Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Am sorry but thread is pretty funny, and fun man. And thank you guys for 10,000 views on there. This is best thread I create, in history. Thank you guys lets keep on going.
Noo, its not perception, it's reality, I read alot about cities, I find them fascinating (hence me being on city data) On a weekly basis I read about whats going on in Nashville, Memphis, Altanta St Louis New Orleans L.A Las Vegas NYC etc etc etc. Every Now and then I read the St Louis Business Journal, furthermore I was actually in St Louis not to long ago, any whoo from what I been reading and hearing St louis is begging for immigrants losing sports teams losing company HQ's , East St louis/Metro East is a mess from what I hear St Louis COUNTY itself is starting to lose population, even your best suburb Clayton is barely growing....Now I hear yall bout to lose the National Geospatial-Intelligence (NGA) Federal Agency, whatever that is lol ..1 month after yall lost the Rams,....No Sir St.Louis is not on a roll lol
Fair enough, but forgive me for calling you out on your inconsistencies. You said: "St. Louis doesn't seem to be advancing too far these days. It comes down to Cleveland and Detroit for me.".
Which is interesting, considering that both Cleveland and Detroit both have lower growth rates in terms of population and economy than St. Louis, and both are losing population from their central cities and core suburban counties at a more rapid clip than STL (Cleveland continues to decline in overall metro population; St. Louis and Detroit continue to grow very modestly). So I'm just trying to understand why you think STL "isn't advancing too much" but Cleveland and Detroit are?
Fair enough, but forgive me for calling you out on your inconsistencies. You said: "St. Louis doesn't seem to be advancing too far these days. It comes down to Cleveland and Detroit for me.".
Which is interesting, considering that both Cleveland and Detroit both have lower growth rates in terms of population and economy than St. Louis, and both are losing population from their central cities and core suburban counties at a more rapid clip than STL (Cleveland continues to decline in overall metro population; St. Louis and Detroit continue to grow very modestly). So I'm just trying to understand why you think STL "isn't advancing too much" but Cleveland and Detroit are?
He's probably going off perception based on downtown development. Admittedly, StL is severely lagging in downtown activity compared to Cleveland and Detroit, primarily because our area business leaders have zero interest in it and political leaders keep searching for the next silver bullet instead of emphasizing incremental stuff.
That's cool, and was probably a big deal back in the 1870's, But Recently Cincinnati has done nothing in the Historical Department Now I don't doubt that it may be a pleasant city, (and with a surprising # of corporate HQ's) but seeing this is a Opinion Poll, And the OP asked me a question, IMHO St Louis Cleveland and Detroit are far more interesting cities, So you tell me Cincinnati has this and Cincinnati did that, but Cincinnati has never really been legendary to anyone alive today (unless perhaps you live there) Cincinnati has never been "IT" city in recent times, Detroit SURE Has, once a top 5 city, The Engine of the Arsenal of Democracy, St Louis Sure has , The Arch, once a top 10 city, Hosted the freakin Olympics, Cleveland has too in many ways ...So when I say 'New' perhaps I should say "Lacks" the outstanding Recent (1900+)History of the other 3
You asked to correct you if you were wrong. That's pretty much it. No slight against any particular city here.
Here are the time periods where these cities were top ten, but keep in mind that these don't just drop to 100 hundredth place or such after they get out of the top ten and today all of them kept pretty close in metro size except Detroit.
Cincinnati: 1820-1900
St. Louis: 1850-1970
Cleveland: 1900-1950
Detroit: 1920-1990
Fair enough, but forgive me for calling you out on your inconsistencies. You said: "St. Louis doesn't seem to be advancing too far these days. It comes down to Cleveland and Detroit for me.".
Which is interesting, considering that both Cleveland and Detroit both have lower growth rates in terms of population and economy than St. Louis, and both are losing population from their central cities and core suburban counties at a more rapid clip than STL (Cleveland continues to decline in overall metro population; St. Louis and Detroit continue to grow very modestly). So I'm just trying to understand why you think STL "isn't advancing too much" but Cleveland and Detroit are?
