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.
KC has nothing outside of UMKC. St Louis has SLU, WUSTL, UMSL. Not even including Webster, Fontbonne, Maryville, Lindenwood, SIUE- list goes on. A lot of St Louis area companies look for local/East Coast grads. KC shops KU and Mizzou because those are the closest universities. Your fear here is unfounded.
joelo wrote: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
I'm pretty sure there are a reasonable amount of universities there. Not as much as stl or the eastern side of Missouri that focus their post graduate employment toward stl, but a good amount. Avila and rockhurst come to mind
DogtownBnR wrote: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.
I believe there is only one thing holding the St. Louis region back -- urban crime and the reputation it imposes on the whole region. Our metro average property values are the worst of the top 20 metros, and our inner 20% crime is also worst. Property values are high in places where people want to live. And urban crime (inner 20% of metro areas) correlates with low metro-wide property values to a very high degree for the top 20 metros. When NY crime went down, property demand went up.
Until our entire region shows the rest of America that the people in our entire region are willing to devote the extensive resources needed to reduce urban crime, and we start showing results, St. Louis will be known for 2 things -- baseball and crime. And if baseball wanes....
I grew up in Oklahoma, and it is amazing we are losing ground to OKC. OKC has 2 big oil companies in town, and they were both clobbered by the low oil prices. Fracking has caused daily earthquakes, and record earthquake levels. My sister's house has cracks. Why would anyone buy a house in a town with constant man-made earthquakes up to 5 on the r-scale.
Maybe adding STL city to the county can help address urban crime. But when I define inner 20% of the metro, that includes the East Side and as far west as Clayton and Richmond Heights. Think what an impression it would make if the press started reporting every year a remarkable drop in St. Louis crime and crime ranking, and played feel-good stories on how our region tackled our serious violent crime problem -- and is winning. Look what it did for New York.
gary kreie wrote:
I believe there is only one thing holding the St. Louis region back -- urban crime and the reputation it imposes on the whole region.
Yep. Unwarranted or not, statistically inaccurate or not, that's the image the rest of the country has of the St. Louis area. Until we can figure out how to change that image, we're just going to continue to tread water.
gary kreie wrote:
I believe there is only one thing holding the St. Louis region back -- urban crime and the reputation it imposes on the whole region.
Yep. Unwarranted or not, statistically inaccurate or not, that's the image the rest of the country has of the St. Louis area. Until we can figure out how to change that image, we're just going to continue to tread water.
Adding the city as a municipality to the county would change the image from a national level but wouldn't resolve the actual crime issue. It's tough because I feel like if that happens we'll just be okay with the status quo for crime because we won't look as bad to those on the outside
Actually, if St. Louis rejoined the County as a municipality, it would have ZERO effect on the crime stats because the city boundaries would remain exactly the same as they are now. Chicago is in Cook County, but its crime stats include only the city proper. Same with Cleveland even though it's in Cuyahoga County. And so on and so on... I think a lot of people are confused about the implications of merging the city and county vs. city re-entry into the county.
Is that the case really though? Because I feel like we always hear about crime in the county as a whole not including the separate municipalities. Maybe it's tallied that way because of the separation with the city?
I would assume stlgasm is right. The reason you hear more things about the county as a whole is because so many of the towns are tiny. You have to lump them. The bigger towns in the county you hear individual numbers more often. Adding the city would change the county numbers but not the city.
I believe StLGasm is correct. On the other hand, if the city reenters the county it would make it possible for the city to merge with other municipalities.
symphonicpoet wrote:I believe StLGasm is correct. On the other hand, if the city reenters the county it would make it possible for the city to merge with other municipalities.
Considering that an initiative about a decade ago to merge Maplewood, Richmond Heights and Clayton failed spectacularly (remember the proposed name, "Claywood Heights"? haha, yep), I'd say there's a better chance of Jill Stein being elected president than the city annexing any neighboring municipalities in our lifetimes. The inner-ring suburbs are fiercely protective of their distinctive identities. Better to focus on St. Louis re-entering the County, which will be an uphill battle in itself (on both sides).
