urbanSTL

It's already taking place, right? Two unaccredited school districts and I think a few more are provisionally accredited, failing micro munis, rising crime in some spots.

Pittsburgh has more towns in Alleghany County, 125 iirc. Though there it makes a little more sense since many are divided by hills making natural boundaries.

This doesn't include Pittsburgh but here is a comparison of the population densities of the
top fifteen metros in the midwest by distance from city hall. The data was taken from the 2010 census and it is great for an apples to apples comparison. Looking at the data St Louis appears to hold its own downtown and then it falls off considerably in the inner city
before rebounding in the inner ring suburbs. I'm not from St Louis but it seems to confirm my personal view of St Louis- pretty good downtown, hallowed out inner core, and strong inner ring suburbs.

http://allcolumbusdata.com/?p=1079

Do you think that once a good chunk of the projects we currently have to look forward to complete construction, along with so many homes being rehabbed, maybe outsiders won't see a run-down has-been anymore and therefore be willing to finally start moving here again?

What about immigration?

^ I think without question some of our core neighborhoods are seeing progress and drawing new residents and more wealth. The question remains though on whether this pace is greater than those leaving for a variety of reasons. Even nabes like TGS that continue to look better and better and draw new folks and rehabs nevertheless have lost population.

I do hope that the continued progress, and in particular the transformation of the 40/64 corridor which is a visual cue for visitors will pay off in improved perception of the city and its potential.

312,000 by 2020.. crime and education are the biggest problems in the city can they get resolved and can the city make a big turn around. Im hoping for a shocker in a good way

I think we go below 300,000. 299,850. There are still plenty of kids under 17 that will move out and take 2 people with them and one 22-35 year old will take their place

I think we'll hover somewhere around 300,000

Going under 300,000 would indeed be detrimental to the city's psyche. I don't think that will happen though. I think the estimates in the 306,000-312,000 range are pretty good ones.

As roger wyoming II pointed out and as many of us know, these drops in certain areas are a transition towards healthier neighborhoods. The city will never be up to 850,000 again and as romantic as that old, dense city sounds, in reality, it was a quite unhealthy density in many ways, with overcrowding in tenements, where multiple families shared an outside toilet for example.

This link http://stlcin.missouri.org/census/cen_city_comp.cfm shows the gain or loss of each neighborhood from 2000 to 2010. Areas such as Soulard, Lafayette Square and the CWE, all of which have been going through a process of gentrification for a few decades now all showed small gains.

Other relatively stable looking areas such as Shaw, Tower Grove East and South and Compton Heights all showed greater than expected declines. What accounts for these? Again, these areas have all been under a very gradual process of gentrification though many single rehabs over a number of years. In this link http://stlcin.missouri.org/census/city_d1.cfm we can see significant losses in the under 5 group as well as the 70+ group. I believe a lot of this loss can be attributed to those two groups rather than wholesale abandonment of these areas. Certainly all the areas mentioned above are in much better shape today than 10 or 20 years ago.

One last note of interest is this link http://stlcin.missouri.org/census/cen_city_comp.cfm Notice that the African-American population is dwindling at a faster rate than the white population, and when compared to the losses by neighborhood, we can gather that a significant portion of that loss is the continued emptying of north St. Louis. Also note the huge percentage gains among Asians and Hispanics. Although their total numbers are rather small in the grand scheme of things, this highlights the importance of attracting more immigrants into the city. Many other cities that showed huge gains in 2010 did so because they were able to attract immigrants in high numbers.

With all this in mind, I think it becomes increasingly obvious and important that the city and region must do a better job at attracting immigrants and if the city is to begin to increase in numbers in any significant way, the north side, much of which has been totally abandoned or left as a no-man's land, must be rebuilt. This is a unique opportunity to also break the historic dividing line along Delmar, bring more integration to the city and bring in significant numbers of people into the largely vacant north.

Something to consider from the 2010 census, what happened to the Bosnians? Is it possible that within that 10 year window the came into the city and bolted for south county before 2010?

