Now that the "Where We Stand: The Strategic Assessment of the St. Louis Region" is out - what do people think? What stands out? Any surprises (especially for those reading this report for the first time - like me)? Any comparator cities stand out?
http://www.ewgateway.org/pdffiles/library/wws/wws06.pdf
For the most part it appears we are average. That is both disheartening and reassuring at the same time. The one page that stood out most (p59) was the report regarding crime. In this report they refer to "Metropolitan Statistical Areas" as opposed to borders or arbitrary bounderies. We rank far below average in the crime statistics when you take into account several counties as well. That was interesting.
For the most part it appears we are average. That is both disheartening and reassuring at the same time. The one page that stood out most (p59) was the report regarding crime. In this report they refer to "Metropolitan Statistical Areas" as opposed to borders or arbitrary bounderies. We rank far below average in the crime statistics when you take into account several counties as well. That was interesting.
How about the fact that...
If reductions in density, as pointed out by Jargowsky and Yang, are an indication of suburbanization and causal to economic segregation, then why has a net loss of 21% occurred in St. Louis from 2000-2005 (East-West Gateway 65)? If mass transit expansion decreases economic segregation by increasing job accessibility, then why does St. Louis have "limited transit capacity, ranking...20th among...35 regions" and have "91,500 households without a vehicle...transit system...not provide adequate frequency and coverage for those without cars" (East-West Gateway 70)?
The above is an excerpt from an essay which I am writing. East-West Gateway's Where We Stand is an integral part of the essay.
The report is depressing especially since the 21 percent reduction in density occured in 5 years. Les Sterman says out region changes very slow, however 21 percent reduction in density over 5 years is anything but slow! The Peirce report, among others, pointed out this trend in 1997, while the PD wrote about our issues as early as the 1950's. Yet nothing has been done to combat sprawl. Unless this is addressed, we could have another 21 percent reduction by 2010.
If reductions in density, as pointed out by Jargowsky and Yang, are an indication of suburbanization and causal to economic segregation, then why has a net loss of 21% occurred in St. Louis from 2000-2005 (East-West Gateway 65)? If mass transit expansion decreases economic segregation by increasing job accessibility, then why does St. Louis have "limited transit capacity, ranking...20th among...35 regions" and have "91,500 households without a vehicle...transit system...not provide adequate frequency and coverage for those without cars" (East-West Gateway 70)?
The above is an excerpt from an essay which I am writing. East-West Gateway's Where We Stand is an integral part of the essay.
The report is depressing especially since the 21 percent reduction in density occured in 5 years. Les Sterman says out region changes very slow, however 21 percent reduction in density over 5 years is anything but slow! The Peirce report, among others, pointed out this trend in 1997, while the PD wrote about our issues as early as the 1950's. Yet nothing has been done to combat sprawl. Unless this is addressed, we could have another 21 percent reduction by 2010.
- 11K
I read the 21% decrease in density differently that you.
First, the MSA increased from 12 to 16 counties. "The new boundaries result in a 35 percent increase in land area and a 4 percent population increase for the St. Louis MSA." (pg 10).
Doesn't this explain the drop in density? We know there's sprawl, but the population is basically constant (pg 11) and people have stopped moving out of the "core" which is St. Louis City in this report (only a decrease of 0.7%, pg 17).
First, the MSA increased from 12 to 16 counties. "The new boundaries result in a 35 percent increase in land area and a 4 percent population increase for the St. Louis MSA." (pg 10).
Doesn't this explain the drop in density? We know there's sprawl, but the population is basically constant (pg 11) and people have stopped moving out of the "core" which is St. Louis City in this report (only a decrease of 0.7%, pg 17).
Ihnen wrote:I read the 21% decrease in density differently that you.
First, the MSA increased from 12 to 16 counties. "The new boundaries result in a 35 percent increase in land area and a 4 percent population increase for the St. Louis MSA." (pg 10).
Doesn't this explain the drop in density? We know there's sprawl, but the population is basically constant (pg 11) and people have stopped moving out of the "core" which is St. Louis City in this report (only a decrease of 0.7%, pg 17).
People have stopped moving out of the City? Well not exactly (0.7 percent decline), yet what about the 2 percent "growth" in business located outside the urban area (65)? If jobs continue to move outside the City then people will follow!
Specifically, a county is included in a metro area if more than 25 percent of the people who live in that county and commute to work commute to a workplace that is outside their county and within the boundaries of an existing MSA (10).
Basically, if 25% of residents from Warren County or St. Charles drive to St. Louis County or another exiting MSA County, then these Counties are now in the MSA. So basically, due to sprawl, we now are including rural counties in the MSA. Moreover, since job growth outside the urban area is occurring, then maybe in 20 years if 25% of people commute from Columbia to Warren County, then well our MSA gets even bigger.
