urbanSTL

It almost seems like they are basing it heavily on the past and extrapolating trends for the most part. I have real doubts that you can base the next generation trends based on the last one. The concerns I could see is many places cool off due to either starts to get pricey causing a loss of cheaper argument, congestion, and water issues (somewhat related to any potential climate issues)

Also the wild card is politics and trends, since there is no way the status quo would exist in 2040, and could be extremely different than now.

I wonder how accurate this is as well. Here is how the methodology explanation starts:

No population-projection formula is perfect -- or even close. Predicting demographic trends with total accuracy is an impossible feat, especially when gazing a quarter-century or even farther into the future. So why even try? A projection can generate a plausible and valuable scenario. It can provide a starting point for discussion of a community's direction. It can even serve as an early warning system

I guess my frustration stems from the fact that we as a region, are taking SOME steps in the right direction. SOME regional leaders understand the factors. Some examples:

-Getting more immigrants to move here
-Moving from a manufacturing based economy, to a tech & finance based economy. With Cortex and the momentum in the City, along with the already very solid finance industry here, we should already be moving in the right direction
-Realizing that the fragmented government is an issue. It is now a huge topic of discussion and some of the recent issues with policing and the community, have sped up the discussions and even some consolidation. Does anyone think we will have achieved City-County consolidation or be much closer on or before 2040?
* I could list many more items, but we have all rehashed this stuff before.

Is the loss of our manufacturing base the reason we can't get ahead? I feel like every time we hear about a plant closing, we hear a company is adding tech jobs or white collar jobs. I think there may be a bit of a case of the two cancelling each other out. We are kind of spinning our wheels. While gaining high-paying white-collar jobs, but losing a lot of manufacturing jobs, especially the non-skilled jobs that may eventually be a thing of the past in the US, for the most part. Jobs equal population growth, as evidenced by cities like OKC.

It just baffles me that a KC, Indy, Columbus, etc. etc. can leave STL in the dust by such a large %. I know these are projections, but even if they are off, no projection I've seen shows a healthy growth rate for the region. Of course I want the City to continue to grow, but I also want the metro area to grow. If these projections are close to accurate, STL will likely be surpassed by many 'growing' cities, pushing us further and further down the list, maybe in the 30's for largest metro. You have to expect that Charlotte, Orlando, Austin, San Antonio, Portland, then eventually Nashville & Vegas will pass us.

^ My guess is that most of the metros on the top end won't grow as fast as projected nor those at the bottom end struggle as much as projected, but I agree it's frustrating we seem to be losing ground to some peers which I'd like to think we can perform better against.

Looking forward, a big question we have no control over is how old is our existing population... I don't believe it's as old as Pittsburgh's metro but I think it is older than average and this makes things more of a challenge to make up for deaths. But with continued improvement in attracting immigrants and growing the local economy, we have a chance to alter our trajectory. If overall emmigration to the US declines, I guess everyone would be impacted, but it would be even tougher for STL to pick up the pace of population growth.

^ Though its also possible an older population creates a worker shortage if there isn't the people to replace retiring workers, it could pull more people from outside the area to fill in those jobs.

As for regressive politics holding back growth, why would it have done that here and not in other states since most of the fastest growing areas have been hotbeds for some of it while here that's a more recent phenomenon. Though it is possible political makeup of places will become a bigger factor due to polarization and more antagonistic politics.

It's simply impossible to accurately predict anything over a 25 year period.

These future predictions are as reliable as were the projections of the "futuristic city" from all decades prior. Far too many things will impact growth of various cities. The biggest thing that holds is back is the perception and reality of crime. Vast swaths of this city (all of east STL, most of north city, and parts of south) are riddled with poverty. We are a victim of our large previous size and success. All of these other "starter" cities are able to start with their downtowns and pan out from there. We did that a century ago and abandoned these areas half a century ago. We really need to start downtown and work outwards block by block, rehabbing and redeveloping the stronger areas and remove areas that are too far gone to be saved. In an ideal world, I'd save every last historic structure in the city, it's our one true asset. I'm really only talking about buildings that are in complete disrepair.
This city should be the next "hot city", and I honestly think we are starting to get there with the growth in the central corridor, but far more areas need to see this success as well. Driving around areas of north city, I actually see a ton of potential, urban fabric, historic housing stock, large thoroughfares/boulevards and amazing parks. I'd actually be in favor of an urban growth boundary in this region, but the chances of that are zero. At least MODOT has no money to keep building new highways and encourage sprawl.

Well, that's a depressing outlook, even if I don't entirely believe it. The big question for the next 25 years is where to put the next billion people (while preserving the natural world), it's hard to imagine St. Louis can't manage better than 30,000.

