Where people are moving to in MO and KS (KC is the big winner) (Kansas City: crime, transfer)

[kcmo]

I got bored and came up with some interesting data. (this is all population change from 2000-2009 from the US census web site)

KANSAS:

First off, there are 105 counties in Kansas. Of those, a whopping 85 of those counties lost population between 2000 and 2009.

Of the counties that gained only six added more than 5000 new residents in nearly a decade. Nearly all of the counties that did add people added under 1000 residents.

Kansas counties gained 176,480 new residents from 2000-2009, but counties lost 57,483 for a net gain of only 118,997. So lets look at the counties that gained.

The Kansas side of the KC area added 111,767 residents (which includes Lawrence and a loss of 2,772 in Wyandotte County)

The Wichita MSA added 40,638 residents (which includes a loss of 2,459 in Sumner County)

Manhattan/Junction City area added 14,047 residents

Topeka area added 6,024 residents.

So this is where the new residents moved to.

KC area 66%
Wichita area 23%
Manhattan area 8%
Topeka area added 2%
The rest of KS added 1% of the new residents (mostly in a few counties, rural KS is a net loss and a pretty big one).

So basically, if you factor in losses in WyCo, nearly 70% of all new residents in the entire state of Kansas moved to Johnson County. One county. And that one county is nothing more than a suburb of a metro area anchored in Missouri.

Wichita holds its own and does well, the Manhattan area is doing ok. The rest of the state is typically losing people.


MISSOURI:

First off, there are 115 counties in Missouri. Of those, 53 counties lost population between 2000 and 2009.

Of the counties 62 that gained 18 added more than 5000 new residents in nearly a decade. Half the other remaining counties that added people added more than 1000 residents.

Missouri counties gained 429,940 new residents from 2000-2009, but counties lost 48,425 (St Louis County accounting for half of all of MO's loss) for a net gain of 381,515. So lets look at the counties that gained.

To keep things simple, I will only look at the primary urban counties in KC and StL, not the smaller rural counties around them, even though they are in the MSA. The numbers are not significant enough to mess with (although they are included in my state wide totals).

The Missouri side of the KC area added 127,497 residents (no counties on the MO side of KC is losing people)

The Missouri side of St Louis added 75,229 residents (which includes a loss of 24k in StL County)

Springfield area added 61,125 residents

Columbia area added 20,131 residents.

So this is where the new residents moved to.

KC area 34%
St Louis area 19%
Springfield area 16%
Columbia area added 6%
The rest of MO added 25% of the new residents. Nearly all the counties south of I-70 gained. Most of the counties north of I-70 lost.

Springfield is becoming a major player in Missouri. The metro area is catching up to Wichita.

StLouis is mostly "sprawling", growing (or migrating) west into west county and st charles county, but with little net regional gain.

KC is is growing at a modest, but steady pace across all the MO side counties while growth on the KS side of KC is almost entirely in one county.

So here is the bottom line.

MO and KS added (net gain) 500,512 residents between 2000 and 2009.

Of that, 239,264 chose the Kansas City area.

So the KC area accounts for 48% of all new residents in the states of MO and KS. Not bad!

There. I'm done .

[Samantha S]

Wow. You must have been really bored today.

Who would have thought that Midwestern states, especially one that is almost entirely made up of farm/ranch land, with more than twice as many cows as people, would have more growth near the few metro areas, where the majority of the jobs are?

I don't know about you, but I am shocked.

[GraniteStater]

Well, even self-employed people don't want to drive 1-2 hours just to reach an interstate highway!
Metro areas and college towns are where opportunity lies.

[OneKC]

It is interesting how many people in the area I meet are from small towns across the midwest. We do a pretty good job attracting rural residents and I would guess that accounts for much of our growth and has helped us avoid the huge declines Rust Belt cities like Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh and St. Louis have experienced.

I'm not sure what accounts for this. I think maybe our city for better or for worse, reflects many of the same values as small town midwestern towns do?

[TabulaRasa]

I'm a person who was born and raised in the rural Midwest, and who has much love for small towns. I moved to KC after a childhood and teen years spent in rural farmland, college years spent in a small, typical college town in the upper Midwest where the college pretty much was the town, and young adult, professional years spent split between inner city Chicago and a small town with under 10K people.

I didn't choose KC on the basis of its merits (of which there do happen to be many) as a place to live when I turned 30, I chose it because the guy I love got a job there, and I chose to be with him. Had he gotten transferred to Boise, Idaho, I'd have gone there, as well. That being the case, I'm a big fan of KC and am happy that this is where I've landed.