St louis has some cool things going for it? Cool, perhaps you should educate us, seems the bad things are outweighing the good in St Louis, Again, if this isn't true you should educate us
As far as Detroit and Cleveland over St Louis,...Ok I can see a case of Why would anyone choose Cleveland over St Louis especially when Cleveland is losing population faster than St Louis, it comes down to State and Location for me, I find Ohio more interesting and it also is more populous and a larger economy and the stuff that comes with that. From Cleveland one could go (in a reasonable amount of time)to Pennsylvania Michigan and the various other Large and Mid sized cities Ohio has to offer Columbus Dayton Cincinnati Toledo Akron Sandusky/Cedar Point Roller Coaster Park etc etc , In Addition Cleveland has a Lake Front and Lake Front Beaches that Missouri and St Louis just can't offer. In further Addition one could still Enjoy 3 Professional Sports Teams in Cleveland. In Missouri, I really have no interest in other Missouri cities Except St Louis, and perhaps maybe Branson would be nice, And St Louis' Riverfront could be much better, If I lived in Missouri I probably would hardly ever go to Kansas City,..I don't find it that interesting
As far as Detroit vs St Louis It simply just comes down to size, This Notion that St Louis has all this great stuff because it was once amongst the largest most urban cities can also be applied to Detroit and then some, In Addition even Though I hear Detroit city proper has gone to hell (and i've seen it with my own eyes, been to Detroit 3 times) and is coming back, I also hear that it's surburbs are amongst the wealthiest in the nation, Especially Troy, Oakland County and Auburn Hills etc
Fair enough, but forgive me for calling you out on your inconsistencies. You said: "St. Louis doesn't seem to be advancing too far these days. It comes down to Cleveland and Detroit for me.".
Which is interesting, considering that both Cleveland and Detroit both have lower growth rates in terms of population and economy than St. Louis, and both are losing population from their central cities and core suburban counties at a more rapid clip than STL (Cleveland continues to decline in overall metro population; St. Louis and Detroit continue to grow very modestly). So I'm just trying to understand why you think STL "isn't advancing too much" but Cleveland and Detroit are?
Non-Farm Job Growth, 12 Month Summary in Percentage (latest data, December 2014-December 2015):
1. Cleveland MSA: 2.2%
2. Detroit MSA: 2.1%
3. Saint Louis MSA: 1.2%
Non-Farm Job Growth, 12 Month Summary in Raw Numbers (latest data, December 2014-December 2015):
1. Detroit MSA: + 39,600 jobs
2. Cleveland MSA: + 23,300 jobs
3. Saint Louis MSA: + 15,500 jobs
Total Employment as of December 2015:
1. Detroit MSA: 1.9681 Million Employed
2. Saint Louis MSA: 1.3412 Million Employed
3. Cleveland MSA: 1.0681 Million Employed
Despite its edge in population growth over Detroit the last couple of years, whether you look by MSA or CSA, Saint Louis remains significantly smaller and over the course of the last couple of years has failed to capitalize on an opportunity to start cutting into the gap.
Red John, thanks for sharing. Detroit is making some impressive strides, but not enough to offset some of the highest population decline rates in the country:
City proper pop. change, 2013-2014
Saint Louis: -0.3
Cleveland: -0.4
Detroit: -0.9
That said, I'm sure there are plenty of lists that would rank Detroit and/or Cleveland higher in certain meaningful metrics as well, which really just underscores my point. These three cities are basically in the same boat, and they do better in some rankings than others. But to say that St. Louis is somehow an overall laggard compared to its Rustbelt peers is utterly ridiculous.
Red John, I was really just addressing BlueRedTide's assertion that "St. Louis doesn't seem to be advancing too much these days..." compared to Cleveland and Detroit.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
