2020 Census

imperialmog · PostMar 23, 2017#3512017-03-23T16:58+00:00

Issue is weather the voters would go along with it or they would vote to preserve fragmentation. I have less confidence these days in the voters to see how detrimental fragmentation is due to parochial mindset that seems in a good number of people getting more entrenched.

Also.. these numbers could be a function of other things, mainly the age breakdown in the area since I wonder if what you are seeing is the only thing changing is more deaths due to more older people as a portion of the population. The other is these numbers could be widely off as was the estimates throughout the last decade in the opposite direction.

Addendum: Isn't this also a bit odd in relation to better job growth in some time? Mainly something has to not add up or if it is something has to give since it would point towards labor shortage in the metro and need for people to move in more to fill jobs.

hiddeninput · PostMar 23, 2017#3522017-03-23T17:18+00:00

This is just one guy's take on things, but it seems like we can't really expect the city population to increase until we sort out city schools. All news seems to be positive on that front, but I still know many people who perceive the city schools as being bad and who consequently move out of the city before their kids hit school age. So my guess would be that we're doing well getting people into jobs in the city, but folks with families aren't staying,

Chalupas54 · PostMar 23, 2017#3532017-03-23T18:21+00:00

I'm a bit confused as to some of these numbers. I don't believe the STL metro lost population last year. All of my friends in real estate keep talking about how metro St Louis is quite hot right now. The city however is in free fall. Let this be a turning point for our city however.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

urban_dilettante · PostMar 23, 2017#3542017-03-23T18:30+00:00

Chalupas54 wrote: ↑
Mar 23, 2017
I'm a bit confused as to some of these numbers. I don't believe the STL metro lost population last year. All of my friends in real estate keep talking about how metro St Louis is quite hot right now. The city however is in free fall. Let this be a turning point for our city however.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The city is not in free-fall. The central corridor is hot and the wings are still losing population. The loss, while still a loss, has slowed to a trickle.

And, really, the only part of the metro that is "hot hot" (by STL metro standards) is St. Charles.

Chalupas54 · PostMar 23, 2017#3552017-03-23T18:32+00:00

urban_dilettante wrote:
Chalupas54 wrote: ↑
Mar 23, 2017
I'm a bit confused as to some of these numbers. I don't believe the STL metro lost population last year. All of my friends in real estate keep talking about how metro St Louis is quite hot right now. The city however is in free fall. Let this be a turning point for our city however.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The city is not in free-fall. The central corridor is hot and the wings are still losing population. The loss, while still a loss, has slowed to a trickle.

And, really, the only part of the metro that is "hot hot" (by STL metro standards) is St. Charles.

I'm not denying the central corridor is hot. It's really booming. But South and North City? Not so much. Those areas are bleeding residents if I'm not mistaken. We really need to take a look at ourselves and see how we can change this.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Grover · PostMar 23, 2017#3562017-03-23T18:39+00:00

Chalupas54 wrote: ↑
Mar 23, 2017
All of my friends in real estate keep talking about how metro St Louis is quite hot right now.

Real estate is hot all around the nation right now, and I think St. Louis isn't as hot as most other metros.

In fact, just doing a google search, the first list I found that includes STL ranks us 263 out of 300 in 2016 (although I don't know how this rank relates to "hotness"):

https://wallethub.com/edu/best-real-est ... ets/14889/

moorlander · PostMar 23, 2017#3572017-03-23T18:47+00:00

^ a quick google search brought up numerous articles about how HOT the StL market is. Here is just one of many

http://m.riverfronttimes.com/newsblog/2 ... in-reports

imperialmog · PostMar 23, 2017#3582017-03-23T18:55+00:00

^ that is the odd thing, it seems there is some really contradictory economic information and data going on. Combine that with the one 538 article about the fast startup growth is another point that would make a stagnant to shrinking metro population a bit odd.

