urbanSTL

Some jack*ss edited the St. Louis wikipedia page, deleting a bunch of stuff from the lead to put in a cite from the NYT article, talking about how "depopulated" St. Louis has become.



I tried to fix it by putting some facts about St. Louis's high-tech industries back in, but I left the NYT stuff since it was cited and is factual. Although if somebody wants to try and fix it better, please do so.



NOTE: I was initially hesitant to criticize the changes, but then I was looking at this guy's (or gal's) other edits (anonymous -- no less), and saw that he/she did the same number to Detroit's page, talking the city down; but he then added some fluffery to the San Francisco page.

Grover wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/17/us/17 ... tml?ref=us



Not particularly insightful I guess . . .

Ironically, St. Louis metro area is not losing native population like New York City is. Look halfway down the page at this link from April 4:



Without immigration, big metros would shrink



According to the Census Bureau, half a million people left New York Metro area since 2000, but a million foreign immigrants came in to New York and made the total population rise by half a million.



In St. Lous metro by contrast, we gained gained 70,000 Americans, and then added 27,000 immigrants to make our total increase 98,000. Many large cities like New York and Boston would have massive population losses if they were not offset by foreign inflow.



Here is the list.



Metro-Area------------2006--------Change----Immigration



New-York--------------18,818,536---495,154--1,067,539---

Los-Angeles-----------12,950,129---584,510----797,652-----

Chicago----------------9,505,748---407,133----377,134-----

Dallas-Fort-Worth------6,003,967---842,449----286,171-----

Philadelphia-----------5,826,742---139,601-----92,889------

Houston----------------5,539,949---824,547----259,428-----

Miami------------------5,463,857---455,869----409,426-----

Washington-------------5,290,400---494,220----239,246-----

Atlanta----------------5,138,223---890,211----177,843-----

Detroit----------------4,468,966----16,409-----89,296------

Boston-----------------4,455,217----62,877----163,546-----

San-Francisco----------4,180,027----56,285----244,752-----

Phoenix----------------4,039,182---787,306----165,088-----

Riverside,-Calif.------4,026,135---771,314-----95,283------

Seattle----------------3,263,497---219,612----102,447-----

Minneapolis-St.-Paul---3,175,041---206,224-----71,745------

San-Diego--------------2,941,454---127,621-----99,468------

St.-Louis--------------2,796,368----97,696-----26,682------

Tampa-St.-Petersburg---2,697,731---301,718-----57,179------

Baltimore--------------2,658,405---105,411-----31,891------

Denver-----------------2,408,750---229,430-----91,066------

Pittsburgh-------------2,370,776----60,309-----15,940------

Portland,-Ore.---------2,137,565---209,684-----68,125------

Cleveland--------------2,114,155----33,855-----24,089------

Cincinnati-------------2,104,218----94,545-----17,204------



Source:-Census-Bureau.

No such thing as bad exposure. This is the Time's backhanded way of saying we're up and coming... Of course, we're facing some tough issues. We'll see how we handle them.

It seems as though there's a natural follow-up here. I E-mail the author with what I thought were interesting bits of info about StL City, inviting her to return (assuming she actually visited) and do some more 'investigative reporting.'

stellar wrote:If anyone is familiar with "the Long Tail" I think you might see that St. Louis is experiencing a Long Tail rebirth. That is it's small changes on a broad scale. It's the neighborhoods that are being brought back home by home, block by block, neighborhood by neighborhood. That is not as glamorous as skyscrapers or big name companies relocating. It's difficult for a journalist, especially one not living in the city, to identify and put this into words.

I couldn't agree more that this is exactly what is happening in STL, and why the city is actually rebounding as opposed to the past. It's always been "the big project" that will turn around the city. St. Louis Centre, Union Station, the Gateway Mall, new office tower, etc... Well, obviously none of those were able to pull the city back.



Now, with the historic credits, they were able to get many people involved working on smaller projects. Additionally, this has spurred many developers to look at neighborhoods all across the city and start doing rehabs and new construction. This, of course, is not near as visible to the media as large-scale projects. That is why there was the article on CNN a month or so ago talking about the "big 3" downtown projects in Ballpark Village, Lameure Place, and the Bottle District. Personally, these are the projects that scare me because they are large-scale projects built by one group of individuals. The city is much stronger when doing smaller-scale projects built by a large amount of developers.



Anyway, this success will unlikely be picked up by the national media until perhaps 2010, when the census shows that the city has truly rebounded as a city. Until then, we will be looked down upon nationally except for these large scale "positive" developments. Find comfort in the fact that the city will prove all these stories wrong in a few years.

metzgda wrote:It's always been "the big project" that will turn around the city. St. Louis Centre, Union Station, the Gateway Mall, new office tower, etc... Well, obviously none of those were able to pull the city back.

This is true, and I'd add the old Busch Stadium as another example of a big project trumpeted as the renaissance of the city/downtown. However, you're also assuming, I think somewhat falsely, that those projects did no good whatsoever. What if Union Station was still vacant? What if St. Louis Center never came to be? What if Met Square wasn't built, or the old Busch, which set a precedent for downtown baseball? Arguably, the city would be in a worse place overall. They may have been "failures," but they've kept money and interest in the city during a period when both would have completely evaporated.



But I do agree with you though that I prefer the small-scale, individual reuse or new construction that sort of work as a symphony of redevelopment, instead of the one-man-band concept of the BPV, etc.

However, you're also assuming, I think somewhat falsely, that those projects did no good whatsoever. What if Union Station was still vacant? What if St. Louis Center never came to be? What if Met Square wasn't built, or the old Busch that set a precedent for downtown baseball? Arguably, the city would be in a worse place overall. They may have been "failures," but they've kept money and interest in the city during a period when both would have completely left the city.