Density, job accessibility, and flight from the core is occurring. Adding a lot of low dense Counties to the MSA will reduce the density. While the City may be seeing stabilization, the higher dense inner ring is experincing loss to areas such as St. Charles which are building lower dense. Even if these rural Counties were not added, we would still be seeing regional reductions in density.
Let’s not forget about the 91,000 people in the region who do not have a car and cannot be adequately serviced by transit (70). If they do not have a car and cannot be serviced by transit, then they will have reduced job accessibility. This is related to spatial mismatch or the separation of the inner core working class from jobs which are located in the suburbs. Essentially the jobs are not where the workers reside. Since the inner core workers are not serviced by transit, and since jobs are in suburban areas, there is reduced job accessibility. The workers are unable to access jobs for which they are qualified since they are dependent on the auto, due to a lack of transit, yet do not own one. A solution to this problem is increased mass transit.
- 11K
People have stopped moving out of the City? Well not exactly (0.7 percent decline), yet what about the 2 percent "growth" in business located outside the urban area (65)? If jobs continue to move outside the City then people will follow!
Yes - you may have missed " ...recent estimates show an increase in (St. Louis City) population beginning in 2003." (pg 16.)
Yes, there's a 2 percent growth in employment located outside of St. Louis City. I think this is explained by the addition of four more counties. It certainly does not seem to shed any light on your comments regarding the -21% change in density for the MSA.
yet what about the 2 percent "growth" in business located outside the urban area
So, how do you promote job growth in the city? Anyone have any good ideas?
Traditionally this is done through tax incentives, however we should also emphasize our draws which cannot be replicated elsewhere.
Walkable environment, culture and arts, variety of housing, unique entertainment, green space, restaurants, etc. These are benefits which separate St. Louis from the suburbs and it is integral for us to remain urban and cosmopolitan. Once the SLPS is addressed, and as long as these positives are maximized, residents will move to the City and corporations will follow suit.
Any government can offer tax subsidy while few can offer what we have. We need to continue this progress.
As Peirce said, maximize our assets while minimizing our liabilities.
Walkable environment, culture and arts, variety of housing, unique entertainment, green space, restaurants, etc. These are benefits which separate St. Louis from the suburbs and it is integral for us to remain urban and cosmopolitan. Once the SLPS is addressed, and as long as these positives are maximized, residents will move to the City and corporations will follow suit.
Any government can offer tax subsidy while few can offer what we have. We need to continue this progress.
As Peirce said, maximize our assets while minimizing our liabilities.
Further proof that for every 2 suburban residents who are moving back to the city or inner-ring suburbs, there are 10 moving to O'Fallon or Wentsville. Disgusting!
- 11K
Further proof that for every 2 suburban residents who are moving back to the city or inner-ring suburbs, there are 10 moving to O'Fallon or Wentsville.
This just isn't true. The decrease in density is due to the addition of four mostly rural counties to the MSA. More than 2,250 sqare miles were added! The population (and density of course) of St. Louis City is increasing (since 2003). Also, the change in the percent of the metro population living outside St. Louis City was only 0.9% and this is after adding the 4 counties to the MSA.[/i]
^^You don't think that's true? How do you explain the explosive growth in St. Charles County (and the slight decrease in St. Louis County population)? Since the metro area population growth is fairly stagnant, where do you think these new residents are coming from? It's the same 2.8 million people shuffling around.
My friends attended their 10-year high school reunion last weekend (Parkway North) and they said more than half of the people there now live in St. Charles. These are people who formerly lived in Creve Coeur and Maryland Heights. I'm afraid this is the overall trend in the St. Louis area, and I find it depressing.
My friends attended their 10-year high school reunion last weekend (Parkway North) and they said more than half of the people there now live in St. Charles. These are people who formerly lived in Creve Coeur and Maryland Heights. I'm afraid this is the overall trend in the St. Louis area, and I find it depressing.
^ That does sound like a depressing fact. But then again, to some degree it is understandable. People looking for new cheap homes to own and St. Charles seems to have a never ending supply of that. For a great as many of the current inner ring and city neighborhoods are, there are many people who want a "new home" and that is something that the City of St. Louis and much of the County can't provide.
I'd like to add a caveat - St. Charles Co. can offer new homes more cheaply than the city can. New homes in the city are somewhat expensive and the market for buyers is different (I'd say more picky).
Also, maybe people who buy a city home are looking for a little longer term investment and value appreciation. I can't imagine the value of new homes some of my friends have purchased in St. Charles County appreciating very much over the next 15 years. These homes are more like new cars...the minute you move in, they start depreciation.
