Riga’s Rise and Retreat: The Baltic Metropolis That Might Have Been

The story spans centuries – from medieval trade and Swedish rule to Russian czars, wars, Soviet planners, and post-Cold War independence – revealing how shifting empires, war devastation, and politics repeatedly altered Riga’s destiny.

In this historical journey, we compare Riga’s fortunes with Stockholm, Copenhagen, and its Baltic peers Tallinn and Vilnius. We’ll see how Riga’s early prominence as a prosperous Hanseatic hub and Swedish crown jewel gave way to challenges under Russian and Soviet rule. Key turning points – the Great Northern War, two World Wars, Soviet industrialization, and post-1991 independence – all reshaped the city’s trajectory. The uninterrupted growth enjoyed by Nordic capitals contrasts with Riga’s cycles of rise and fall. Yet, as we’ll conclude, Riga’s story isn’t over – and the 21st century may hold the promise of a new reawakening for this once-and-future Baltic metropolis.

Hanseatic Hub and Sweden’s Largest City

Long before Riga ever fell under Swedish rule, it was already a thriving Hanseatic trading port linking East and West. Founded in 1201 by German crusaders on the Daugava River, Riga quickly became a key node in Baltic commerce. In 1282 it joined the Hanseatic League, dominating trade on the eastern shore of the Baltic Sea. Its strategic location – a natural harbor where river routes from Russia met the sea – made Riga a bustling gateway for goods from the Russian interior and beyond. By the late Middle Ages, Riga’s warehouses bulged with flax, timber, furs, and grain destined for Western Europe, and German merchant guilds ran the show.

Riga’s golden age as a Baltic hub continued under foreign overlords: first the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (which took control in 1581) and then, fatefully, the Swedish Empire. In 1621, King Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden captured Riga from Poland-Lithuania, adding the wealthy port of Livonia to his expanding Baltic realm. Over the ensuing decades, Sweden’s Great Power Era saw Riga flourish under Swedish rule. The city retained considerable local autonomy and its German-dominated town council, even as it swore allegiance to the Swedish Crown. This hands-off approach allowed commerce to flow freely under Swedish naval dominance. By the end of the 17th century, Riga had grown into the largest city in the entire Swedish Empire, outpacing even Stockholm. Contemporary accounts note that “Riga, which was the largest city in the empire, enjoyed considerable autonomy and continued to grow as a trading hub under the Swedish crown.” Its harbor bustled with ships from near and far, and the city’s wealth and size eclipsed Stockholm’s relatively smaller 17th-century population.

Meanwhile, elsewhere around the Baltic, Stockholm and Copenhagen were important Nordic capitals but did not dominate trade in the same way. Stockholm was Sweden’s political center and grew steadily with the kingdom’s rise, yet in the 1600s it still lagged behind Riga in population and commercial clout. (Stockholm would only overtake Riga in the 18th century.) Copenhagen, for its part, was the capital of Denmark and a regional power, but it lay outside the Swedish Empire and pursued its own trajectory. The key difference was that Stockholm and Copenhagen enjoyed continuous development as national capitals, while Riga’s fortunes would soon be disrupted by war and imperial change.

Empire Shifts: The Great Northern War and Russian Rule

Riga’s first major turning point came with the Great Northern War (1700–1721) – a cataclysm that ended Sweden’s Baltic supremacy. In 1709–1710, Peter the Great’s Russian armies besieged Riga, determined to wrest the Baltics from Swedish hands. The siege coincided with a devastating outbreak of plague inside the city, killing thousands of residents. Under this double blow of warfare and disease, Riga fell to the Tsar’s forces in 1710‍. Sweden’s loss was formalized by the Treaty of Nystad in 1721, which ceded Riga and Livonia to the Russian Empire.