There are unincorporated areas like Afton or Lemay that could potentially join the city. And places like Riverview Gardens would be more realistic partners in a merger than Clayton. Getting anything so established as Clayton or even Maplewood aboard would require the Grand Plan of the boroughs. Which is a pretty fantastic tale. That said, small steps are possible with reentering the county.
FYI: St. Louis had a pretty extensive light rail system before Dallas, MSP and Seattle. But now all of them have leaped-frogged over St. Louis in terms of miles, stations and ridership.
symphonicpoet wrote:There are unincorporated areas like Afton or Lemay that could potentially join the city. And places like Riverview Gardens would be more realistic partners in a merger than Clayton. Getting anything so established as Clayton or even Maplewood aboard would require the Grand Plan of the boroughs. Which is a pretty fantastic tale. That said, small steps are possible with reentering the county.
I think the borough idea is something that could work. There can be a sizeable number of boroughs in the context of a greater city region, look at London for example, each with their own distinct identity. Such structures could also be used to define various subunits of a unified PD, FD, school district, etc. I picture St. Louis city in what I conceptualize as containing in part or whole 4 different areas; a downtown "City of St. Louis" consisting of downtown and some near neighborhoods. North City "Name idea: Bellefontaine" covering there and some nearby county areas (Possibly the northernmost tip that hits 270 goes to a borough centered around Florissant), South City (name idea: Carondolet) covering South City and some nearby areas of the County like Shrewsbury and Bayless areas, and central corridor areas (no idea on name) going out to Brentwood/Clayton area.
I could extend the borough idea out further into the County, thinking of ones centered in Florissant, Maryland Heights, Mid-county, Kirkwood/Webster, and Lemay/Mehlville. Further West could be determined later and some possible include in longer run areas of Jefferson and Franklin counties based on geography. (that and open for areas in adjacent counties to join such an arrangement). I would put as a null zone outside of any particular borough things that are metro/region assets like the airport where any decisions are broader than a local area is most appropriate.
symphonicpoet wrote:There are unincorporated areas like Afton or Lemay that could potentially join the city. And places like Riverview Gardens would be more realistic partners in a merger than Clayton. Getting anything so established as Clayton or even Maplewood aboard would require the Grand Plan of the boroughs. Which is a pretty fantastic tale. That said, small steps are possible with reentering the county.
The only areas willing to join the City would be impoverished neighborhoods and municipalities in North County, and the last thing that the City's overburdened tax base needs is more pockets of concentrated crime and poverty to tackle. Places like Lemay and Afton would want nothing to do with the City, and, quite frankly, I don't particularly blame them.
Not touting OKC here -- they have a major problem with earthquakes caused by waste water injections from fracking process, and it threatens the value of everyone's house there. But I do think their MAPS core revival program from the late 90's and through the 2000s could be a model for us. It started as a 5-year sunsetting tax in the city (which spans multiple counties) to revive downtown after the Murrah Building explosion. Canals with water taxis, Bricktown entertainment district, downtown botanical garden, and a new arena that attracted the OKC Thunder NBA team was the result. This streetcar looks like a continuation of MAPS.
We could do something similar with a Great Rivers Greenway model to get metro counties to help revive the metro core. We already know that suburb home values are much higher in metros with lower urban crime. I suspect a vibrant urban core also raises all metro home values. It would be an investment that would pay back many times over, but is a very hard sell in St. Louis. Getting the city back into the County might bring forth a leader from the County who would have the knowledge, charisma, and persuasive skills needed to get the other metro counties to join in on an urban revival that would lift all ships in the region.
symphonicpoet wrote:There are unincorporated areas like Afton or Lemay that could potentially join the city. And places like Riverview Gardens would be more realistic partners in a merger than Clayton. Getting anything so established as Clayton or even Maplewood aboard would require the Grand Plan of the boroughs. Which is a pretty fantastic tale. That said, small steps are possible with reentering the county.