I expect many city historic homes to climb into $500K median range over the next 10 years.
Also, maybe people who buy a city home are looking for a little longer term investment and value appreciation. I can't imagine the value of new homes some of my friends have purchased in St. Charles County appreciating very much over the next 15 years. These homes are more like new cars...the minute you move in, they start depreciation.
I expect many city historic homes to climb into $500K median range over the next 10 years.
- 11K
Not to be rude, but this is an anecdote:
And this is the result of a published, statistical analysis:
My friends attended their 10-year high school reunion last weekend (Parkway North) and they said more than half of the people there now live in St. Charles. These are people who formerly lived in Creve Coeur and Maryland Heights. I'm afraid this is the overall trend in the St. Louis area, and I find it depressing.
And this is the result of a published, statistical analysis:
The population (and density of course) of St. Louis City is increasing (since 2003). Also, the change in the percent of the metro population living outside St. Louis City was only 0.9% and this is after adding the 4 counties to the MSA.[/i]
- 8,924
STLgasm wrote:^^You don't think that's true? How do you explain the explosive growth in St. Charles County (and the slight decrease in St. Louis County population)? Since the metro area population growth is fairly stagnant, where do you think these new residents are coming from? It's the same 2.8 million people shuffling around.
My friends attended their 10-year high school reunion last weekend (Parkway North) and they said more than half of the people there now live in St. Charles. These are people who formerly lived in Creve Coeur and Maryland Heights. I'm afraid this is the overall trend in the St. Louis area, and I find it depressing.
10 yr reunion? ok, so they grew up in Creve Coeur and lived their with their parents. Given their age (28 ), they are probably priced out of Creve Coeur.
In my day, I haven't met very many people who actually like St. Charles. I think most people move out there because it's one of the only options they can afford.
I would love to believe the increased density is true, Ihnen, but it seems like the conflicting trends (west to St. Charles vs. east to the City) cancel each other out.
- 11K
^ you seem to be talking about a ratio - St. Charles county can increase its density by 20% and the city by 5% - that doesn't mean that density is decreasing in the city. Overall, my argument is that density is changing very slowly - at least I'm arguing that this is what the report says.
bpe235 wrote:
10 yr reunion? ok, so they grew up in Creve Coeur and lived their with their parents. Given their age (28 ), they are probably priced out of Creve Coeur.
In my day, I haven't met very many people who actually like St. Charles. I think most people move out there because it's one of the only options they can afford.
Yes, but it's sad that these young people are choosing the exurbs. Oh well, different strokes I guess.
^ Some of it is that. Some of it is that the City doesn't provide what those buyers are looking for. Maybe they really want a brand new home. Those are harder to find in the city. Maybe they want a larger lot because they have kids. There are plenty of reasons someone might seek out St. Charles at the gae of 28. But it also brings up the importance of the City recognizing the value of the large swaths of vacant land that dot the northside of the City. If you can make those modern viable neighborhoods that can compete with St. Charles in terms of cost, then you might have something to offer those who don't see the City as an option. But again, we also have to remember, if you are 28 and buying a house and married, the STL City Schools are not an attractive option...
- 10K
STLgasm wrote:bpe235 wrote:
10 yr reunion? ok, so they grew up in Creve Coeur and lived their with their parents. Given their age (28 ), they are probably priced out of Creve Coeur.
In my day, I haven't met very many people who actually like St. Charles. I think most people move out there because it's one of the only options they can afford.
Yes, but it's sad that these young people are choosing the exurbs. Oh well, different strokes I guess.
At the same time, I'm kind of surprised at how many people I grew up with now live in the city. Markofucity and I, for instance, just randomly happened to both move to the city, and I can think of several other people I know from various parts of west county who have done the same thing.
BTW, what happened to Metropolis? Has their mission been accomplished?
As far as moving to the exurbs goes, keep in mind that some people are just born to be lame. If they were from Boston, San Francisco, Seattle, etc., they'd still live the same lifestyle. The problem we have is that a lot of younger people who crave an urban lifestyle move elsewhere, thinking that they can't get the kind of urban experience they want here in St. Louis.
- 5,433
Based on statistics and anecdotes, the one clear loser in all of this is St. Louis County. There's been nothing short of a mass exodus from north St. Louis County to St. Charles County in the last 10-15 years. There's also a less noticeable trend of people leaving west St. Louis County for St. Charles, along with people leaving south St. Louis County for Jefferson County.
The increase in density in the city proper is encouraging- even if it doesn't necessarily cancel out what's happening in St. Charles and Jefferson counties, among other places in the metro area.