This imperial transfer abruptly ended Riga’s era of Swedish prosperity. The once-autonomous Baltic entrepôt now became a provincial city of the Russian Empire. To make matters worse, Peter the Great had founded a brand new imperial capital – St. Petersburg (established 1703) – just a few years earlier. St. Petersburg, built on the Neva not far from the Gulf of Finland, was intended as Russia’s “window to Europe.” It quickly began to siphon trade and talent away from older ports like Riga and Tallinn. Indeed, Russia seized the old Baltic ports (Riga, Reval/Tallinn, Vyborg) but poured resources into developing St. Petersburg as its premier Baltic seaport. In the 18th century, Riga continued to function as an important port (it remained a leading exporter of flax and timber), but it was no longer the primary gateway to the West – St. Petersburg had taken that crown.

Yet Russian rule was not entirely a curse for Riga. The city’s Baltic German elites retained many privileges under the czars, and the 18th century brought new economic stimulus once the dust of war settled. Riga benefited from the vast hinterland of the Russian Empire, serving as a transit hub for goods moving between Russia and Europe. By the 19th century, Riga experienced a remarkable industrial boom. The abolition of serfdom in Baltic provinces (1817–19) and the construction of railroads (Riga got its first railway in 1861) spurred rapid urban growth. Factories sprang up producing rail cars, machinery, ships, and even early automobiles and airplanes. Modern infrastructure arrived – telegraphs (1852), telephones (1882), gaslights and electric power – making Riga one of the most advanced cities in the Russian Empire by 1900‍.

A postcard view of bustling Riga around 1900, when the city was a major industrial port of the Russian Empire. In 1914, Riga’s population exceeded half a million, making it the empire’s third largest city after St. Petersburg and Moscowbritannica.com.

Riga’s population exploded in this era. By 1913–1914, on the eve of World War I, the city had about 517,000 residents, ranking as the Russian Empire’s third-largest city (after St. Petersburg and Moscow). In terms of industry, Riga was a powerhouse: by 1900 it employed over half of all industrial workers in the entire Baltic region, and it ranked just behind the two Russian capitals in number of factory workers‍. In many ways, Riga circa 1914 was a true metropolis – outpacing contemporary Stockholm or Copenhagen in population and rivaling them in economic output. It had regained a prominence akin to its Swedish golden age, this time under the Romanovs.

However, Riga was still a provincial city in a giant empire, not a national capital steering its own destiny. Stockholm and Copenhagen in the 19th century were also growing rapidly thanks to industrialization, but crucially, they benefited from being political and cultural capitals of sovereign nations (Sweden and Denmark). Those cities enjoyed stable state investment and were never sidelined by a bigger “Petrograd” within their own country. Riga, by contrast, always had to compete with the priorities of far-off imperial centers. This difference in status foreshadowed how each city would weather the storms of the 20th century.

World War I and Independence: Riga Reels While Nordics Prosper

The outbreak of World War I in 1914 proved devastating for Riga. The Eastern Front swept through the Baltic region, and by 1915 the frontline stabilized along the Daugava River – right at Riga’s doorstep. Over two years, the city endured bombardment and military occupation. In 1917, German forces captured Riga, forcing Russian troops and many residents to flee. Even before the Germans arrived, the retreating Russian authorities had evacuated hundreds of factories and their workers deep into Russia (some 400 factories were dismantled and shipped east, never to return). Hundreds of thousands of civilians were also relocated inland for safety. Riga, which had been a booming city of half a million, was suddenly depopulated and economically crippled by war’s end.

The contrast with Stockholm and Copenhagen during WWI could not be starker. Sweden remained neutral in the war, and Stockholm saw no fighting or occupation. Copenhagen, though affected by wartime trade disruptions, also escaped direct damage (Denmark was neutral as well). Thus, the Nordic capitals entered the 1920s relatively unscathed and even economically strengthened by wartime demand. Riga, however, emerged from WWI in ruins – its population drastically reduced and its industrial base stripped away. The city had lost its momentum just as Stockholm and Copenhagen were poised to accelerate into the 20th century.