Nice point.



We'd really be set for a media "renaissance" if the schools were to be reaccredited (we realize this simple act wouldn't solve problems, but it would be covered in the media as a good sign), BPV etc. open, downtown population rises from 6,000 to 12,000 from 2000-2010, AND we stop including ourselves in the Morgan-Quinto reporting!

gerwitz wrote:

innov8ion wrote:No such thing as bad exposure.

I sincerely hope you don't work in PR or marketing if you believe that.

Hehe, nope! Seriously, it's great that they're talking about us. Everybody roots for the little guy. We're that little guy. They're rooting for us. Others may disagree, but I believe this.



I pretty much agree with what everyone here is saying though.

I'm late to the thread, but I pretty much agree with what everyone has been saying.



While there's nothing factually wrong with the article, it's lazily written and follows the tired formula favored by many in the local media. The mention of the cops and the scalping controversy was ridiculous and in no way germane to the rest of the article (was this a Mets fan still bitter about last year's NLCS?). The MQ survey has been cited countless times in the media, even though it's been discredited by anyone that bothers to look into the flawed methodology. Although the decades-long population decline is the largest of any American city, it is similar to that of other older industrial cities (Buffalo, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, etc.).



The negative slant is unfortunate, especially since former P-D business columnist Linda Tucci penned a flattering review of downtown's renaissance for the New York Times not all that long ago.

warwickland wrote:this article is the most emailed story from the nytimes today, just thought it interesting.

Yeah, I wonder if that's a good thing or a bad thing.

ThreeOneFour wrote:The MQ survey has been cited countless times in the media, even though it's been discredited by anyone that bothers to look into the flawed methodology.

I've been thinking about what could be done about this in the media. They release the list every year and every year the media sensationalizes it without going further or giving much more than a mention of the FBI and criminologists who decry the methodology each year. Then, among cities that rank toward the most dangerous each year, there is a sentiment of "as long as I'm not first." I remember reading a quote from Camden's mayor who was just happy they weren't first this year.



What if, instead of just hoping not to be first next year, the "usual suspects" (St. Louis, Camden, Detroit, Flint, Oakland...) got together and did some PR against MQ right before the MQ report comes out? Get the FBI/criminologists to say their stuff for press releases. Show how ridiculous this list actually is. Make headlines before MQ gets the chance.

^I love that idea!



I like how they described MQ as something like a "private research firm" which i guess a guy working on a computer in his basement technically is



My other favorite of the article was how he preached population loss as fact and downplayed the city's arguments that we've actually been gaining while THERE WAS A GRAPH TO THE LEFT THAT SHOWED THE CITY"S BEEN GAINING!!!!



As said above, I cannot wait till the 2010 census will prove these people utterly wrong. Also this is very dissappointing considering some of the great articles the NY Times had recently done about the city, specifically the rebirth. I wonder how much they got emailed around.

steve wrote:

warwickland wrote:this article is the most emailed story from the nytimes today, just thought it interesting.

Yeah, I wonder if that's a good thing or a bad thing.

Well, it's certainly good in the sense that people who read the NYT are spreading word about St. Louis -- which is more than can be said for Minneapolis, San Diego, or other cities about the same size as ours.



What's sad about the article is that it has as "wait and see" tone, instead of a "look at what is happening in St. Louis" tone. That, coupled with the irrelevant police 'scandal' is what bothers me. But then we all know things are improving. As others said, suddenly in 2010 there will be all of these "wow look at St. Louis" articles. As if the census numbers magically appeared.

Letter to the editor from Tom Schlafly:



I would only change this: "The renaissance of St. Louis is not simply “hoped for,” as your headline implies. It’s real. " to read, "The renaissance of St. Louis is not simply 'hoped for,' and your headline implies or fraught with insurmountable pessimissim and obstacles, as your story implies. It's real."

To the Editor:



Hopes for a Renaissance After Exodus in St. Louis (April 17, 2007) Re “Hopes for a Renaissance After Exodus in St. Louis” (news article, April 17):



I was one of the 856,796 counted by the 1950 census in St. Louis and one the 348,189 counted by the 2000 census. The house in which I was counted in 1950 is 50 yards from the house in which I was counted in 2000. This is where I still live. I have lived through every stage of the exodus and renaissance of St. Louis described in your article.



In 1991, I purchased a 40,000-square-foot building that was vacant for 22 years. Sixteen years later the building is home to a successful microbrewery. The neighborhood, slightly west of downtown, includes 900-square-foot lofts that are selling for more than I paid for my building.



The renaissance of St. Louis is not simply “hoped for,” as your headline implies. It’s real.



Tom Schlafly

^

Love that guy.

awesome.

In 1991, I purchased a 40,000-square-foot building that was vacant for 22 years. Sixteen years later the building is home to a successful microbrewery. The neighborhood, slightly west of downtown, includes 900-square-foot lofts that are selling for more than I paid for my building.

Can't get more to the point than that.

^ Amen

Here is the picture from the Times article:







What you can't see is that there are buildings being renovated just a block away (the house in the Times pic is in the background):







Link

DeBaliviere wrote:Here is the picture from the Times article:







What you can't see is that there are buildings being renovated just a block away (the house in the Times pic is in the background):







Link

And you see that building in the background of the Times pic, just a block away. That is a complete rehab of the last house on the block. All around the house pictured are great rehabs as well as brand new market rate homes. I love perspective.

MattnSTL wrote:I love perspective.

It's too bad the New York Times has something against it.

Matt, do you know if there are any plans to rehab the house pictured in the Times article?

It will be rehabbed as part of the North market Place project. It is part of the second phase. The partnership that is doing the project has the buildings optioned from the LRA. The first house in the view is missing it's entire back wall, so it could have looked worse, I guess.