I think because everyone was expecting minor gains in 2010 the 29,000 loss has everyone a bit more cautious.roger wyoming II wrote:Everyone seems to agree there will be some loss but not as much as last decade.... I'm somewhat surprised by no sunny optimists.
^ I think if the region grows at a healthier rate we'll see a corresponding increase in the city. Without it, we won't. There are plenty of areas for the city to grow beyond downtown and midtown. South City has lots of room for more people as there are a ton of vacant units still. North City of course has tremendous infill opportunities and a $300 million TIF ready and waiting in a large swath of it. If the region were growing, we'd see more people throughout the city.zink wrote: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.
except that those assets are eventually going to go away as people continue to move a few miles west, and then a few more miles west, and then a few more. another part of the challenge is getting people to understand that.blzhrpmd2 wrote:I've said it before, but some of the challenge presented is that people can move a very short distance to reap the educational benefits without sacrificing that much in terms of exposure to the assets of the city. Just because a family moves a few miles west to an inner ring suburb doesn't mean they sacrifice a diverse environment in which to raise their children.
Our sunny optimist!Presbyterian wrote:The data to watch will be school enrollment. About 68% of the loss between 2000 and 2010 was a loss of school-age children. We lost 19,740 children aged 5 to 17 that decade.
The numbers this decade are more encouraging. Combined enrollment in public and charter schools was 34,553 in 2010 and 34,428 in 2013-14... a loss of 125 students. That's less than half a percent and nothing like the hemorrhage we saw last decade.
Adult population aged 18 - 64 actually grew by 2.80% last decade.
It is too early to tell, but with thousands of new multi-family units and small pockets of single family construction, I would not be surprised to see a net population increase in 2020.
I think this is a good idea but that we need to market, market, market to everyone! We need to fire on all cylinders and have a good plan for 1) attracting young people 2) attracting immigrants 3) retaining families and 4) aging-in-place. If we make steady improvements in each of these areas our future is bright... if not we'll fall behind other regions.southsidepride wrote:
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?
St. Louis city continues to lose population but is doing so at a much slower rate than a decade ago.
Since 2010, the city has lost about 300 residents a year.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metr ... e4b72.htmlOf the seven largest counties surrounding St. Louis, all but St. Clair and Madison have seen increases this decade.
I think between the time of your posting and sean's same article 7 hours earlier we only lost 1 person... last decade it would have been 3!Mark Groth wrote:St. Louis city continues to lose population but is doing so at a much slower rate than a decade ago.
Since 2010, the city has lost about 300 residents a year.http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metr ... e4b72.htmlOf the seven largest counties surrounding St. Louis, all but St. Clair and Madison have seen increases this decade.
.. I'm still thinking 312 but if we keep up with the pace of 300 then possibly 316,000 maybe a nibble of a increase and that's maybe. I don't think you could get anyone to move into College Hill that area's a war zone.. Now Old North very likely and i hope the city isn't clearly putting all hopes on North Side Regeneration... Metro East really needs to do something .. I was just thinking is there any type of major company HQ located on that side of the region ? Also thanks for the population statistics amazing north city is already below 100,00..
