The reason the landowning voter requirement fell is because it was ridiculously easy to get around:
In a nation that was practically giving land away (in some cases literally giving it away) it was a pointless requirement. It might have been true in some places but it was never true in all places.
The fact is that our founders debated having an aristocracy and in the end aristocracy lost. A landowner requirement was a small first step down the road toward aristocratic rule and eventually feudalism. Before long someone would realize that they own 5 properties yet only get the same vote as the man who only owns a tiny half acre and end up wanting his vote counted proportionally.
Personally I find the idea of landowner only voting to be the height of elitism and the belief that poor are unworthy of voting is repulsive in the extreme. I just find it to be a cop out and a lazy means of avoiding the heavy lifting of educating people so they make their own better choices.
Some of the most genuinely conservative people I know are renters. 1 is an 80 year old Korean war vet. His house burned down a few years ago and he saw no point in rebuilding so he took the insurance payout and rented an apartment to live out his days. My dad is conservative and I don't think he's ever wanted to own a home. It made a lot of sense last summer when he sat in the AC listening to the roofers on the roof his landlord paid several thousand dollars for. I'm poor as dirt and till next weekend when I sign the deed for my mother's house over to my cousin, I own 2 houses. BTW my cousin leans democrat.