2020 Census

sc4mayor · PostSep 26, 2019#5762019-09-26T14:40+00:00

Some interesting reporting in the Post-Dispatch this morning. Not sure if the Census thread is the correct thread, but I figured it would fit here.

St. Louis still getting smaller, but richer, too
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/met ... -top-story

Some highlights:

While the city of St. Louis continues to lose population, the people who are here are making more money. The share of city residents making $100,000 or more increased to 18% from 12% five years ago, according to the most recent census estimates released Thursday. At the same time, city residents making $25,000 or less now account for just 30% of the population, compared to 38% five years ago. Travis Sheridan, president of Venture Cafe Global Institute, said he thinks the salaries of medical professionals provide a strong foundation for income in St. Louis, "and then the growth might be associated with tech." Sheridan lives in Old North St. Louis and runs the institute out of offices in the Cortex district.

The Census Bureau's release covers income, poverty and health insurance coverage. The median household income in St. Louis was $43,889, up $2,448 (or 6%) from $41,441 the year before. The numbers are not adjusted for inflation. Nationwide, median income is up by $1,600 year over year, while the poverty rate and percentage of Americans not covered by health insurance remained flat. St. Louis is attracting young professionals in tech because of its affordability, said Ness Sandoval, an associate professor of sociology at St. Louis University.

Sandoval tracks migration trends in and out of the city and St. Louis area. He said both have seen a net gain in white residents, and a loss of black residents since the 2014 shooting of Michael Brown Jr. in Ferguson. "Where we show white residents coming to the city, it's people from the East and West coast wanting to make the city itself their home," Sandoval said. "I think it's because it's a younger population, so those cities are just not as affordable compared to St. Louis." He mentioned Boston, New York, Washington, San Francisco and Denver as examples of cities where the cost of living can be too high for young professionals.

Don Roe, executive director of Planning and Urban Design for St. Louis, said the city is getting younger, which could be the cause for its changing income levels.
Low-income residents are also finding new ways to make more money, with the growth of the gig economy. "I've been in neighborhood meetings where folks were talking about how they were supplementing their income with the gig economy, and those meetings were in a very poor census tract," Roe said. In addition, Sheridan said, local programs are helping low-income populations make more money. "Some of that might be skill development and growth, with training programs going into place," Sheridan said. As people gain skills, chances are better they'll find a higher-paying job. Roe believes St. Louis is the place for young professionals in the Midwest, and developers are ready to tap into the market.

RockChalkSTL · PostSep 26, 2019#5772019-09-26T15:25+00:00

I may not be the best person to ask, considering I've only been living in this city for a little under two months, but it feels like this city is about to really start turning things around.

Job growth is up, income is up, and - perhaps most importantly - I think morale is up.

I think population will fall for a few more years, but growth is soon to follow.

pattimagee · PostSep 26, 2019#5782019-09-26T16:00+00:00

Yeah - we need the predictions for the central corridor to come true. If the 10K new residents prediction in the next decade comes true, I think we're going to start to see the numbers finally bottom out and start to increase - just when that will be is going to be hard to pinpoint, and how dramatic the upturn will be also... it could be very slow depending on how many are still leaving the north neighborhoods.

I think south city seems to be filling out also. It feels like Lafayette through Dogtown is getting some serious infill/rehab and if the FPSE south to Shaw to TGS continues to spread down through the established neighborhoods further south, it really would be awesome to see South City fill in it's density in a big way.

goat314 · PostSep 26, 2019#5792019-09-26T16:03+00:00

If the Northside continues to hollow out at the rate it current is. I don't see St. Louis gaining population for a while.

wabash · PostSep 26, 2019#5802019-09-26T18:39+00:00

As many people live on the Southside as the Central Corridor and Northside combined. So it has to stabilize for citywide growth to stand a chance.

