Indianapolis received the same adjustment. This has less to do with St. Louis and more to do with data showing the midwest is floundering, big time.
- 2,620
The decline of Iowa is a real under the radar issue. Nobody really thinks about it but most of their major cities (besides Des Moines) are going through rough declines. I'm in the Quad Cities right now, and things are just feel dead and bleak. Still some cool stuff, but nowhere that feels like "this is a happening place" Same thing with Cedar Rapids, Waterloo, Dubuque, Ottumwa, and Council Bluffs. I could keep going, especially with the cool old towns on the banks of the Mississippi.
These places all have pretty solid built environments and somebody with vision could easily see them being dope again, but mostly it just feels like they are circling the drain. Cedar Rapids is doing better than the rest of this list, but most of their vibrancy is in the suburbs these days. They also keep getting hit by natural disasters which doesn't help.
These places all have pretty solid built environments and somebody with vision could easily see them being dope again, but mostly it just feels like they are circling the drain. Cedar Rapids is doing better than the rest of this list, but most of their vibrancy is in the suburbs these days. They also keep getting hit by natural disasters which doesn't help.
- 1,793
Tough to keep you Iowans from Chicago and the Twin Cities.
Plenty Midwestern cities received upward revisions.
This revision puts St. Louis at 0.8% growth since pre-covid (+11.4k).
State is run by idiots.GoHarvOrGoHome wrote: ↑Mar 18, 2025The decline of Iowa is a real under the radar issue. Nobody really thinks about it but most of their major cities (besides Des Moines) are going through rough declines. I'm in the Quad Cities right now, and things are just feel dead and bleak. Still some cool stuff, but nowhere that feels like "this is a happening place" Same thing with Cedar Rapids, Waterloo, Dubuque, Ottumwa, and Council Bluffs. I could keep going, especially with the cool old towns on the banks of the Mississippi.
These places all have pretty solid built environments and somebody with vision could easily see them being dope again, but mostly it just feels like they are circling the drain. Cedar Rapids is doing better than the rest of this list, but most of their vibrancy is in the suburbs these days. They also keep getting hit by natural disasters which doesn't help.
Most of the ones who did were under performing prior to revision. For example, Pittsburgh.Auggie wrote:Plenty Midwestern cities received upward revisions.
This revision puts St. Louis at 0.8% growth since pre-covid (+11.4k).
Midwestern Cities Feb 2020 through today's revision:
1. Indianapolis (6.5%)
2. Columbus (3.3%)
3. Kansas City (3.1%)
4. Cincinnati (2.9%)
5. St. Louis (0.8%)
6. Chicago (0.6%)
6. Detroit (0.6%)
8. Minneapolis (0.1%)
9. Pittsburgh (-0.9%)
10. Cleveland (-0.9%)
11. Milwaukee (-1.9%)
These type of job numbers are pretty much a total rejection of urbanism and total embracement of suburban hellscape. And on the national level it's not really much different. Only a couple of not horrible cities had decent growth.
1. Indianapolis (6.5%)
2. Columbus (3.3%)
3. Kansas City (3.1%)
4. Cincinnati (2.9%)
5. St. Louis (0.8%)
6. Chicago (0.6%)
6. Detroit (0.6%)
8. Minneapolis (0.1%)
9. Pittsburgh (-0.9%)
10. Cleveland (-0.9%)
11. Milwaukee (-1.9%)
These type of job numbers are pretty much a total rejection of urbanism and total embracement of suburban hellscape. And on the national level it's not really much different. Only a couple of not horrible cities had decent growth.
These same cities Feb 2016-Feb 2020:
1. Columbus (6.2%)
2. Indianapolis (5.8%)
3. Minneapolis (5.1%)
4. Cincinnati (4.6%)
5. Detroit (4.3%)
6. Kansas City (4.2%)
7. St. Louis (3.6%)
8. Chicago (2.9%)
9. Cleveland (2.6%)
10. Pittsburgh (2.5%)
11. Milwaukee (1.6%)
1. Columbus (6.2%)
2. Indianapolis (5.8%)
3. Minneapolis (5.1%)
4. Cincinnati (4.6%)
5. Detroit (4.3%)
6. Kansas City (4.2%)
7. St. Louis (3.6%)
8. Chicago (2.9%)
9. Cleveland (2.6%)
10. Pittsburgh (2.5%)
11. Milwaukee (1.6%)
- 1,641
Sorry. The people that that built the beautiful neighborhood you live in the City today that we love so much were born in the 1800s. They are dead and gone. It's never gonna happen again. It just didn't work out. Total shame. Now we have to deal with what is left and move on.Auggie wrote: ↑Mar 18, 2025Midwestern Cities Feb 2020 through today's revision:
1. Indianapolis (6.5%)
2. Columbus (3.3%)
3. Kansas City (3.1%)
4. Cincinnati (2.9%)
5. St. Louis (0.8%)
6. Chicago (0.6%)
6. Detroit (0.6%)
8. Minneapolis (0.1%)
9. Pittsburgh (-0.9%)
10. Cleveland (-0.9%)
11. Milwaukee (-1.9%)
These type of job numbers are pretty much a total rejection of urbanism and total embracement of suburban hellscape. And on the national level it's not really much different. Only a couple of not horrible cities had decent growth.