Just something either doesn't add up. One idea I have is the age breakdown of having a lot more older people raising the number of deaths creating a population drag if not much else is changing as fast. Another could be falling birth rates

SouthCityJR · PostMar 23, 2017#3592017-03-23T19:15+00:00

This just doesn't seem right. From my own personal experience, the City is doing well, certainly not free-falling, and we are I think adding younger folks and younger families. My current neighborhood of TGS and my old neighborhood of Southampton/StlHills seem to be have older residents leaving and younger folks (many with kids) moving in. House prices anywhere near TGS are exploding and they are doing very well in SW City. I've lived in the City since 2008 and I see way, way more strollers, young couples walking dogs, etc. than in 2008. Traffic is also worse around rush hour now than when I first moved in. I can't speak to what is going on in deep South City. Maybe that area and Northside are massively bleeding residents, I don't know, but certainly the Central corridor and large chunks of southside are doing very well. I know TGS has seen a slight dip in population as two-families converted to single-family, but the result has been families with young children have moved in, which you would think has little to no overall effect on population. Either way, I think the future of at least my part of the City is very bright.

Grover · PostMar 23, 2017#3602017-03-23T19:24+00:00

moorlander wrote: ↑
Mar 23, 2017
^ a quick google search brought up numerous articles about how HOT the StL market is. Here is just one of many

http://m.riverfronttimes.com/newsblog/2 ... in-reports

That ranking appears to be year-over-year sales for just the month of October. Gee, what could have been happening in the fall of 2015, say in August and September that would have resulted in an inordinately small amount of real estate closings in October of that year, so that October of 2016 would show a big jump by comparison?

Are there other months that show this big of a jump? Maybe there are, and I would be happy to see that.

According to Realtor.com's projections for 2017, STL is predicted to rank 77 out of the top 100 metros:

http://research.realtor.com/2017-nation ... -forecast/

The market in St. Louis is hot compared to years past and by St. Louis standards. Inventory is low largely because new home construction has had 8-9 years (since the recession) of terrible to sub-par numbers. But still, I don't think the market here is as crazy as many other cities.

leeharveyawesome · PostMar 23, 2017#3612017-03-23T20:09+00:00

Chicago, Detroit and Baltimore biggest losers of population (St. Louis a few spots back).
Phoenix, Houston and Vegas biggest gainers. I'm really happy not to see Atlanta on the gainers list because ***** Atlanta.

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-r ... 17-44.html

Also, be wary of any website that specifically points out that Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore and St. Louis are the biggest population losers. The comment sections are brutal. Like this one:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/ter ... opa-county

Another article, with an accompanying picture of St. Louis.

http://www.governing.com/topics/urban/g ... -2016.html

jshank83 · PostMar 23, 2017#3622017-03-23T20:28+00:00

I still can't figure out how the city population keeps decreasing at the rate it is. Is it just South and North city emptying out? With the new residential areas downtown and through the central part I figured it was more than offsetting losses. I guess I was wrong.

STLrainbow · PostMar 23, 2017#3632017-03-23T20:38+00:00

The census results were pretty brutal for the region, especially the Saint Louis City + County core... overall we were one of 8 metros (8th of the eight) with a population over 1 million to have lost population. And at a drop of .5%, the core City + County population lost the highest percentage of any similar core of a large Metro. City dropped 1.1%, tied with Baltimore CIty (which like STL is an independent "city-county" so we have data for it as well) for the highest single drop but unlike STL County, neighboring Baltimore County gained.

My guess for what's going on is continued bleeding of population from North City and part of South City but continued movement of folks into the Central Corridor while out in the County they are gaining from those leaving the city and losing others to both the City and outer areas. Hopefully the census is overestimating the loss but I bet they are largely on track.

St.Louis1764 · PostMar 23, 2017#3642017-03-23T21:16+00:00

I would think North St.Louis is the main culprit for the cities loss.. South city on the other hand is more a lot more stable than what people would suggest theres more development going on south of Delmar than north until the city can figure out a way to bring a good mix of development into North St.Louis expect the decline to continue other than that i believe the city is on a better path for growth in the future... Cleveland lost the most regional wide along with Detroit also Pittsburgh keeps losing population as well Buffalo. Sometimes i wonder if a lot of these moves by people are more than job related but more racially motivated? You don't see AA's moving south in droves like caucasians. Most cities that are constantly growing don't have a particularly solid AA population and whats now caught my attention,usually the best places to live the happiest places to live and the most expensive places to live and safest have more caucasians than the latter.
Maybe I'm over assuming however thats the way it seems.
St.Louis is a beautiful city and region however the fragmentation hurts us along with perception which are both real and detrimental to the health of our city and regional image.
The city needs to make an all out effort on change for the better.
crime needs to drastically cut in all categories not just some and maintained right now the metro link is more like the crime link.
Also what hurts Illinois is bleeding the most people out of any other, until Illinois focuses on state wide growth and dire financial situation nothing will change with that state the Metro East saw the biggest declines outside of the city..
I'm very positive on St.Louis over all and i believe growth will come not sure when, could be this year or 20 years from now..
Kansas City will continue to be the go 2 city for the state..

