urbanSTL

Saint Louis 5th least competitive metro for job growth in 2014- 2015

https://www.morningstar.com/news/pr-new ... ehind.html

based on expected jobs growth

I'm really surprised that Chicago is losing population. I guess the political/economic situation in Illinois is pretty scary. They've dug themselves a huge hole, and it's gonna take years to dig themselves out.

framer wrote:I'm really surprised that Chicago is losing population. I guess the political/economic situation in Illinois is pretty scary. They've dug themselves a huge hole, and it's gonna take years to dig themselves out.

Agreed. I find it really fascinating. On the one hand, they're state government is even more dysfunctional than Missouri's ( ), financially bankrupt and politically paralyzed, and their City is dealing with crime, infrastructure, and pension crises that are as bad or worse than St. Louis.

On the other hand, it's the paragon of midwestern urbanism, development, architecture, density, walkability, fixed-rail infrastructure and so many of the things that we wish and hope would contribute to the stability and growth of St. Louis.

roger wyoming II wrote:Also, fwiw, STL dropped from #19 largest Metro to #20 as Denver picked us off. Bastards. And Pittsburgh fell from 22nd to 26th. We'll probably wind up around 22 at the end of the decade.

Having lived in the area for a while now, I just don't get the Denver hype. I know their job market is hot and that's driving growth, and if you're into mountains the appeal is pretty obvious. But the city itself is just not impressive IMO. Most of the architecture is pretty bland. Even their best "historic" neighborhoods—like Capitol Hill and Cheeseman Park—don't hold a candle to St. Louis' best. And from what I've seen there isn't much in the way of walkable commercial districts outside a stretch of broadway, parts of Colfax, and the downtown pedestrian mall. Anyway, I'm not trying to trash Denver. It's nice enough. I just don't understand why some cities are put on pedestals. I really think it's mostly arbitrary and media-driven.

Thought I would post here instead of a new thread. It will be interesting to see how this works out as at some point you have to constructive productive use of empty lots and the more things the city can try the more recognition it will get a national level. Not sure about tree farms, but an innovative urban farm program with corporate backing would step it up level and continue to cement St. Louis region as plant science hub.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metr ... 8087e.html

dredger wrote:Thought I would post here instead of a new thread. It will be interesting to see how this works out as at some point you have to constructive productive use of empty lots and the more things the city can try the more recognition it will get a national level. Not sure about tree farms, but an innovative urban farm program with corporate backing would step it up level and continue to cement St. Louis region as plant science hub.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metr ... 8087e.html

Yes. Good stuff. Here is a link to a video showing what they did in Flint, Mi.
https://videopress.com/v/KzlULQBX
http://www.battlecreekenquirer.com/stor ... /77413128/

urban_dilettante wrote:

roger wyoming II wrote:Also, fwiw, STL dropped from #19 largest Metro to #20 as Denver picked us off. Bastards. And Pittsburgh fell from 22nd to 26th. We'll probably wind up around 22 at the end of the decade.

Having lived in the area for a while now, I just don't get the Denver hype. I know their job market is hot and that's driving growth, and if you're into mountains the appeal is pretty obvious. But the city itself is just not impressive IMO. Most of the architecture is pretty bland. Even their best "historic" neighborhoods—like Capitol Hill and Cheeseman Park—don't hold a candle to St. Louis' best. And from what I've seen there isn't much in the way of walkable commercial districts outside a stretch of broadway, parts of Colfax, and the downtown pedestrian mall. Anyway, I'm not trying to trash Denver. It's nice enough. I just don't understand why some cities are put on pedestals. I really think it's mostly arbitrary and media-driven.

Like most western cities, it's a newer, "cleaner" city with a relatively low population of poor urban black people, which makes it more attractive for a very high number of upwardly-mobile whites as they pick where to move and live and work. I wish stuff like that didn't matter to most people (it doesn't to me), but it inescapably does. As you said, it's job market is hot and that's driving growth.

Keep in mind we're talking about sizes of entire metropolitan areas. Most people like the idea of walkable places and think architecture can be cool, but when we're talking about where people choose to live in terms of metro areas, that usually doesn't factor in. It's usually more 1) where can I get a good, high-paying job, 2) are there places to live where my family (if I have one) and I can feel safe, and 3) if I have kids, will I be able to send them to good public schools. Anything else is a distant 4th, 5th, 6th...

Found this to be an interesting read.
It touches on the connection between the 'hot cities' and their reliance on the flow of federal and state money to keep them thriving.
Ironically, this was written by an STL native.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazi ... p?page=all

Mound City wrote: Like most western cities, it's a newer, "cleaner" city with a relatively low population of poor urban black people, which makes it more attractive for a very high number of upwardly-mobile whites as they pick where to move and live and work. I wish stuff like that didn't matter to most people (it doesn't to me), but it inescapably does. As you said, it's job market is hot and that's driving growth.