- 732
Amen.leeharveyawesome wrote: ↑Mar 18, 2025Sorry. The people that that built the beautiful neighborhood you live in the City today that we love so much were born in the 1800s. They are dead and gone. It's never gonna happen again. It just didn't work out. Total shame. Now we have to deal with what is left and move on.Auggie wrote: ↑Mar 18, 2025Midwestern Cities Feb 2020 through today's revision:
1. Indianapolis (6.5%)
2. Columbus (3.3%)
3. Kansas City (3.1%)
4. Cincinnati (2.9%)
5. St. Louis (0.8%)
6. Chicago (0.6%)
6. Detroit (0.6%)
8. Minneapolis (0.1%)
9. Pittsburgh (-0.9%)
10. Cleveland (-0.9%)
11. Milwaukee (-1.9%)
These type of job numbers are pretty much a total rejection of urbanism and total embracement of suburban hellscape. And on the national level it's not really much different. Only a couple of not horrible cities had decent growth.
It didn't just "not work out". It's the result of 70+ years of intentional policies designed to move certain people out to suburbs and keep certain people in the core cities.leeharveyawesome wrote: ↑Mar 18, 2025Sorry. The people that that built the beautiful neighborhood you live in the City today that we love so much were born in the 1800s. They are dead and gone. It's never gonna happen again. It just didn't work out. Total shame. Now we have to deal with what is left and move on.Auggie wrote: ↑Mar 18, 2025Midwestern Cities Feb 2020 through today's revision:
1. Indianapolis (6.5%)
2. Columbus (3.3%)
3. Kansas City (3.1%)
4. Cincinnati (2.9%)
5. St. Louis (0.8%)
6. Chicago (0.6%)
6. Detroit (0.6%)
8. Minneapolis (0.1%)
9. Pittsburgh (-0.9%)
10. Cleveland (-0.9%)
11. Milwaukee (-1.9%)
These type of job numbers are pretty much a total rejection of urbanism and total embracement of suburban hellscape. And on the national level it's not really much different. Only a couple of not horrible cities had decent growth.
But making America great again means going back to the 1800s.leeharveyawesome wrote: ↑Mar 18, 2025Sorry. The people that that built the beautiful neighborhood you live in the City today that we love so much were born in the 1800s. They are dead and gone. It's never gonna happen again. It just didn't work out. Total shame. Now we have to deal with what is left and move on.Auggie wrote: ↑Mar 18, 2025Midwestern Cities Feb 2020 through today's revision:
1. Indianapolis (6.5%)
2. Columbus (3.3%)
3. Kansas City (3.1%)
4. Cincinnati (2.9%)
5. St. Louis (0.8%)
6. Chicago (0.6%)
6. Detroit (0.6%)
8. Minneapolis (0.1%)
9. Pittsburgh (-0.9%)
10. Cleveland (-0.9%)
11. Milwaukee (-1.9%)
These type of job numbers are pretty much a total rejection of urbanism and total embracement of suburban hellscape. And on the national level it's not really much different. Only a couple of not horrible cities had decent growth.
- 1,641
By "policies", do you mean that if we would have only DOGEd everything way back then it would still look like Europe and everyone would love it?Auggie wrote: ↑Mar 18, 2025It didn't just "not work out". It's the result of 70+ years of intentional policies designed to move certain people out to suburbs and keep certain people in the core cities.leeharveyawesome wrote: ↑Mar 18, 2025Sorry. The people that that built the beautiful neighborhood you live in the City today that we love so much were born in the 1800s. They are dead and gone. It's never gonna happen again. It just didn't work out. Total shame. Now we have to deal with what is left and move on.Auggie wrote: ↑Mar 18, 2025Midwestern Cities Feb 2020 through today's revision:
1. Indianapolis (6.5%)
2. Columbus (3.3%)
3. Kansas City (3.1%)
4. Cincinnati (2.9%)
5. St. Louis (0.8%)
6. Chicago (0.6%)
6. Detroit (0.6%)
8. Minneapolis (0.1%)
9. Pittsburgh (-0.9%)
10. Cleveland (-0.9%)
11. Milwaukee (-1.9%)
These type of job numbers are pretty much a total rejection of urbanism and total embracement of suburban hellscape. And on the national level it's not really much different. Only a couple of not horrible cities had decent growth.