Latvia declared independence in 1918 amid the post-WWI collapse of empires, and Riga became the capital of a sovereign Latvia for the first time. This offered a fresh start, but also new challenges. The Russian market was now cut off by borders, ending Riga’s traditional role as an east-west transit port. Instead, Latvia oriented its trade toward Western Europe – Britain and Germany replaced Russia as major partners. Riga’s economy shifted to exporting Latvian timber, paper, and agricultural goods, while developing some light manufacturing (famed products included VEF factory’s mini-cameras and radios in the 1930s). Without its former heavy industries, the city grew more slowly. By the mid-1930s Riga’s population was about 385,000 – well below its pre-WWI peak. Still, independence brought a sense of optimism. New universities, museums, and cultural institutions sprang up in Riga during the 1920s‍. The city gained a reputation as a vibrant, cosmopolitan capital – even earning the nickname “Paris of the North” from visitors in the 1930s for its grand architecture and lively atmosphere.

Other Baltic capitals followed their own interwar paths. Tallinn became capital of independent Estonia (population ~150,000 by 1930s), thriving modestly but smaller than Riga. Vilnius, however, did not enjoy independence at first – it was seized by Poland in 1920 and remained under Polish control until WWII. Lithuania made its temporary capital at Kaunas. Vilnius thus languished as a provincial Polish city for two decades, missing out on the nation-building investments Riga and Tallinn received. By 1939, Riga was still the undisputed primate city of the Baltics, larger and more developed than either Tallinn or Vilnius.

Importantly, Stockholm and Copenhagen in the interwar era continued on an upward trajectory that Riga could not match. Stockholm’s population surged past 500,000 by the 1930s as it industrialized and modernized (Sweden enjoyed a boom supplying steel and machinery). Copenhagen similarly grew and implemented ambitious urban improvements. Both cities also benefited from political stability and democratic government in the interwar years, whereas Latvia (and Estonia) saw authoritarian turns in the 1930s that hampered some development. By the end of the 1930s, the Nordic capitals were pulling ahead in infrastructure and wealth while Riga was striving to regain its footing in a much smaller national economy.

World War II: Destruction and Demographic Upheaval

If World War I was ruinous for Riga, World War II was catastrophic. Latvia was caught between two totalitarian powers. In 1940, Stalin’s Soviet Union occupied and annexed Latvia per the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. Almost immediately, the Soviet regime carried out mass deportations: thousands of Rigans – officials, intellectuals, and ordinary citizens – were arrested and shipped off to Siberian gulags in 1940–41. Just one year later, in June 1941, Nazi Germany invaded the USSR and seized Riga. Under Nazi occupation, Riga became the administrative center of the German “Ostland” province (covering the Baltics and Belarus). The city’s large Jewish community (over 25,000 people) was confined to the Riga Ghetto and systematically exterminated in late 1941 – the Rumbula massacre saw approximately 24,000 Latvian Jews shot just outside Riga. Between the Soviet terror and the Holocaust, Riga lost a huge portion of its pre-war population in a matter of a few years.

The physical destruction was immense. Heavy fighting and bombing in 1944 (when Soviet forces re-took the city from the Germans) reduced parts of Riga to rubble. Iconic buildings like St. Peter’s Church were shelled and burned to skeletons. By war’s end, Riga was a shattered city, its population perhaps half of what it had been in 1939. Many who had survived the war did not return – tens of thousands of Latvian refugees fled westward to escape the Soviet re-occupation in 1944.

In stark contrast, Stockholm during WWII was an oasis of calm. Sweden remained neutral (again), and Stockholm saw no combat and in fact hosted war-time conferences and exiles. Copenhagen was occupied by the Germans (1940–45) but was spared wholesale destruction until a few sabotage-related RAF bombings near war’s end. The core of Copenhagen emerged intact, and Denmark suffered far fewer civilian losses compared to the horrors unleashed in the Baltics. Thus, by 1945 the Nordic capitals were largely intact physically and demographically, whereas Riga had to literally rebuild from ashes.

