Ask an Urban Historian: Midwest

In this issue, Dr. John McCarthy, an assistant professor of history at Robert Morris University, fields reader questions about the Midwest. McCarthy is currently finishing a book for Northern Illinois Press titled Metropolitan Visitors: Planning and Politics of Growth in Milwaukee, 1910-1960. Have a question about a city in your area? Send it to .

Dear Urban Historian,

Would you say that the economic well-being of the entire Midwest is as intrinsically linked to Chicago as it was in the early part of the 20th century, when the city was the great hub for food processing, manufacturing, and the railroad system?
— Jae Han, Newton, Pennyslvania

This is an interesting question that perhaps an economist could answer with more precision, but I’ll give it a crack. Chicago is still clearly the Midwest’s transportation hub. In 2006, O’Hare and Midway Airports carried 95 million passengers, most of whose flights originated in cities other than Chicago. In terms of economic importance, globalization has changed the dynamic between Chicago and its “hinterland” (to borrow William Cronin’s term). On one hand, small towns no longer need to orient their economies to Chicago, as they did during the railroad age. On the other, some of Chicago’s centralizing economic institutions are alive and well, thanks to globalization, as demonstrated by the Chicago Mercantile Exchange’s recent merger with the Board of Trade. If the question is about “economic wellbeing,” however, Chicago’s sneezes no longer mean Peoria catches the same cold.

The region’s culture is a different story. Timothy Spears’ brilliant Chicago Dreaming: Midwesterners and the City, 1871-1919 shows how small-town Midwest supplied Chicago with many of its finest writers in the late 19th century. And the cultural interplay between Chicago and much of the Midwest remains strong, even as economic dependence wanes.

Dear Urban Historian,

David Rusk’s 1993 book, Cities without Suburbs, advocated the annexation of metropolitan suburbs into a regional government to save deteriorating center cities. Does the experience of Indianapolis support Rusk’s strategy?
— Mike Dominelli, Baltimore, Maryland

Yes and no. Rusk proved in convincing fashion that keeping much of the residential, commercial, and industrial outflow within municipal borders helps a city’s tax base. Since Indianapolis consolidated its government with that of surrounding Marion County, its population has certainly grown, whereas many of its Midwestern neighbors continue to lose population in varying degrees. As an explanation for this relative demographic health, however, Unigov may be a red herring. Unlike many of the Midwest cities, Indianapolis’ economy was historically more diverse, relying less on manufacturing. Also, Indianapolis’ status as a state capital, giving it thousands of secure public-sector jobs that its rivals lacked, cushioned deindustrialization. Columbus and the Twin Cities, the other mid-sized Midwestern cities that enjoy relative economic prosperity, are likewise state capitals. Neither of these Snow Belt success stories can attribute their diverse economies to the shape of their municipal borders.

We should also consider how metropolitan government might weaken the political power of racial minorities, closing off one route to uplift. Historian Richard Pierce’s Polite Protest: The Political Economy of Race in Indianapolis, 1920-1970 reveals that the city-county government of Indianapolis kept the white middle class in power much longer than cities like Cleveland. African Americans in Indianapolis thus had to temper their politics to the city’s more conservative civic culture, a culture that clearly reflects the city’s expanded (more suburban) borders. Rather than automatically eliminating poor neighborhoods, the expansion of city borders might simply hide them in a larger city that has the same social problems but denies minorities the municipal political power to address them. 

Dear Urban Historian,

Why is Midwestern city growth perceived to be less expansive than the East or West coasts? Why aren’t these cities attracting the population shift from North to South/West?
— Patrick Ng, Atlanta, Georgia

Your question touches on how misleading perceptions often are. The Midwest has a pretty well-worn image as an agricultural center: the “heartland” or “breadbasket” of the nation. Recently, more derisive terms such as “flyover zone” or “rustbelt” have come into use. Words like “metropolitan” and “cosmopolitan” are more associated with the East and West coasts. Yet eight of America’s 30 largest metropolitan areas are Midwestern (if we use this term to mean the Old Northwest Territory and Missouri). The state with the most residents of what the U.S. Census considers “rural areas” is actually Pennsylvania.

People don’t perceive the Midwest to be growing, however, because the South and West are still out-gaining the East and Midwest. From 1990 to 2007, the 50 fastest growing metropolitan areas of America included precisely zero Midwestern urban places. The region remains more reliant on heavy manufacturing than we might think, and the process of deindustrialization, unfortunately, is not yet over. Michigan alone lost over 160,000 manufacturing jobs this past decade, with industrialized states like Indiana, Wisconsin, and Ohio going through a painful process of economic transition. Thankfully, in spite of these negative countervailing trends, most of the region’s major metro areas continue to increase in population, albeit not at the breakneck speed of the Sunbelt.