If we aim for the 1840s maybe we'll land in the 1950s. A great decade for most (living standards rose across the board), and especially for straight, white, culturally conservative folks. More likely we'll end up in the 1300s, with similar famines and plagues, but smart phones and killbots instead of town criers and knights on horseback. In all cases a bad time for urbanism.quincunx wrote: ↑Mar 18, 2025But making America great again means going back to the 1800s.leeharveyawesome wrote: ↑Mar 18, 2025Sorry. The people that that built the beautiful neighborhood you live in the City today that we love so much were born in the 1800s. They are dead and gone. It's never gonna happen again. It just didn't work out. Total shame. Now we have to deal with what is left and move on.Auggie wrote: ↑Mar 18, 2025Midwestern Cities Feb 2020 through today's revision:
1. Indianapolis (6.5%)
2. Columbus (3.3%)
3. Kansas City (3.1%)
4. Cincinnati (2.9%)
5. St. Louis (0.8%)
6. Chicago (0.6%)
6. Detroit (0.6%)
8. Minneapolis (0.1%)
9. Pittsburgh (-0.9%)
10. Cleveland (-0.9%)
11. Milwaukee (-1.9%)
These type of job numbers are pretty much a total rejection of urbanism and total embracement of suburban hellscape. And on the national level it's not really much different. Only a couple of not horrible cities had decent growth.
If we had focused on efficency in the first place, we wouldn't have plowed highways through the middle of cities, we wouldn't have subsidized suburbia, and we wouldn't have a country where ownership of a car for every individual person is deemed necessary to live a comfortable life.leeharveyawesome wrote: ↑Mar 18, 2025By "policies", do you mean that if we would have only DOGEd everything way back then it would still look like Europe and everyone would love it?Auggie wrote: ↑Mar 18, 2025It didn't just "not work out". It's the result of 70+ years of intentional policies designed to move certain people out to suburbs and keep certain people in the core cities.leeharveyawesome wrote: ↑Mar 18, 2025
Sorry. The people that that built the beautiful neighborhood you live in the City today that we love so much were born in the 1800s. They are dead and gone. It's never gonna happen again. It just didn't work out. Total shame. Now we have to deal with what is left and move on.
- 1,641
One thing we can all hopefully agree on is the country's housing stock is falling apart. New stuff is garbage, the old stuff was meant to last 1000 years but was sh*t on by everyone from government and citizens. We need a solution that doesn't suck.
If we focused on efficency now then the government wouldn't be spending more money with "DOGE" than it was before, DOGE isn't actually making things more efficient, more focused on retribution, probably not the best course forward for growth.Auggie wrote: ↑Mar 18, 2025If we had focused on efficency in the first place, we wouldn't have plowed highways through the middle of cities, we wouldn't have subsidized suburbia, and we wouldn't have a country where ownership of a car for every individual person is deemed necessary to live a comfortable life.leeharveyawesome wrote: ↑Mar 18, 2025By "policies", do you mean that if we would have only DOGEd everything way back then it would still look like Europe and everyone would love it?Auggie wrote: ↑Mar 18, 2025
It didn't just "not work out". It's the result of 70+ years of intentional policies designed to move certain people out to suburbs and keep certain people in the core cities.
Technically the 1300s were good for urbanism, nice tightly built and walkable urban centers.SB in BH wrote: ↑Mar 18, 2025If we aim for the 1840s maybe we'll land in the 1950s. A great decade for most (living standards rose across the board), and especially for straight, white, culturally conservative folks. More likely we'll end up in the 1300s, with similar famines and plagues, but smart phones and killbots instead of town criers and knights on horseback. In all cases a bad time for urbanism.quincunx wrote: ↑Mar 18, 2025But making America great again means going back to the 1800s.leeharveyawesome wrote: ↑Mar 18, 2025
Sorry. The people that that built the beautiful neighborhood you live in the City today that we love so much were born in the 1800s. They are dead and gone. It's never gonna happen again. It just didn't work out. Total shame. Now we have to deal with what is left and move on.