STLrainbow · PostMar 23, 2017#3652017-03-23T21:31+00:00

imperialmog wrote: ↑
Mar 23, 2017
^ that is the odd thing, it seems there is some really contradictory economic information and data going on. Combine that with the one 538 article about the fast startup growth is another point that would make a stagnant to shrinking metro population a bit odd.

Just something either doesn't add up. One idea I have is the age breakdown of having a lot more older people raising the number of deaths creating a population drag if not much else is changing as fast. Another could be falling birth rates

Saint Louis region along with many of our rust belt peers do suffer from an older than average population, but we're not quite as bad as Pittsburgh, where Allegheny County actually had more deaths than births. As for the economic data, I think after the recent jobs adjustment that downgraded growth significantly it's pretty clear our economy is growing post-recession, but not nearly as fast as the national average. We've got some positives to build on but we'll need to bump our pace of jobs growth up if we're to gain any type of solid core population.

Ebsy · PostMar 23, 2017#3662017-03-23T22:31+00:00

The wards in far north City are facing grievous population losses, and this is backed up by registered voter numbers. South City and the Central corridor are growing/treading water, but it is not enough to offset the massive migration north of Delmar. A lot of people are leaving St. Louis altogether, heading to Texas or other places in the Sun Belt.

What's even more startling is that the Census Bureau estimates that 6000 people left the city from July 2015 to July 2016.

robertn42 · PostMar 23, 2017#3672017-03-23T22:49+00:00

These yearly estimates have been off by 10's of thousands in the past. I wouldn't give this report much credence. It's directional at best.

Velo Rider · PostMar 24, 2017#3682017-03-24T01:47+00:00

Well crap! That's disappointing. It sucks to see the Midwest as a whole not doing so hot when it comes to population growth. Kansas City seems to be a bright spot in the area, gaining 20,000 last year and Des Moines growing at an impressive clip as well, while the losses in Chicago and the Cleveland metro are impressive as well. What's interesting about KC was that while the metro gained 20,000, the whole state of Kansas grew by only 700 some people! Without KC, Kansas would have likely dropped by quite a bit.

Ebsy · PostMar 24, 2017#3692017-03-24T02:40+00:00

Focusing on the cities is missing the biggest and more systemic population losses in rural areas across the Midwest. Cook County only lost .4% of its population, just barely worse than Illinois overall. I just checked, and half of Illinois counties fared worse than Cook county percentagewise.

matguy70 · PostMar 24, 2017#3702017-03-24T02:50+00:00

I *REALLY question these stats sometimes. It seems like accurate population stats just don't work. There are so many transient people in the country these days and so many that do not add into the numbers due to non-residency or are apathetic to participate in the counts.

That being said, STL has been "losing" population since the 1950's - if that *truly is the case - the place should be far more "empty" feeling than it is. BUT it is NOT. I have lived in this region since 1995 and traffic, congestion, building, permits, yadda yadda yadda have all been on the gains. If we *truly are losing population at the rates that are being reported - these types of regional infrastructure should be on the down turn as well. Why is traffic worse today than 23 years ago? Why does it seem that there are more people everywhere in this metro today than there were 23 years ago?

I think that cities that the census has continually depleted great losses in for years on end have been misrepresented or miscounted. They seem to disregard the older cities in this country - especially the rust belt cities. How can STL city (for example) LOSE more than 40,000 people over the past 20 years when immigration (more than 70,000 Bosnian's alone) have moved into the city and metro area - mostly into the city. The negative numbers don't add up and nor do they resemble the infrastructure building up in this city.

If these types of numbers are moving out of the entire region - we would be seeing a decaying and less used infrastructure, lower construction activity, less traffic etc. In addition, if these types of numbers are REALLY exiting the city, most of them would likely be moving out of the city into the interior suburbs. However, with St. Louis County dropping as well, the numbers are not representing this "probable" move.
STL is in a building boom and not just the city but the metro area has far more construction in it right now than it has in the past 23 years IMO.