With the war over, Latvia was forcibly reabsorbed into the Soviet Union, ushering in nearly five decades of Soviet rule. The Soviet period would once again change Riga’s fate – in some ways fueling urban growth, but in others diminishing Riga’s status relative to its neighbors.

Soviet Riga: Industrial Boom and Russification

Under Soviet rule (1944–1991), Riga was rebuilt and transformed into a model Soviet city – a process that was double-edged. On one hand, the USSR poured resources into industrializing the Baltics as important western provinces of the Union. In the postwar decades, heavy investment in large industrial projects in Latvia and Estonia led to considerable increases in production. Riga became one of the USSR’s major industrial centers, famed for its factories that produced electronics, vehicles, and other goods for the entire Soviet Union. For example, the Riga Electrical Machine Building Works and VEF (State Electrotechnical Factory) churned out telephones, radios and the Minox “spy” cameras for the Soviet market. The Riga Autobus Factory (RAF) manufactured minibuses (some were even used in the 1980 Moscow Olympics). In short, Riga under Soviet planning was developed as a key manufacturing hub – a far cry from the largely consumer-goods economy of interwar Latvia.

At the same time, Soviet policy dramatically altered Riga’s demographics and urban landscape. To man the new factories, large numbers of workers from across the USSR – predominantly Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians – were re-settled to Riga (and Tallinn) in the 1950s–1980s. This mass immigration led to Russification of the city. By the late Soviet era, ethnic Latvians accounted for barely half the population of Riga, with Russians and other Slavs making up the rest. (In contrast, Lithuania was somewhat less affected: Vilnius did receive many Polish and Russian immigrants, but Lithuanians still formed about 80% of the republic’s population by the 1980s.) Soviet urban planners also built huge new residential districts of prefabricated concrete apartments (microrayons) around Riga to house the growing workforce. The city expanded in area and got a very different skyline – punctuated by the Stalin-era Academy of Sciences high-rise (the so-called “Stalin’s birthday cake”) and blocks of Brutalist architecture, which starkly contrasted with the Art Nouveau gems of Old Riga.

By the 1980s, Riga was the largest city in the Baltic republics (as it had been historically), with its population approaching 1 million people. In fact, Soviet central planners at one point approved plans to build a metro system in Riga once the population hit a million – a perk usually reserved for major Soviet cities. (That project was ultimately scrapped after public protests in the late 1980s, as Latvians feared a metro would bring even more Russian settlers.) Even without a subway, Riga’s infrastructure was substantially developed by the Soviets – the city had electric trams, extensive rail connections, and a busy port. Notably, Baltic ports like Riga and Tallinn were considered the USSR’s “gateways” to Europe, handling much of the Soviet Union’s seaborne trade with the West. While Leningrad (formerly St. Petersburg) was itself a major port, the Baltic SSR ports were key outlets for Soviet exports, from which goods (and occasional Baltic tourists) could venture beyond the Iron Curtain.

Yet for all these material improvements, Riga under Soviet occupation lacked the autonomy or global connectivity to become a true international metropolis. The city’s development was oriented toward Soviet needs, not indigenous innovation. Culturally, many ethnic Latvians felt sidelined in their own capital by the influx of Russian speakers and Moscow-appointed officials‍. The urban priorities were dictated by central planners – heavy industry and military infrastructure often took precedence over preserving local heritage. (Many historic buildings were neglected or demolished; for instance, an ornate Riga synagogue destroyed in WWII was replaced by a generic Soviet concert hall.) In effect, Riga’s growth in the Soviet era was quantitatively impressive but qualitatively constrained. The city grew bigger, but not necessarily in a way that made it a leading Baltic metropolis on par with Western capitals.