I think St. Louis County faces some of the same challenges the city faced many years ago, as the majority of land within its boundaries has been developed, its housing stock is ageing and (perceived) as less desirable compared to newer housing in exurbia or historic homes in the city, and its infrastructure is ageing (and in some cases and by some standards, obsolete).
And the Balkanization of the county- i.e., many smaller municipalities with fixed boundaries and limited opportunities to grow revenue- has resulted in a disturbing trend of relying on TIF to redevelop "blighted" areas, which in most cases results in a zero-sum game of retail relocation. New retail in Hazelwood has undoubtedly hurt existing retail in St. Ann, West County leaders say Chesterfield Commons has negatively impacted Manchester Road retail, and Crestwood leaders desperate to redevelop ageing retail developments along Watson Road point to Gravois Bluffs in Fenton as part of the problem.
I suppose that continued gains in the city will cancel out at least some of the growth at the area's fringes. I'd like to see an agenda that addresses the issue head-on, including urban growth boundaries, but that'll never happen in Missourah where rural interests rule. IMHO, our best hope is an economic agenda that fuels significant population growth from which the entire region could benefit- but we haven't done very well in that department in the last 20 or even 30 years.
The increase in density in the city proper is encouraging- even if it doesn't necessarily cancel out what's happening in St. Charles and Jefferson counties, among other places in the metro area.
I think St. Louis County faces some of the same challenges the city faced many years ago, as the majority of land within its boundaries has been developed, its housing stock is ageing and (perceived) as less desirable compared to newer housing in exurbia or historic homes in the city, and its infrastructure is ageing (and in some cases and by some standards, obsolete).
And the Balkanization of the county- i.e., many smaller municipalities with fixed boundaries and limited opportunities to grow revenue- has resulted in a disturbing trend of relying on TIF to redevelop "blighted" areas, which in most cases results in a zero-sum game of retail relocation. New retail in Hazelwood has undoubtedly hurt existing retail in St. Ann, West County leaders say Chesterfield Commons has negatively impacted Manchester Road retail, and Crestwood leaders desperate to redevelop ageing retail developments along Watson Road point to Gravois Bluffs in Fenton as part of the problem.
I suppose that continued gains in the city will cancel out at least some of the growth at the area's fringes. I'd like to see an agenda that addresses the issue head-on, including urban growth boundaries, but that'll never happen in Missourah where rural interests rule. IMHO, our best hope is an economic agenda that fuels significant population growth from which the entire region could benefit- but we haven't done very well in that department in the last 20 or even 30 years.
I'd like to see an agenda that addresses the issue head-on, including urban growth boundaries, but that'll never happen in Missourah where rural interests rule.
I don't know if you are right about this. I mean on some level, once rural communites at the firnge of the metro area start to experince growth from people moving into the area and the retail that follows, I think such municpalities would never agree to give up such growth. But for those who live in clearly rural areas, outside of the metro area, outside of any such growth yet, I wonder if there isn't out-state support for actions that would allow the state to preserve the existing rural areas. That might be more attractive. Clearly the suburbs would never get onboard with such a plan, but an odd alliance of centeral cities and rural areas might address such an issue.
- 5,433
^ You may be right.
I know that leaders in places like Warrenton, Troy, and Pevely are loathe to shoo away growth, as the increase in businesses and people results in more revenue, making it much easier to provide essential services to those already living in their communities. OTOH, I bet some residents of those communities aren't necessarily happy about the growth, as it comes with a hard-to-define yet real "price"- loss of open space that attracted them to those areas in the first place, overworked infrastructure, crowded schools, etc.
As more and more land is consumed for suburban development, there could be a movement at some point in the future to establish limits. I just wonder how much more open land (and density) we'll lose before enough people at the area's fringes get fed up with this (at least IMHO) ominous trend.
I know that leaders in places like Warrenton, Troy, and Pevely are loathe to shoo away growth, as the increase in businesses and people results in more revenue, making it much easier to provide essential services to those already living in their communities. OTOH, I bet some residents of those communities aren't necessarily happy about the growth, as it comes with a hard-to-define yet real "price"- loss of open space that attracted them to those areas in the first place, overworked infrastructure, crowded schools, etc.
As more and more land is consumed for suburban development, there could be a movement at some point in the future to establish limits. I just wonder how much more open land (and density) we'll lose before enough people at the area's fringes get fed up with this (at least IMHO) ominous trend.
- 11K
I'd like to see an agenda that addresses the issue head-on, including urban growth boundaries, but that'll never happen in Missourah where rural interests rule.
Head On - apply directly to the suburbs.
Head On - apply directly to the suburbs.
Head On - apply directly to the suburbs.
Head On - apply directly to the suburbs.
Head On - apply directly to the suburbs.
Head On - apply directly to the suburbs.