At the 2010 rate of decline on the Northside (15.04%) and Southside (9.18%) and growth in the Central Corridor (11.03%) the City as a whole won’t see its population increase until the 2090 census. If the 2010 Southside population remains flat that date drops to 2060. If the Southside population remains flat and the Northside is limited to a 10% per decade decrease then the population would grow by 2050. If the Southside remains flat and the Northside is limited to a 5% per decade decrease then the population would grow by 2020.

There are reasons to be hopefully for Southside stabilization. Between 2000 and 2010 the population of Tower Grove East declined 19%, Shaw decline 17% and Tower Grove South decline 10% and all three were among the seven biggest population losers in the City. It’s hard to imagine them repeating such rapid declines, especially as they’ve all added new construction apartment developments in the last decade.

The single biggest decliner citywide on a percentage basis last decade was Botanical Heights (43% decline) which could actually flip to be a gainer this decade. The third biggest percentage decliner citywide, McKinley Heights (29%) also seems unlikely to repeat such steep losses.

A big question for the Southside will be whether departures accelerate for the dense and/or higher population neighborhoods that haven’t seen the same levels of investment (Dutchtown, Gravois Park, Benton Park West, Fox Park, Bevo).

cardinalstl · PostSep 26, 2019#5812019-09-26T23:30+00:00

Central Corridor needs to keep momentum on jobs and pop growth. I think the Southside stabilization and possible growth is going to be really reliant on the Hispanic population there. Needs to grow quickly and start hitting like 20-30% thresholds in some of those neighborhoods.

wabash · PostSep 27, 2019#5822019-09-27T00:09+00:00

^Every little bit helps, but unfortunately even a 30% increase wouldn’t move the needle a whole lot. The Hispanic population in the city just isn’t that big.

Also, hard to see how there’d be a significant increase from any previous growth in the Hispanic population under the current administration.

newstl2020 · PostSep 27, 2019#5832019-09-27T03:10+00:00

Excellent breakdown of the math, Wabash. Math doesn't lie. And the assumptions are logical and reasonable for sure.

There is also a decent (~25% chance?) that the city experiences a far different situation. Money follows money and the money has dramatically reversed flows from the prior 60 years of the metro area over the last 7 years. One of the city's biggest disadvantages may turn into its largest advantage extremely quickly as we have seen substantially less investment than most every comparable city during the last 40 years. Add that in concert with the RAPID global migration toward population centers and we could wind up significantly off assumptions in a positive direction in a very short period of time.

Investment wise, I think there's going to be a significant amount of whiplash across the metro as to property values in the city over the next 10 years (in a positive direction, monetarily speaking). But, that just my opinion. Gotta be a good thing when the newest property buying generation is bullish on the city, no?

cteclipse · PostSep 27, 2019#5842019-09-27T13:31+00:00

At the end of the day one needs to differentiate the health of the city, central corridor, and development from total population and growth/loss rates. The development in the central corridor is on par with other fast growing cities I've been to and continuously visit. It's an important metric, but as the above posted the improving average wages of residents gives a trend as well. On a national level unfortunately they will not differentiate Central Corridor/South City population growth vs Northside losses.

pattimagee · PostSep 27, 2019#5852019-09-27T14:21+00:00

This is a good map for 2000 vs 2010 by ward

http://dynamic.stlouis-mo.gov/census/re ... Number.pdf

urban_dilettante · PostSep 27, 2019#5862019-09-27T17:28+00:00

cteclipse wrote:At the end of the day one needs to differentiate the health of the city, central corridor, and development from total population and growth/loss rates. The development in the central corridor is on par with other fast growing cities I've been to and continuously visit. It's an important metric, but as the above posted the improving average wages of residents gives a trend as well. On a national level unfortunately they will not differentiate Central Corridor/South City population growth vs Northside losses.

yes, but negative net population growth + growth in central corridor just means more vacant, crumbling infrastructure on the north and south sides that will breed more poverty, despair, and crime in those abandoned communities, which will then spread to the central corridor. we've been touting these isolated come-backs as evidence of revival for decades but in reality it's been decades of triage and abandonment musical chairs. maybe this time really is different–though I expect several previous waves of urbanists believed the same–but until the city sees substantial net population growth i'm afraid that dynamic is going to continue.