Meanwhile, consider Stockholm and Copenhagen in the postwar decades. Both enjoyed unprecedented prosperity during the “Long Boom” of the 1950s–1970s. Stockholm became a hub for international business, design, and technology (home to companies like Ericsson, Volvo, etc.). It invested in modern infrastructure (highways, a world-class subway, airports) and avoided war damage entirely. Copenhagen similarly modernized, hosting global institutions and maintaining Denmark’s status as a wealthy, democratic nation. The Nordic capitals effectively leapt into the First World, whereas Riga and its Baltic sisters were locked behind the Iron Curtain – industrialized, yes, but economically and politically stunted relative to their Nordic counterparts.

Within the Baltics, some cities did gain small advantages. Tallinn (Estonia) was the closest Soviet capital to Finland, which made it a subtle window to the West – Finnish television broadcasts could be watched illegally, and Tallinn’s economy benefited from limited tourism with Finns in the 1980s. Vilnius (Lithuania), which had been less industrialized initially, saw more Soviet investment in the 1960s and 70s as Lithuania urbanized. By the 1980s, Vilnius had electronics and instrumentation factories of its own. But none of the Baltic cities were allowed to overshadow the major cities of the USSR. Moscow and Leningrad remained the undisputed centers, and even secondary Soviet cities like Kiev or Minsk had higher profiles within the Union than Riga or Vilnius did. In short, Soviet rule made Riga a large regional city but not a globally connected capital.

As the 1980s waned, however, change was in the air. The Baltic peoples were stirring for freedom, and Riga once again would find itself at the forefront of historic shifts.

Post-1991: New Independence, New Challenges

The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 restored independence to Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania – and Riga, Tallinn, and Vilnius became capital cities of sovereign nations once more. Hopes were high for a Baltic renaissance: these cities could rejoin Europe, revive their market economies, and shed the grim legacy of Soviet rule. In many respects, Riga was poised to lead the Baltics. It was the largest of the three capitals and had a diversified industrial base, a central location on the Baltic Sea, and a rich cultural heritage ready to be showcased to the world.

Reality, however, proved complicated. The 1990s were turbulent transition years. Riga’s heavy Soviet industries collapsed as they lost their captive USSR market overnight. Factories shut down or shrank drastically. Unemployment and economic hardship rocked the city, especially during the early 1990s privatization chaos. Moreover, demographic shifts accelerated: a significant portion of Riga’s Soviet-era Russian population opted to emigrate to Russia or the West, or were disenfranchised by Latvia’s citizenship laws (which required Soviet-era migrants to naturalize). Birth rates among all groups plummeted in the 1990s economic uncertainty. The result was a steep population decline. From roughly 910,000 residents in 1989, Riga’s population fell to about 700,000 by 2000 – and it kept falling in the 21st century due to emigration and aging, reaching around 615,000 by 2025. This marked one of the largest urban population losses in Europe in recent times. By contrast, Vilnius – which had about 575,000 people in 1989 – only dipped slightly and then stabilized around 540,000–600,000 in the 2000s. Tallinn saw a decline from ~480,000 to about 430,000 today. So while all Baltic capitals shrank after 1991, Riga’s decline was the most dramatic in absolute terms, eroding its long-held size advantage.

Economically, the Baltic capitals reinvented themselves at different paces. Tallinn, buoyed by Estonia’s rapid market reforms and tech-focused growth, emerged as a dynamic tech hub (Skype was famously founded by Estonians). Proximity to Helsinki helped Tallinn attract Nordic investment and tourists. Vilnius, once it overcame the early 1990s slump, benefited from being the capital of the largest Baltic state (Lithuania, with 2.8 million people). It concentrated government and service jobs and gradually modernized its infrastructure; by the 2010s Vilnius was growing again, fueled by internal migration of Lithuanians from smaller towns. Indeed, by 2019–2022, Vilnius surpassed Riga to become the most populous city in the Baltics – a symbolic changing of the guard caused in part by Riga’s sharper population drop.