Keep in mind we're talking about sizes of entire metropolitan areas. Most people like the idea of walkable places and think architecture can be cool, but when we're talking about where people choose to live in terms of metro areas, that usually doesn't factor in. It's usually more 1) where can I get a good, high-paying job, 2) are there places to live where my family (if I have one) and I can feel safe, and 3) if I have kids, will I be able to send them to good public schools. Anything else is a distant 4th, 5th, 6th...

hmmm... well, size-wise Denver and St. Louis metros are pretty neck-and-neck though Denver just passed us and is growing faster. in terms of millennials i actually don't think many of them choose a place to live based on when/if they're going to start a family. as you said, i think it's primarily about where they can get a good-paying job. but in terms of where they're willing to take a good-paying job i really do think the "hype" plays a big role. take a millennial right out of college, who hasn't even yet begun to think about having a family, and offer them a job in St. Louis and a job in Denver. 99 out of 100 will take the job in Denver, and i think to some extent that's because every media outlet says Denver = awesome and St. Louis = lame.

Personally Denver is a beautiful city it has a lot to offer and i can understand why people are moving there...
There are many things attracting people to Denver it has a refreshing energy about itself that St.Louis doesn't offer.
Also when people come to St.Louis not only for a fun vacation but for business when they see the amount of urban blight thats a black eye on all of us.
Denver doesn't have such urban blight like we do.
I also tend to think St.Louis seems to harbor the negative energy that the media feeds into us like the Rams leaving here.
If i were St.Louis i would turn an ugly into a positive and shine a spotlight on all the good thats happening here.
The one thing i dislike about Denver it feels way over crowded that can either be a bad or good which way you take it.
Another is you have to take in the fact that the state of Colorado is far more progressive than the state of Missouri you could argue that St.Louis has to compete with Kansas City however the state is also responsible for how the city is growing without state leadership the city and region can only do so much..
Both cities have its draws and draw backs

I was looking at the new census estimates a little more in depth.
I found something that IMO is very interesting.

The 7 Missouri counties in STL Metro added 33,566 between 2010-2015.
The 9 Missouri counties in KC Metro added 31,357 between 2010-2015.

The 8 Illinois counties in STL Metro lost 12,004 between 2010-2015.
The 5 Kansas counties in KC Metro added 42,861 between 2010-2015.

Eastern Kansas is growing and Illinois is shrinking. Those are things we know. I just think this offers a different view.

Denver is a new city in a lovely setting that doesn't have the historic baggage that St. Louis has. I disagree, in general, that the city itself is particularly beautiful, though. And while they have mountains they have little water and little vegetation, both of which are important to me personally. Denver also has a few nice older neighborhoods with character and a couple of nice parks but even with our blight St. Louis destroys Denver in both of those areas, IMO. Denver has a "refreshing energy" because people are moving there. But that's exactly my point. If people were moving to St. Louis it would have a "refreshing energy" as well. And while jobs is the primary factor, our not-completely-deserved reputation and our status as the media's toilet paper is a huge deterrent.

It's interesting that you think Denver feels overcrowded. It feels just the opposite to me. The city itself feels (and is) less dense than St. Louis, and if you spend any time driving the highways around the metro all you see is auto-centric development.

St.Louis1764 wrote: If i were St.Louis i would turn an ugly into a positive and shine a spotlight on all the good thats happening here.

it's not as if people aren't trying to do that, though. unfortunately it's much easier said than done.

St.Louis1764 wrote: Another is you have to take in the fact that the state of Colorado is far more progressive than the state of Missouri...

They're more progressive at the moment but I wouldn't say they're far more progressive. Take a look at a voting map of the state, for example. And we'll see how long that lasts as the state continues to attract droves of rich white people. According to a friend of mine who works for Boulder's urban planning department, a Boulder police officer recently told him that Boulderites very disproportionately call the police upon seeing one of Boulder's few black citizens walking through their neighborhoods. Again, I'm not saying it isn't a nice place with lots of amenities, but I think media bias leads people to blow one place's virtues out of proportion while blowing another place's vices out of proportion.

Forget St. Louis: Kansas City Keeps Indianapolis In Its Sights

http://kcur.org/post/forget-st-louis-ka ... s#stream/0

When it comes to metros that Kansas City considers its competition for business, population growth, conventions and prestige: Forget about St. Louis. We left that rivalry behind in the last century.

People whose job it is to keep KC competitive point to Nashville, Denver, Charlotte, Minneapolis and Louisville as among our chief 21st century opponents.

Mound City wrote:Forget St. Louis: Kansas City Keeps Indianapolis In Its Sights

http://kcur.org/post/forget-st-louis-ka ... s#stream/0

Kansas City looks at St. Louis as a partner not a rival.

As for St. Louis, Reardon says he sees that region more as a partner these days than a competitor, calling both “engines for growth” in Missouri.

“It’s human nature in many ways to think of competition as a place close by you can see and know,” he says. “I think it’s purposeful to look far beyond us. We can start to look at St. Louis as a region to work with cooperatively.”