In looking at the census too - cities like Kansas City do not have/feel anywhere near crowded or have the large infrastructure of STL. Kansas City IS building up on the Kansas side - but when census is taking in populations in far rural areas like Leavenworth and Lawrence into the metro area population - numbers are pretty skewed.

I just cannot believe these census numbers for many of the "legacy" cities of this nation such as Chicago, St. Louis, Pittsburgh and Baltimore. All cities that are experiencing large immigration, infrastructure improvements and additions to accommodate more traffic/population, building permits, and major redevelopments.

Chalupas54 · PostMar 24, 2017#3712017-03-24T02:53+00:00

This evening I spoke with multiple people in real estate about these numbers. All of them are stunned and surprised, with them all saying they expect these to be revised.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

PostMar 24, 2017#3722017-03-24T02:57+00:00

I'll just quote one specifically: " I have no reason to believe that the St Louis metro saw a population loss. From the amount of transactions underway, I would estimate there must have been a gain of near two thousand in St Louis county. These numbers are incorrect." In addition to other comments here, the only city that I *buy* population loss for is Cleveland.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Grover · PostMar 24, 2017#3732017-03-24T14:07+00:00

There isn't necessarily a connection to the number of real estate transactions and population gain, and I would be leery of what some real estate agents tell you.

I'm sure there has been an increase in the number of home buyers out there, but that doesn't mean the population has been growing. It could just be due to people who were hit hard by the recession finally being able to buy homes now. Also, millennials have been much slower to become home buyers. I think they are starting to come around.

And realtors always seem quick to say "Yeah, the market is fantastic now! It's the perfect time to sell your house! Let's talk about listing your house!". They don't necessarily have a great history with telling the truth.

These yearly estimates do have a track record of having inaccuracies, so it is definitely possible they will be proven wrong when the 2020 census comes out. Unfortunately, it seems like these estimates are usually too high. Hopefully they might have overcorrected and now they are coming in low.

However, I find the idea that all of the census data ever since the 1950s has been highly inaccurate to be laughable. It may not be perfect, but it is the best system we have. I trust it more than the "feelings" of an individual, or the words of realtors.

matguy70 wrote: ↑
Mar 24, 2017
In looking at the census too - cities like Kansas City do not have/feel anywhere near crowded or have the large infrastructure of STL. Kansas City IS building up on the Kansas side - but when census is taking in populations in far rural areas like Leavenworth and Lawrence into the metro area population - numbers are pretty skewed.

It seems like you are moving the goal posts here. Lawrence is it's own MSA and is not part of KC's. Leavenworth is only about 30 miles from Downtown KC. It is closer to the city core, and arguably less rural than cities included in the STL MSA, like Washington.

imperialmog · PostMar 24, 2017#3742017-03-24T15:03+00:00

Chalupas54 wrote: ↑
Mar 24, 2017
I'll just quote one specifically: " I have no reason to believe that the St Louis metro saw a population loss. From the amount of transactions underway, I would estimate there must have been a gain of near two thousand in St Louis county. These numbers are incorrect." In addition to other comments here, the only city that I *buy* population loss for is Cleveland.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

One issue that could be in play is smaller household sizes and lower birthrates. And in specific areas like in areas of South City there were combining housing units creating a net loss of people in a place but tended to be much wealthier. Another on a metro level is that the Metro East has been a lot weaker in recent years with almost all areas losing population which can likely explain a huge part of overall metro weakness. Its more the raw numbers has no context in terms of where the changes or occurring or why.

The other thing Is I wonder if there was a "Ferguson effect" in relation to some numbers causing changes in places. And to whether that's a short term thing or will create a longer term trend. Another trend to watch here and nationally is if there is "Trump effect" in people moving from overseas.

STLrainbow · PostMar 24, 2017#3752017-03-24T16:09+00:00

I don't see why there is any reason to question the general findings of the census figures... the big picture they draw is a City that has lost 2.5% of its population between 2010 and 2016 - a rate of loss that is significantly less than in the 00's, where we lost 12% for the decade. The data also show the City is becoming more white, asian, hispanic and foreign-born population and less black/african-american. It has more people 18+ and fewer children. This is exactly the picture I see happening and with certain parts of town seeing an infusion of new investment and energy and others continuing decay but as a whole things getting a bit "less worse."

2020 Census

Choose Display Mode