STLrainbow · PostSep 27, 2019#5872019-09-27T20:50+00:00

^ Curious what is your evidence that South City is being abandoned? I think vacancy is decreasing and households, albeit smaller in size than in the past, are increasing.... that varies by neighborhood of course and there are some places that are seeing poverty concentration but there is not significant abandonment.

urban_dilettante · PostSep 27, 2019#5882019-09-27T22:08+00:00

^what level of abandonment is "significant"? look at the link that pattimagee posted. the only way that abandonment is not increasing in all of those wards is if every vacated building has been down-zoned to fewer units. maybe that's the case but I doubt that conversions have kept pace with depopulation. and the increase in crime, on average, in Dutchtown, Carondelet, and Bevo speak to the struggles in these neighborhoods. sure, the loss is flat-ish to slow at the moment, but unless more investment enters these areas and they become better connected to the central corridor via transit i don't see this trend reversing soon without substantial population growth. again, i grew up in Dutchtown in the 80s and early 90s and the decline has been precipitous. the stretch of Grand between Gravois and Meramec, for example, is a broken (literally) shell of what it was then.

RockChalkSTL · PostSep 27, 2019#5892019-09-27T22:14+00:00

It sounds like Bevo has a pretty big market-rate apartment complex coming to Kingshighway. Let's hope that's a start for that neighborhood and part of the city.

urban_dilettante · PostSep 27, 2019#5902019-09-27T22:26+00:00

^ yeah, western edge of Bevo. just west of there you get into the healthier southwest neighborhoods: Southampton, Princeton Heights, St. Louis Hills.

STLrainbow · PostSep 27, 2019#5912019-09-27T23:00+00:00

^^ Abandonment mirrors hyper-vacancy... it's a situation where population and investment are collapsing. That map shows absolute population change between 2000-2010 and tells us little to nothing about changes in income, household size, vacancy, neighborhood "desirability," etc. during that period... as others have noted some of the wards with the highest population decline had the highest investments and wealth move in.

The map also tells us nothing about 2010-present. Almost all indications are that things have improved in South City in terms of vacancy/abandonment and population stabilization, with some parts of some neighborhoods being exceptions. (Census estimates, rising property values, building permit increases, declining LRA holdings, etc. all tell a story of strengthening.)

I'm not saying there isn't reason for concern and some areas need special attention (and the nervousness of another prolonged economic downturn setting things back is always out there lurking) but pessimism about South City abandonment isn't warranted imo.

PostSep 27, 2019#5922019-09-27T23:45+00:00

^ Following up on my comment above, I think the census tract that is in the area between S. Grand and Compton and Meramec down to Bates (Ted Drewes and Cleveland High are notable landmarks in the area... most is in Dutchtown but the southern part is in Carondolet) is perhaps the city's most interesting.... despite poverty concentration it has grown in population since 2010 (in part due to low-income displacement from gentrifying areas) and is the city's densest census tract, just under 15,000 ppl/sq. mi.

And while it does have economic challenges that could lead to sharp population decline in the future, imo more likely than abandonment is the redevelopment wave eventually sweeping down into the area.

framer · PostSep 28, 2019#5932019-09-28T02:10+00:00

The bottom line is jobs. St. Louis needs to attract NEW jobs and employers. Lots of them. Until then, there won't be any real growth; just shifting the population around between the current "hot" neighborhoods.

olvidarte · PostSep 28, 2019#5942019-09-28T03:27+00:00

imo more likely than abandonment is the redevelopment wave eventually sweeping down into the area.

So concentrated poverty = a wave of redevelopment? Not sure I follow. I'm pretty concerned about SE city, it seems to be in decline.

urban_dilettante · PostSep 28, 2019#5952019-09-28T04:54+00:00

STLrainbow wrote:...in part due to low-income displacement from gentrifying areas...