The southwest isn't the place for more people, it'll be interesting to see if any policies are made with that in mind. The Government has picked winners and losers before, hell they're figuring out how to put people on mars, surely they can direct some population growth our way.

In 1940 demographers would have probably not given Atlanta a good outlook, or Charlotte in 1950

In 1940 they probably would have predicted healthy growth for Detroit

In 1930 St. Louis probably had a great outlook

Just saying

Pose questions and assert opinions.

It all can be debated here.




Gclub

We do have the benefit of having plenty of fresh water on our side as well as farm-able land close by. That's a good insurance policy for years into the future.

^ Also have to combine with not having to ever worry about sea level rise would also be a plus. Any potential future risks places may have seems to have no negative effects here or not applicable at all.

As for the political barriers, it seems the younger generations are aware of the flaws and is willing to change them, something that older generations seem unwilling to do or favor the flaws.

^ That is what angers me the most. As much as I respect my elders, we as younger generations are paying the price for their parochial, NIMBY, old-fashioned way of thinking. I know some in the older generations get it, many do not. They want to remain isolated in their perfect little city or muni. They do not want to do what is best for the future of the region. Progress of younger generations is in essence, being hindered by the refusal to accept the new realities, by older generations. The City-County divide is so frustrating. I sure hope that issue is resolved by 2040. I have to say, I won't be holding my breath!

So fix it. Otherwise, the next generation will come along and blame you old codgers for the dysfunction.

Looking at this some more, it turns out the model shows the Metro growing 1.8% by 2030 -- getting up to 2.86M -- and then losing 30,000 people by 2040 to wind up at 2.83M. I assume an aging population is what's at work here to account for that.... again the report shouldn't be taken too seriously, but I think it can do some good to show what might lie ahead for our future if we don't change course.

This thread makes me want a frosty mug of Stag beer, a St Louis classic for the ages.

^I'll take a 9-0-5.

More immigrants! biggest percentage gain last year! let's keep that up!! let's advertise in China, Vietnam, India, etc.. wherever! come to ST. LOUIS!!!

jcity wrote:More immigrants! biggest percentage gain last year! let's keep that up!! let's advertise in China, Vietnam, India, etc.. wherever! come to ST. LOUIS!!!

Important to keep it up, but I think the big percentage is off of a pretty small base.

The Saint Louis region does have a decades old population growth issue. Just about all of the US Census gains over the last 50 years have come as the result of expansions in the geographic area the US Census has used to define the urban area. As a result, the size rank of the region has shrunk relative to other metros. I don't see this changing.

The private and the public leaders of the region, by and large, do not even think of this region as one place. Consequently they do not make investments or other decisions based on what is good for the region. I think this is the big thing that is wrong with the region. And I think it will guarantee continued population stagnation and therefore a continued decline relative to other metros.

The same trait, (thinking focused on individual communities, neighborhoods, high schools etc.) , displayed so often by so many residents, makes living in the region attractive/pleasant, at least it does to me. Kind of funny!

CNN Heroin and Kirkwood MO

Check out some of the largest hotel projects across the nation.

30 of the country's top new hotel projects of 2016 (Photos)
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news ... -2016.html

As a fairly recent Mizzou grad, its pretty discouraging to hear about how many more of my friends/acquaintances got jobs in KC vs STL. These are the kinda of college educated people that STL needs to be retaining. If this trend as well as their continued population growth continues they will be our peer city here soon.

cardinalstl wrote:As a fairly recent Mizzou grad, its pretty discouraging to hear about how many more of my friends/acquaintances got jobs in KC vs STL. These are the kinda of college educated people that STL needs to be retaining. If this trend as well as their continued population growth continues they will be our peer city here soon.

you think metro KC is going to gain 800,000 on us soon?

Seasonally adjusted figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that metro St. Louis added 14,600 jobs in September. It's preliminary but if that number holds close to that it would be one of the best months in 3 decades

dbInSouthCity wrote:

cardinalstl wrote:As a fairly recent Mizzou grad, its pretty discouraging to hear about how many more of my friends/acquaintances got jobs in KC vs STL. These are the kinda of college educated people that STL needs to be retaining. If this trend as well as their continued population growth continues they will be our peer city here soon.

you think metro KC is going to gain 800,000 on us soon?

I said peer city, I didn't say have equal to or greater population. I'm just saying they are catching up and based on some observations maybe doing better in getting college grads to move there. STL should be doing everything it can to keep Wash U, SLU, Mizzou, UMSL, SIUE, etc kids in the region.