I was going to predict as low as 297,000 but felt like that was a very steep drop but with all the good thats happening in the city i think 312,000 is a reasonable drop. I do feel the City will be the place to be.I'll say 50 years from now i can see a population in the city around 450,000-525,000 people will begin to move here again its a matter of when. I honestly feel St.Louis is in a near perfect location and has just as many great things to offer like many of the other cities here in the country.
Saving North City should be a priority too much historic character to let get away...
As far as the Bosnian population here i still feel theres a good sizable chunk that live in the city and prefer the city and im starting to see hispanics/mexican pop up all over St.Louis. I love diversity so it makes me happy to see people of different ethnics call St.Louis home

This is the most depressing thread I've ever seen on this site. I'm sure we will continue to see the north continue to empty. What's being done with the LRA owned buildings? Let's give them to immigrants for free. Let's develop Vietnamese schools, etc, to attract various ethnicities to emptying areas. I really don't care if this sounds divisive etc, I think we need to do something drastic here. How many Bosnians are still at soldan? I'm going to bet the numbers have dropped to extremely low levels. Look at the success of the Montessori school in botanical heights. Let's copy that in other areas of the city. How is soulard academy doing? The school at Christ church cathedral? City Academy is doing very well. What are other ways to get more people in the city? What is Slay doing?

damnit, lost my post! Ok, redo.

I do not see how the city can gain in population. Let alone WHERE the city can gain population besides downtown and Midtown. Aren't most homes in South City / TG are being converted from multi-family to single family? That is what I am seeing, and i consider this a good thing.

Also the city is only 62 sq miles with a density of around 5,200. This is 2.5x larger than the County. Factoring in North St. Louis which is basically considered a dead zone when it comes to new construction/people move in.. WHERE do we expect an influx of THOUSANDS of people to increase our population? Plus the continuous outflow of young families moving to the burbs. (Good friends just moved from CWE and Webster driven by school options)

Instead of an increase in population I would rather see the City average resident age decrease, average household income increase along with property values and a continued drop in crime rates. That along with an INCREASE in METRO population... I think it would be a win / win.

I agree a lot with Zink….

The major population gains are going to come from the Central Corridor and while it’s been booming recently, I don’t see it making up for the losses from the North side and pockets on the Southside.

Some of the reason for the loss in gentrifying Southside neighborhoods is because middle to high income 1 or 2 people households are replacing 4-5 people households that earn much less.

Quality of change is more important than quantity of change. If we can continue attracting college grads, young families, and if household income continues to move upward then I would be ok losing population short term. And if those metrics can continue their upward trend combined with more young families utilizing some of the educational choices, it will improve a once bleak education situation. Once this happens along with an increase in immigrants then we will start to see positive population changes but I think we are still 4-5 years away.

I believe we will see more families (children) in the near future driving the uptick in population. I'm 36 and I am experiencing a lot more people in my demographic willing to negotiate the public/charter/private hurdles in the city in lieu of bolting for the burbs. Although the challenge is to have this happen at a rate higher than other families with less options are moving out.

I also believe many in my generation are driven to raise their children in a more diverse urban environment than many of us grew up in.

^ Agreed, much of the loss in the south is because of these formerly multi family buildings being converted to single family as well as natural phenomenon such as smaller families and also a decrease in the elderly population.

The central corridor is the area, where the most people are to be added. A dense, exciting core stretching from downtown to the CWE has the potential to add thousands of people looking for that lifestyle and aided by public transportation. With solid infrastructure and institutions on which to build, this will continue to be the bright spot.

However, I disagree somewhat about the north side in the coming decades. There might not be much improvement at 2020, but the north side is where a lot of growth will have to occur if it is to occur. The south, although it has it's problems, is pretty strong and stable housing wise and will see no major increases in density, as the above trends continue. In short, the north side is key to population growth as well as continuing to break down racial and economic barriers.

I'm glad JCity mentioned Montessori as it's been noted that families are moving INTO the city for a school.

Seriously, we did not have that sort of thing happening 10 years ago. There was also a recent article about the tremendous growth of St. Margaret of Scotland School in the Shaw neighborhood.

I do think we are finally seeing the whole "you have to leave the city when you have kids" rule break down a bit. It'll just take a while before that is reflected in census numbers. In the meantime why don't we actively advertise to people who do not have kids and don't plan to?

I know that flies in the face of a lot of Midwest sensibility but to me one of the best things about STL is we buck that trend a little bit. We're a bit funkier and grittier than the rest of the Midwest. Why not appeal to folks who only plan on having "kids" they take to the dog park rather than Kindergarten?

By all means we should continue to focus on education and better schools but if we don't have to live and die by the school district we'll be in a better position.