urbanSTL

I don't think the threat of families leaving is as extreme now as it was just a few short years ago. Also, the kids of today will be seeing a much less blighted St. Louis than I did when I was a kid. They will have more desire to stick around than previous generations. Hopefully they will be the generation that truly saves St. Louis from continued population loss in the future.

roger wyoming II wrote:

PeterXCV wrote: I'm not sure that south city is as stable as some people seem to be saying it is. With a 14,000 person drop last decade I'd expect at l east another 5,000 this coming decade. The mixed blessing of south city is it's largely built out and intact, apart from a handful of neighborhoods, there aren't that many places for new construction or rehab and as two and even four families are converted into single family homes we can only expect them to shrink.

I think it is a little more complicated than that in South City. For example, there are tons of vacant units available for potential occupancy (13,000 in 2010 census; about 1,800 more than in 2000); further, a lot of single-family homes are owned by aging and often single empty-nesters. Basically the healthy demand in many areas is leading to the rehab of formerly vacant or underutilized properties, some conversion to residential from formerly commercial/industrial spaces, and young adults forming families replacing the aging. And of course there is an effort to grow our immigration numbers. These factors have the potential for significant growth in South City in the coming years.

I agree with points that both of you made. I am bullish on south St. Louis and I see great potential for increased density overall, and yes, even population growth. But I am not certain that we'll see real evidence of this by 2020, and I'm not sure that it's a bad thing if we don't. I think we could still have a slowly declining population, perhaps down to or just under 300,000 residents. But I think we're going to see an increase in quality over quantity in terms of housing stock. In other words, I see a future in which four-family flats become two-family flats, and more two-family flats become single-family dwellings. Of course, this shouldn't happen in every case, and we still need affordable housing. But there are still relative bargains, especially in some neighborhoods, and I think that would make conversion of these structures into more spacious dwellings more attractive for developers and potential homeowners.

I know that looks like a blow for population growth and density, but I think we're better off long-term because (1) that makes all neighborhoods more desirable and pushes growth into transitional neighborhoods and (2) it wasn't so pleasant for all of the 800K+ people who called the city home i the 1940s and 1950s anyway. If we can become a center of immigration again in the next decade as we did for the Bosnian population in the 1990s, then I think we can definitely see some positive numbers. The 1990s decline from 397K to 348K by 2000 would have been much worse without that influx of thousands of Bosnian refugees in our area.

I like your reasoning and the conclusions it reaches, but it's also painfully reminiscent of what everyone was saying before the 2010 census numbers came out. No one saw an 18,000 coming.

And with North St.Louis still hemorrhaging residents i doubt that the city will see any growth because of that but i could be wrong with the accelerating growth of the mid core of St.Louis and continued stabilization of S St.Louis i don't think there be the surprised 18,000 i say 3-5,000 8,000 but then lets not forget about the aggressive approach to bring immigration here through mosaic

I think St. Louis loses more population, maybe even dropping below 300,000 by 2020. I don't think the city grows until it changes its approach to neighborhood development/stabilization and expands transit services. The region also has to see more robust and better coordinate economic development before the city grows. I'm skeptical of whether the region breaks the 3,000,000 mark by 2020. I think the region has a lot of potential for moderate growth (500,000 per decade) but the lack of regional planning and economic development has stunted our regions growth for 100 years, I don't see that changing by 2020.

I'm also skeptical that Mosaic will attract enough immigrants to change the population trajectory of the region, much less the city. What can Mosaic really do to attract immigration here?

^ I agree that our regional dysfunction is keeping everyone down, but I think the City can still grow despite the challenges. I'm not sure if we'll be ahead in 2020 over 2010, but I would be surprised if we aren't starting to see real gains by the end of the decade. However, the Cleveland experience shows anything can happen.... (The Mistake on the Lake was significantly outperforming The Lou in the 90's and then the floor went out from under due to macroeconomic calamity. Right now it appears they are lagging a bit still but sharing our same trends... a lot of action in downtown and certain surrounding nabes but with some issues elsewhere.)