Riga faced additional headwinds. Latvia’s economy experienced a notorious boom-and-bust in the 2000s: the mid-2000s “Baltic Tiger” growth (Latvia clocked 11.9% GDP growth in 2006) was followed by one of Europe’s worst crashes in 2008–2009. Thousands of young Latvians left the country during the Great Recession to seek work in Western Europe, which further thinned Riga’s ranks. Although the economy eventually recovered and Latvia joined the EU and NATO alongside its neighbors (all three Baltic states entered the EU in 2004), the damage to demographics and long-term development was done. Stockholm and Copenhagen, in comparison, sailed through the 1990s and 2000s as mature economies and even benefited from Baltic talent inflows – many emigrants from Riga ended up in places like Stockholm or London. The Nordic capitals also continued to grow via immigration and high birth rates; Stockholm today has over 1 million residents (2+ million metro) in a nation of 10 million, while Copenhagen has about 800,000 (metro ~2 million) in Denmark. In contrast, all of Latvia has only 1.9 million people left in 2025, with Riga’s ~600k comprising a third of the nation. This stark difference in national scale inevitably affects city prospects.

Nonetheless, Riga in the 21st century is far from a stagnant backwater. The city has leveraged its rich history and EU membership to carve out a new identity. The beautifully restored Old Town of Riga (Vecrīga) is now a UNESCO World Heritage site, drawing tourists with its medieval spires and Art Nouveau architecture. Riga became a popular Baltic cruise destination and even hosted high-profile events like the NATO Summit in 2006 and European Capital of Culture in 2014. The service sector – finance, IT, logistics – grew as manufacturing declined. By the mid-2000s, Riga experienced a mini-renaissance, with trade volumes and incomes rising fast. As a 2007 Time magazine piece noted, “Riga is now experiencing a renaissance… it may not have re-established the prominence it enjoyed 400 years ago, but... it’s getting there.” During that period, Western retailers and banks flooded into Riga, and gleaming new malls and office towers went up. The city’s historic role as a trade gateway was also revived – about 80% of Latvia’s exports were heading to Western markets by the late 2000s, and its ice-free port handled growing cargo volumes. Regular ferry service between Stockholm and Riga resumed, rekindling cultural ties with Sweden. In many ways, Riga was rejoining the Baltic regional economy from which it had been severed by the Iron Curtain.

Still, challenges remain that have prevented Riga from catching up to Stockholm or Copenhagen. The historical geography and politics of the 20th century left Riga as the capital of a relatively small, resource-poor nation, whereas Stockholm and Copenhagen helm much larger and wealthier countries. The latter two have centuries of uninterrupted institutional development; Riga had to essentially reboot its state in 1991 after decades of foreign rule. Shifting imperial borders often worked against Riga’s long-term growth: when the Russian Empire diverted focus to St. Petersburg, when two World Wars depopulated the city, when the Soviets imposed their economic model, Riga’s natural growth trajectory was curtailed again and again. In contrast, Nordic capitals haven’t experienced such abrupt upheavals since the Napoleonic era. Additionally, demographic decline is a millstone around Riga’s neck – a shrinking labor force and population make it hard to sustain the kind of innovation and consumer base that world-class cities enjoy.

What about Tallinn and Vilnius vis-à-vis Riga today? All three Baltic capitals are thriving in certain niches: Tallinn is famed for e-governance and startups, Vilnius for its baroque charm and growing services sector, and Riga for its nightlife, culture, and transport hub (it hosts the busiest airport in the Baltics). None of them, individually, rival the major Nordic cities or, say, Warsaw or Berlin. In fact, the Baltics collectively have a smaller population than metropolitan Stockholm. Rather than one Baltic metropolis dominating, the region functions with multiple mid-sized centers. It could be argued that under Soviet rule, none of the Baltic cities was especially prioritized over the others – Moscow’s priority was integrating all three into the Soviet system. In the 1990s, Tallinn sprinted ahead in reforms, Vilnius leveraged its size, and Riga had early momentum then stumbled during the crash. Today, Riga remains the most cosmopolitan Baltic city, but not by the margins it once had. Vilnius and Tallinn have largely caught up in quality of life and per-capita income. The three capitals now often collaborate (for example, the upcoming Rail Baltica project will link Tallinn–Riga–Vilnius with high-speed rail, knitting them closer together). Instead of competing to be “the next Stockholm,” the Baltic capitals might collectively form a dynamic region balancing between Scandinavia, Europe, and the post-Soviet east.