January sector numbers finalized for STL
(YoY %, 2019 %)
Mining and Construction (-1.1%, +12.9%)
Manufacturing (-2.2%, -3.6%)
Trade, transportation, utilities (-0.3%, +1.7%)
Information (-6.2%, +0.7%)
Financial activities (1.2%, +4%)
Professional business services (-0.9%, +1.5%)
Education and health services (2.2%, +6.3%)
Leisure and hospitality (-5.4%, -6.8%)
Other services (2.4%, +2.2%)
Government (1.3%, +0.1%)
(YoY %, 2019 %)
Mining and Construction (-1.1%, +12.9%)
Manufacturing (-2.2%, -3.6%)
Trade, transportation, utilities (-0.3%, +1.7%)
Information (-6.2%, +0.7%)
Financial activities (1.2%, +4%)
Professional business services (-0.9%, +1.5%)
Education and health services (2.2%, +6.3%)
Leisure and hospitality (-5.4%, -6.8%)
Other services (2.4%, +2.2%)
Government (1.3%, +0.1%)
- 1,610
Just gonna pretend like our 2nd Panda Express didn't just open, I guess?GoHarvOrGoHome wrote: ↑Mar 18, 2025I'm in the Quad Cities right now, and things are just feel dead and bleak. Still some cool stuff, but nowhere that feels like "this is a happening place"
- 9,528
They have 4 cities and it’s dead and bleak and we are suppose to make it work with one?
- 1,610
It's actually 5 cities, we just stopped changing the moniker after "quad." Tri-Cities Blackhawks were an original member of the NBA - moved to Milwaukee and the STL before setting in Atlanta.dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Mar 28, 2025They have 4 cities and it’s dead and bleak and we are suppose to make it work with one?
We have 92 municipalities! So much excitement!dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Mar 28, 2025They have 4 cities and it’s dead and bleak and we are suppose to make it work with one?
-RBB
The enneacontadi cities!rbb wrote: ↑Mar 31, 2025We have 92 municipalities! So much excitement!dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Mar 28, 2025They have 4 cities and it’s dead and bleak and we are suppose to make it work with one?
-RBB
-RBB
This is why St. Louis will continue to feel “on a different level” even while population peers grow faster. St. Louis continues to hit above its weight for corporate operations.
Number of Fortune 1000 companies (~$2.5B+ revenue) PLUS Fortune Largest Private Companies ($2B+ revenue) by Metro Area they're HQ'd in:
1. NYC: 112 companies
2. Chicago: 79
3. Dallas: 58
4. Houston: 51
5. San Francisco: 46
6. Los Angeles: 44
7T. Atlanta: 43
7T. Boston: 43
9. Washington DC: 41
10. Philadelphia: 36
11. San Jose: 33
12T. Minneapolis: 27
12T. Phoenix: 27
14. Miami: 26
15. St. Louis: 25
16. Denver: 24
17. Detroit: 23
18T. Charlote: 20
18T. Columbus, OH: 20
18T. Pittsburgh: 20
18T. Seattle: 20
22. Bridgeport, CT: 19
23. Cleveland: 16
24T. Richmond, VA: 13
24T. San Diego: 13
26T. Milwaukee: 12
26T. Nashville: 12
28. Omaha: 11
29T. Cincinnati: 9
29T. Kansas City: 9
29T. Las Vegas: 9
29T. Providence: 9
29T. San Antonio: 9
Number of Fortune 1000 companies (~$2.5B+ revenue) PLUS Fortune Largest Private Companies ($2B+ revenue) by Metro Area they're HQ'd in:
1. NYC: 112 companies
2. Chicago: 79
3. Dallas: 58
4. Houston: 51
5. San Francisco: 46
6. Los Angeles: 44
7T. Atlanta: 43
7T. Boston: 43
9. Washington DC: 41
10. Philadelphia: 36
11. San Jose: 33
12T. Minneapolis: 27
12T. Phoenix: 27
14. Miami: 26
15. St. Louis: 25
16. Denver: 24
17. Detroit: 23
18T. Charlote: 20
18T. Columbus, OH: 20
18T. Pittsburgh: 20
18T. Seattle: 20
22. Bridgeport, CT: 19
23. Cleveland: 16
24T. Richmond, VA: 13
24T. San Diego: 13
26T. Milwaukee: 12
26T. Nashville: 12
28. Omaha: 11
29T. Cincinnati: 9
29T. Kansas City: 9
29T. Las Vegas: 9
29T. Providence: 9
29T. San Antonio: 9