Beyond the critical question of how strong our regional job growth will be, a couple of key questions I have are:
-- how solid are the Census estimate? no way really to know unfortunately, but things like school population and housing permits seem to suggest they may not be too much of an overestimation
-- how long will existing housing conditions last? e.g. a lot of people are "locked-in" to their present residences... if home-ownership becomes more attainable in the coming years, will there be a significant exodus of families from the City following traditional patterns? Or will families have learned to love the city and stay longer/permanently despite an ability to move?
-- how many young people/upcoming grads are in the region's demographic pipeline potentially able to move into the City in the coming years?

The focus can't just be population numbers. A family of five living at the poverty level in a multifamily house in decline could be replaced by a single individual bringing in 6 figures and able to fix up the building and generate more tax revenue .
Looking only at the numbers, you would only bemoan the loss of 4 people.

Not that I support simply attracting wealth to the city. Diversity in race, economics etc should remain the goal, but just looking at population loss vs gain does not adequately reflect what is going on.

http://www.businessinsider.com/pittsbur ... oom-2014-3

St. Louis should be #1 here because technically Pittsburgh isn't part of the Midwest. That's like saying Cleveland is a coastal city. Just doesn't make sense.

Also, I think that the Central Corridor, South City, and the urban portions of mid-County will experience small growth by 2020. If there is overall loss, it will be from the North Side. Most of my friends from high school have since moved to South City or plan to before too long. If not, then many have ended up in U. City. The majority of my friends that moved away have long since returned.

What made me appreciate St. Louis more than anything, despite its problems, is that there are horrible places in the world such as Olympia, WA. I never knew there were places like that town in developed first world nations like ours. That place is hell on Earth. St. Louis is like Paris compared to that dump.

I think the City really blew it with the Bosnian community, they could have turned around the Bevo area even more. Most Bosnians I know are solidly in the middle class, large portion of the younger generation (22-30) has a college degree (a lot masters) and are living in south county now. There could have been a better effort to keep those peoples parents in the city 10 years ago

What can we do to make it on to one of these lists?

http://blog.estately.com/2013/08/14-bes ... ee-living/

Or is it because we are in the family friendly Midwest is STL not even considered?

If so, it's a shame. Sure we need to both broadcast the good things about city schools while working to make them better and work to attract families as well. But it bugs me that somewhere like Pittsburgh (not exactly Miami Beach or San Francisco) can make this list and we can't.

Is it time for the city to "go rogue" and present itself in a light that is different from what people expect of a Midwestern metropolis in order to gain some interest from outsiders? I say yes.

^So the thought is we'd rather attract childless transplants as opposed to families with children? Possibly because families with children moving to the region are less likely to settle within the city limits? ...Maybe I'm reading too much into the motivation. Transplants (childless or not)? Yes please.

The region needs transplants of all kinds. Families with children, childfree couples, singles, immigrants from all corners of the globe, and empty nesters. I think we will see more people with children or who plan on having children settle in the city.

I just think the region is already known as "family friendly"--and it certainly is. But we can maintain that reputation and become known as a great place to live even if you don't reproduce.

^ I like it. With all of our eclectic assets, there should be appeal for all comers. It would be neat to see a media campaign targeting different groups to move into the City.... I love that shot of Pittsburgh with the six pack strapped to the car seat! Besides young millennials you could do empty nesters bored out of their mind in suburbia, stressed out moms shuttling their tots all over suburbia, etc.

btw, I do wish more of our gay couples would get with the program and have children... Tower Grove neighborhoods could be extra fabulous!

I think most of our loss from this point forward will be from North City. South City's loss is at a trickle, and I'm sure that from 2020-2030, it will be growing like the Central Corridor is today. If we can get a N-S MetroLink or even a streetcar, it will create a secondary Central Corridor, which could grow tons as well. MetroLink really is the spine of the City.

roger wyoming II wrote:btw, I do wish more of our gay couples would get with the program and have children... Tower Grove neighborhoods could be extra fabulous!

it would be a lot easier for gay couples to do that if MO were to legalize marriage. i imagine there are a million legal complications for unmarried gay couples who want to raise kids together.

We'd be so much better off if we were our own district like D.C., without Missouri holding us back. The b**** of that, though, would be that we'd have less money for a lot of things, although it isn't like Missouri helps with MetroLink or anything like that anyway...

I'm sure we'd have marriage equality by now if that were the case.