I was thinking recently about how Western Civilization cities are defined by their skylines. In Europe, major cities were dominated by the spires of their churches and in their cathedrals. Take the city of Cologne; if you look above there is sort of a gentle pyramid shape formed if you follow the lines over the tops of the spires and the backs of the naves of churches, that reach the apex of the twin spires of the cathedral. If you look at a lot of European cities, you see the same aesthetic phenomenon.

So I thought about American cities, and how perhaps their downtowns have a similar civic architecture that creates a similar skyline, and how their development creates a sense of relevance and signs of economic success. Ignoring leviathans such as Chicago and New York. I examining cities throughout the Midwest, and I noticed a trend of cities all seeing the erection of a standout, landmark office building in the 1910-1925 range: a skyscraper that towered above the skyline 33-50% higher than the rest of the structures around it. The building of this tower, often clad in extensive terracotta or aluminum and frequently in the Art-Deco style, heralded that city’s transition in the interwar period.

But I noticed something about St. Louis; while yes, the Southwestern Bell and Missouri Pacific Buildings are clad in white terracotta and are in the Art-Deco style a la New York, they can’t really claim to have shot above the skyline. What happened? I argue that St. Louis’s failure to erect a truly tall skyscraper, in the 40 or above floor range, heralded a period of malaise in the city, which you could perhaps argue snowballed and continues to the present day. Was it the Depression? Some other factors? Over the next week, I’m going to look at other cities’ landmark skyscrapers before finishing with a planned skyscraper in St. Louis that was never built.