Right, but in the context of the rest of the article, by that it's clearly meant that KC now views St. Louis as a "partner" in much the same way that St. Louis sees Springfield, MO as a "partner." Not doing anything to directly compete with them because there's no competition, but if Springfield happens to score a random corporate HQ or some other big development, then great! What good news for Missouri!

Sad to see.

^yeah, everything from the title to the sh*t skyline shot says "F*ck you, St. Louis!" but then halfway through the article he offers up some BS about how KC sees STL as a partner instead of a competitor. maybe KC isn't competing with STL because we have a million more people and a significantly larger GDP, and not because KC is out of our league as the article seems to want us to believe.

^ I think the title and image were intentional, but the author probably had nothing to do with those. True that the article taken alone isn't disparaging, but I think it's easy to read the package as a swipe.

KC has a lot going for it. The Plaza was always awesome, their downtown certainly is bouncing back with new towers, redevelopment, etc. Google Fiber is awesome, and i'm jealous of that. BUT.. when it comes down to it, St. Louis is the BIGGER city. More history, more incredible neighborhoods, more amazing architecture, more business overall (9 fortune 500 in STL to 1 in KC..), a million more people. KC, please get over your little sister syndrome. It's like people in Springfield MO saying we're growing faster than STL! Well, STL can say we're growing faster than Chicago! which is technically true, but only because the cities are already both much larger. Again, KC is great, and certainly has grown a lot in the last ten years, but even people FROM KC that move here know that STL is the BIG CITY and honestly the better city, has far more going on and far more different neighborhoods.

Denver is certainly a boom town and has been for 20-30 years. The geographic location next to the mountains could not be cooler. Colorado as a state is amazing, and I even think parts of MO are great, but obviously not as cool. The city itself is certainly clean and has a vibrant downtown, but overall, St. Louis is a FAR more beautiful city. better housing stock, historic neighborhoods, more parks, etc. The "nice" areas of Denver look like Dogtown. There is ZERO CWE, Lafayette Square, Soulard, Clayton, U City, old north. There is a complete lack of "green" in Denver. Also, please tell me what area in Denver looks as architecturally cool as the CWE whether it's the highrises on Lindell, to the amazing houses on Portland Place to Maryland/Euclid. LoDo? It doesn't exist.

Overall, I think bashing Detroit, St. Louis, Cleveland, Newark, New Orleans, Baltimore is a veiled way at being racist in 2016 without being overtly racist; by bashing the cities with larger, poor black populations. Obviously much needs to be done to fix this inequality problems, but please don't bash these cities and then run to the WHITEST cities in America: austin, nashville, denver, etc and then belittle cities with actual diversity and history.

Geography is making America’s uneven economic recovery worse
Gateway to the heartland.
http://qz.com/672589/geography-is-makin ... ery-worse/

jcity wrote:The "nice" areas of Denver look like Dogtown.

I agree with everything you said as well, but Denver actually does have a couple of historic neighborhoods that are architecturally more impressive than Dogtown. Cheeseman Park is probably the closest thing they have to the CWE, and while very attractive it doesn't match the CWE's historic density. Overall, St. Louis just has many more beautiful historic hoods. And park-wise, yeah, St. Louis wins by a landslide. One other point: based on my wanderings I really haven't found Denver to be any cleaner than St. Louis trash-wise. Plenty of litter from what I can see.

I was in the Denver area visiting relatives over a 4 day weekend trip, and hit the towns of Lafayette, Louisville, Boulder, Evergreen, and Idaho Falls, as well as Denver. It snowed/drizzled continuously for the first 3 days completely hiding the mountains. But the 4th day was sunny and we did the the beautiful loop from Evergreen to Mt. Evans to Idaho Falls, although the road to the top of Mt Evans was still closed. Also took-in lookout Mountain for great views both West toward the divide, and East toward Golden and downtown Denver.

I don't think i realized that Denver is at least a month behind St. Louis in terms of transition to Spring -- more like Chicago. Leaves were just staring to come out in Denver. Up in Evergreen it is even later. They said trees bloom in June up there. I told them we had been wearing shorts for a few weeks in St. Louis, and tree flowers have long since come and gone.

I visited refurbished Union Station in downtown Denver and ate dinner there. It has both light rail and Amtrak tracks at the station on parallel tracks. I noticed that trains were allowed to back in and then pull back out, like the old St. Louis Union station. I guess Amtrak didn't impose a through-track-only requirement in Denver as they did in St. Louis. LIght rail construction seems to be going on unabated there. They recently opened the line to the airport.

The airport there is pretty nice, however when I returned Monday evening, all four of the escalators from the tram up to the gates were busted in concourse C. They directed everyone up four flights of fire stairs, or to a line forming at the elevators. So I guess they sometimes have issues too.

Rode back on what appeared to be a brand new SW 737-800 with 787-style led colored interior lighting, etc. that they change to soft blue at night for dozing. Took a photo of KC from the air at night.

Kansas City from 40,000 Feet. by Gary Kreie, on Flickr