louis by turning them into white people.“
Suppose SF were at the beginning of a long decline. What would the signs be, specifically?
It seems an interesting question for a few reasons. SF is one of the most influential cities in the world; the question generalizes to SV rather than SF; and COVID has forced a lot of non-remote ideas to suddenly become remote (e.g. YC batches).
If you were teleported back to 1904 and viewed St Louis in all its glory, what signs would you see that would make you go "This place will become much less relevant within a couple generations"? Are those signs applicable to today's cities? (They may not be, and perhaps likely aren't – but it seems worth studying.)
I grew up in the St Louis area. The intro of this article was shocking, because the world now certainly wouldn't assemble in tribute to the greatness of St Louis. It makes you wonder: which other powerful cities soon won't be? Regions? Institutions? Why – and are there useful correlations between the categories?