I want to add a few observations about how St. Louis is typically depicted by the national media.
I think there is a lot of unnecessary focus on our city's population loss since 1950, and our slide from the fourth most populous city in the nation down to something like 52nd place.
So we lost 63.16% of our residents from 1950-2015. Does this make STL the poster child for urban population loss? Not really, especially when we consider the fact that Cleveland lost a higher percentage than we did, 67.6%. So did Buffalo, 65.5%, and Detroit, 63.4%. Basically, it's common
to many older industrial cities of the Midwest, Great Lakes region, and the Northeast. We are not unique.
Of course it goes without saying that if STL wasn't landlocked, and was able to annex nearby areas like most other big cities have done in their history, our city's population would not have decreased quite so fast.. or maybe not at all.
Besides...I for one would not wish to live in a St Louis containing 856,000 inhabitants today. That would require enduring more than 2 and one half times the rush hour traffic volume. There would also be a proportionate increase in litter, noise, etc. There would certainly a higher number of crimes, too. The things we enjoy and that add quality to our lives-- parks, museums, the zoo, etc,-- would contain a higher number of people on any given day. Basically I'm saying, sharing the same 61 or so square miles with 2 and a half times as many people would not be very desirable.
Another point: There are serious discussions regarding the city of STL re-entering the county as its 91'st (I think) municipality. Great idea. Those not in favor of this concept believe that either the suburbs will somehow be adversely affected (I see no way that could be true), or that the city only wants to "merge" with the county to make our crime stats look better. To begin with, this would not be a merger. No combination city-county entity would result. The county wouldn't suddenly become part of the city. The city would remain a separate municipality. And given that fact, the city's crime stats would not change whatsoever. True, the county's stats would be comprised of the total stats of all its municipalities plus its unincorporated areas. But comparisons of county-to-county crime stats are seldom featured in the national news. It's always city-to-city comparisons, which are like comparing grapes to watermelons. The only fair way of looking at crime stats is by comparing entire MSA's. And the St Louis MSA ranks somewhere in the middle among the 40 most populous American MSA's.
Final thought: I think the national press, which is based in New York, DC, LA and other cities near or on the coasts, are somewhat egotistical and sorely out of touch with middle America, still considering us nothing more than "flyover" territory. So it's easy for big media to show cities like STL in an unfavorable light. It's been going on for decades and is unlikely to change soon.
I think there is a lot of unnecessary focus on our city's population loss since 1950, and our slide from the fourth most populous city in the nation down to something like 52nd place.
So we lost 63.16% of our residents from 1950-2015. Does this make STL the poster child for urban population loss? Not really, especially when we consider the fact that Cleveland lost a higher percentage than we did, 67.6%. So did Buffalo, 65.5%, and Detroit, 63.4%. Basically, it's common
to many older industrial cities of the Midwest, Great Lakes region, and the Northeast. We are not unique.
Of course it goes without saying that if STL wasn't landlocked, and was able to annex nearby areas like most other big cities have done in their history, our city's population would not have decreased quite so fast.. or maybe not at all.
Besides...I for one would not wish to live in a St Louis containing 856,000 inhabitants today. That would require enduring more than 2 and one half times the rush hour traffic volume. There would also be a proportionate increase in litter, noise, etc. There would certainly a higher number of crimes, too. The things we enjoy and that add quality to our lives-- parks, museums, the zoo, etc,-- would contain a higher number of people on any given day. Basically I'm saying, sharing the same 61 or so square miles with 2 and a half times as many people would not be very desirable.
Another point: There are serious discussions regarding the city of STL re-entering the county as its 91'st (I think) municipality. Great idea. Those not in favor of this concept believe that either the suburbs will somehow be adversely affected (I see no way that could be true), or that the city only wants to "merge" with the county to make our crime stats look better. To begin with, this would not be a merger. No combination city-county entity would result. The county wouldn't suddenly become part of the city. The city would remain a separate municipality. And given that fact, the city's crime stats would not change whatsoever. True, the county's stats would be comprised of the total stats of all its municipalities plus its unincorporated areas. But comparisons of county-to-county crime stats are seldom featured in the national news. It's always city-to-city comparisons, which are like comparing grapes to watermelons. The only fair way of looking at crime stats is by comparing entire MSA's. And the St Louis MSA ranks somewhere in the middle among the 40 most populous American MSA's.
Final thought: I think the national press, which is based in New York, DC, LA and other cities near or on the coasts, are somewhat egotistical and sorely out of touch with middle America, still considering us nothing more than "flyover" territory. So it's easy for big media to show cities like STL in an unfavorable light. It's been going on for decades and is unlikely to change soon.