Dutchtown's current population and demographics were established well before the recent gentrification hysteria. It has very little to do with the G-word and lots to do with north city emptying out.

And while it does have economic challenges that could lead to sharp population decline in the future, imo more likely than abandonment is the redevelopment wave eventually sweeping down into the area.

Because developers love investing in low-income areas with zero population growth. Again, if the city's middle-class population starts growing significantly then yeah, southeast city will likely revive. Otherwise your "sweep" is going to be glacial, and it will leave some other part of the city vacant in its wake.

STLrainbow · PostSep 28, 2019#5962019-09-28T05:37+00:00

olvidarte wrote: ↑
Sep 28, 2019
imo more likely than abandonment is the redevelopment wave eventually sweeping down into the area.
So concentrated poverty = a wave of redevelopment? Not sure I follow. I'm pretty concerned about SE city, it seems to be in decline.

No... to re-state, much of the area has seen concentrated poverty and economic decline but little has been "abandoned." It could be in the future and there are reasons for concern, but there also are reasons to believe that redevelopment will eventually reach the area as it has for other neighborhoods.

PostSep 28, 2019#5972019-09-28T06:02+00:00

^^ If I understand you correctly, your theory is that the huge decline in the low-income population from the South City neighborhoods that have been gentrifying over the past twenty or so years has not contributed to the rise in low-income population during the same period in nearby areas like Dutchtown; however, the drop in low-income population further away in North City has? That doesn't seem to make much sense but if you have any evidence I'd love to see it.

STLinCHI · PostSep 28, 2019#5982019-09-28T18:08+00:00

STLrainbow wrote:^^ If I understand you correctly, your theory is that the huge decline in the low-income population from the South City neighborhoods that have been gentrifying over the past twenty or so years has not contributed to the rise in low-income population during the same period in nearby areas like Dutchtown; however, the drop in low-income population further away in North City has? That doesn't seem to make much sense but if you have any evidence I'd love to see it.

Dutchtown was changing long before the more recent gentrification of adjacent areas. Families were moving there to escape the more dangerous areas of North City well over 20 years ago. As North City continued to decline, the loss of habitable structures in the area created a second wave of north to south movement. The second wave included many more violet criminals and the drug trade exploded in the area (Dutchtown now 5th most murders). More recent gentrification has nothing to do with these movement trends. IMHO affordable rent options in areas such as Carondelet and The Patch have lead first wave folks from Dutchtown to again move, looking for safer but still affordable options. We'll not see the built environment destroyed on the Southside as happened on the Northside regardless of demographic trends. Attitudes on historic preservation have changed and deferred maintenance will not compound to the point where we see structure losses on a mass scale.

STLrainbow · PostSep 28, 2019#5992019-09-28T21:07+00:00

I agree with your "first wave" migration pattern, but that includes many South City neighborhoods. And during the 00s, when gentrification became a real thing in areas like Benton Park and around Tower Grove Park, it's pretty straight-foward that there was significant migration of lower-income and black populations away from the economically strengthening neighborhoods and into the economically weakening neighborhoods nearby in deeper South City... e.g. between 2000-2010 the black population declined by 1,100 in Tower Grove East and increased by 1,100 in Dutchtown. Surely what has been going on the past several decades with internal city migration is complex, but Dutchtown arrivals have been much more than just "waves" from North City... there's been a "wave" from nearer South City.

If there's not one already, perhaps a thread on gentrification/neighborhood migration, etc. would be good to discuss these types of specific issues more but getting back to the 2020 Census, as I believe Wabash said, what is going on in total population in our dense neighborhoods like Dutchtown will be a major factor in the citywide count.

Ebsy · PostSep 29, 2019#6002019-09-29T18:04+00:00

While obviously any murders are too many murders, Dutchtown's number look absolutely bad but relative to its population aren't quite so dire. A lot of the neighborhoods ahead of it are much less dense and more depopulated at this point.

2020 Census

Choose Display Mode