The only areas willing to join the City would be impoverished neighborhoods and municipalities in North County, and the last thing that the City's overburdened tax base needs is more pockets of concentrated crime and poverty to tackle. Places like Lemay and Afton would want nothing to do with the City, and, quite frankly, I don't particularly blame them.
That's what I was thinking too. Also there is the potential risk of parts of the county leaving to form its own county or join neighboring ones.
I am not at all trying to insult anyone from OKC, but I go there very often for work and there is no comparison between OKC and STL. OKC has a nice 'small' downtown, with one really nice 50 story tower. Bricktown is really cool too, but cities like that had a clean slate to work from, basically. STL has much more built environment, which makes it difficult to create some of the things that a Bricktown has. I think the Landing could be WAY cooler than Bricktown, if the resources and efforts were put forth. Everything is in place there. Back to OKC. They have 2 advantages right now. They are getting a lot of Hispanic people coming up from Texas. If you go there, you see a large Hispanic presence. Fast food restaurants are basically run by Hispanic kids. There are a ton of Mexican restaurants on every corner. Clearly, they've gained a lot of new Hispanic residents in recent years. You don't see that in STL. Also, people come for jobs and the oil and gas industry has brought people to Oklahoma, even though it has floundered a bit recently. The last thing, OKC is massive, 620 sq. miles, due to aggressive annexation. Another thing that sticks out if you drive 35 south, it is one giant strip mall from OKC to Norman. Very cookie-cutter, generic, suburban chains for miles. While I like the city, I am not that impressed with it as a whole, like some people.
I think OKC is a poor city to compare us to.
^ Its too apples to oranges. There is also the fact its a state capitol and its flagship university isn't that far from it. One other factor to consider its all within one state so issues relating to that aren't present.
Thing is, there is likely not an easy comparison for St. Louis to any place in reality due to combination of factors present here. Fractured government, state line through metro area, no state capitol or flagship university in metro, relationship with state government on both sides of river, and lack of even smaller metro (say 100,000 or so much less over 250k) areas nearby creating a more isolated metro than many.
DogtownBnR wrote:I am not at all trying to insult anyone from OKC, but I go there very often for work and there is no comparison between OKC and STL. OKC has a nice 'small' downtown, with one really nice 50 story tower. Bricktown is really cool too, but cities like that had a clean slate to work from, basically. STL has much more built environment, which makes it difficult to create some of the things that a Bricktown has. I think the Landing could be WAY cooler than Bricktown, if the resources and efforts were put forth. Everything is in place there. Back to OKC. They have 2 advantages right now. They are getting a lot of Hispanic people coming up from Texas. If you go there, you see a large Hispanic presence. Fast food restaurants are basically run by Hispanic kids. There are a ton of Mexican restaurants on every corner. Clearly, they've gained a lot of new Hispanic residents in recent years. You don't see that in STL. Also, people come for jobs and the oil and gas industry has brought people to Oklahoma, even though it has floundered a bit recently. The last thing, OKC is massive, 620 sq. miles, due to aggressive annexation. Another thing that sticks out if you drive 35 south, it is one giant strip mall from OKC to Norman. Very cookie-cutter, generic, suburban chains for miles. While I like the city, I am not that impressed with it as a whole, like some people.
I think OKC is a poor city to compare us to.
I completely agree. St. Louis is far cooler because of our fantastic inventory of classic buildings they don't have in OKC. And we don't have continuous earthquakes as they do in OKC. That is why I did not compare St. Louis to OKC. OKC used to be a lot more of a dump. But they sold the public on using a 5-year sales tax to make improvements called MAPS. That is what my post was about -- setting up a similar targeted tax for very specific urban improvement projects, sell the public on it, and then build what you said you would build. That brought enough trust in local OKC government that the public there renewed the tax multiple times to improves schools, etc. We did something similar with the CityArchRiver tax, but that was only for parkland. I'm suggesting expanding that taxing concept to address a number of urban core issues.