Riga’s Legacy and Hopes for a Reawakening

Riga’s journey – from Hanseatic League to Swedish Empire, from Tsarist province to Soviet socialist city, and finally to modern EU capital – illuminates why it did not become another Stockholm or Copenhagen. History dealt Riga a different hand. Geopolitical ruptures repeatedly interrupted its urban ascent. Unlike the Nordic capitals, Riga never enjoyed two centuries of continuous peace and statehood to develop its full potential. The city often grew fastest under foreign empires (Swedish and Russian) but then was sidelined when those empires’ priorities shifted or when war struck. Its Baltic neighbors Tallinn and Vilnius shared many of these disruptions, and similarly fell short of dominating the region.

And yet, Riga endures – a resilient city that has always bounced back. Today’s Riga may be smaller than its 1914 or 1989 peak, but it remains the vibrant heart of Latvia and a key city of the Baltic Sea. Its richly layered history is evident in the skyline: German churches, Swedish bastions, Russian boulevards, Soviet blocks, and modern glass towers coexist, telling the tale of a crossroads city. If the 20th century closed the door on Riga’s primacy, the 21st offers new opportunities. Latvia’s EU membership and NATO ties anchor Riga firmly in the Western fold, opening avenues that were absent for much of the last century. There are signs of a tentative “reawakening.”

One promising area is tourism and culture – Riga has leveraged its unique architectural heritage and affordable lifestyle to become a popular destination, often dubbed the “Paris of the North” once again in travel brochures. Another is logistics and transit – Riga’s port and airport are among the busiest in the Baltics, hinting that the city’s old role as a hub between East and West can be reinvented for modern times. The digital economy is also taking root, with tech parks and startups appearing (Latvia was an early adopter of fintech innovations). Meanwhile, demographic decline, while worrying, has slowed; the city has begun initiatives to attract foreign students and remote workers to inject new energy.

Crucially, Riga no longer has to compete in isolation. The city is part of the greater Baltic region which, as a whole, is punching above its weight. The Time magazine article in 2007 optimistically called the Baltic Rim “a string of economic miracles” from Copenhagen to Tallinn. While the 2008 crisis tempered some optimism, the fundamental idea holds: by collaborating with its neighbors (including Stockholm and Helsinki, which are now more partners than distant capitals), Riga can ride regional growth. The new Rail Baltica will put Riga at the midpoint of a fast corridor from Helsinki to Warsaw, potentially boosting commerce and travel.

Will Riga ever be a “dominant Baltic metropolis” on par with Stockholm or Copenhagen? In raw numbers, likely not – the gulf in population and economic scale is hard to overcome. But Riga doesn’t need to be the biggest to thrive. It has firmly established itself among northern Europe’s important secondary cities, with a distinctive character shaped by its dramatic history. In a way, Riga’s comparative “falling behind” spared it some pitfalls of larger metropolises (such as severe congestion or exorbitant costs), while its human scale and rich heritage are increasingly valuable assets in the age of mass tourism and remote work.

As Riga moves forward, it carries the lessons of its past: that geography can be both a blessing and a curse; that fortune can change with the sweep of an army or a border; and that a city’s identity is more than its size. Riga may never reclaim the title of largest city in the Baltic, but its story – from imperial largest to resilient survivor – ensures it will always command a special place in the Baltic Sea’s tapestry of cities. And as Rigans like to remind visitors with a wink, their city was once the biggest in the Swedish Empire… a fact that speaks to an enduring legacy of greatness, even if history had other plans.