From my perspective as a transplant with a variety of dwelling experience under my belt, from very rural to small town to inner city (and, most recently, to suburbia), KC isn't lockstep with what I consider to be small-town atmosphere, but it's definitely "small-town-dweller-friendly." There are cities - I lived in one - that tend to intimidate and alienate the prototypical small town die-hard. When I lived in Chicago, nearly everyone from my tiny hometown held a similar perspective..."Wow, there's a lot to do, and we love to visit, but you couldn't pay me to live there." To their way of thinking, a city such as that was too much everything...too expensive, too much crime, too much diversity (cringe), too loud, too fast-paced, too overwhelming, people drive too fast, too many people, too much crowding, too much litter, too much. A city like KC, with the exception of having too much crime and too much litter, stacks up better on many of those points, so it's always seemed far less intimidating to people who aren't city-dwellers from way back.

As for myself, I buck the trend as a country girl, born and raised, who also deeply loves the atmosphere of an urban environment, just as much as my rural roots. Most people lean one way or the other, I don't. I love KC because it's the best of both worlds, to me. Urban amenities without the astronomical price tag. That makes it friendly to me, as a small-town Midwesterner, personally. My SO relocated here from most of his life spent in an eastern Rust Belt city, and he feels the same.

[OneKC]

Originally Posted by Samantha S

Wow. You must have been really bored today.

Who would have thought that Midwestern states, especially one that is almost entirely made up of farm/ranch land, with more than twice as many cows as people, would have more growth near the few metro areas, where the majority of the jobs are?

I don't know about you, but I am shocked.

??? I don't really get the animosity here, and your post doesn't explain KC's growth vis-a-vis St. Louis' lack of growth. I'm pretty sure St. Louis is in a midwestern state too.

[kcmo]

Originally Posted by OneKC

??? I don't really get the animosity here, and your post doesn't explain KC's growth vis-a-vis St. Louis' lack of growth. I'm pretty sure St. Louis is in a midwestern state too.

What do you mean? This thread was simply breaking down growth patterns in MO and KS and the end result is good for the KC area. KC (JoCo) is really almost all the growth in Kansas while KC is taking the biggest piece of the pie in MO and considering MO has a lot more to compete with (Springfield, St Louis etc), that's pretty impressive.

KC's MO side population is closing the gap on St Louis ever so slowly with the primary counties in the KC area on the MO side at 1.2 million and the primary counties on the MO side of the St Louis area at 1.9 million. At one time, the MO side of St Louis dwarfed the MO side of KC, that is eroding and that will hopefully turn into better representation in Jeff City where KC tends to be almost totally un-represented.

That's all I was saying.

[stlcitygirl]

Were the Illinois suburbs counted for STL? A significant part of the declining population of STL County, are still in the STL metro area, whether it be the Metro East or St Charles County.

[OneKC]

Originally Posted by kcmo

What do you mean? This thread was simply breaking down growth patterns in MO and KS and the end result is good for the KC area. KC (JoCo) is really almost all the growth in Kansas while KC is taking the biggest piece of the pie in MO and considering MO has a lot more to compete with (Springfield, St Louis etc), that's pretty impressive.

KC's MO side population is closing the gap on St Louis ever so slowly with the primary counties in the KC area on the MO side at 1.2 million and the primary counties on the MO side of the St Louis area at 1.9 million. At one time, the MO side of St Louis dwarfed the MO side of KC, that is eroding and that will hopefully turn into better representation in Jeff City where KC tends to be almost totally un-represented.

That's all I was saying.

I don't think I disagreed with that. Samantha seemed to be saying "duh, midwestern states will attract rural people to cities" which doesn't make sense to me since KC is growing much faster than St. Louis, and yet they are both in midwestern states surrounded by farmland. I am wondering what accounts for us doing relatively well while St. Louis continues its slow and steady decline. I think Tabula Rasa did a good job detailing why we might be attractive. We are "small-town friendly" while St. Louis seems to think they are a big city more akin to Chicago, even while their population continues to erode.

[stlcitygirl]

^ umm, excuse me but our population is not declining, the population is still growing, and set to hit 3 million. Saying a slow and steady decline is just wrong and misinformed. The STL city limits have grown the last five years. St Louis County has had a declining population, but most of that is still in the STL metro area (St Charles County and Metro East in Illinois) In fact, St Louis has had consistent growth every year since 2003. I have lived in STL for 6 years, never have I once heard anyone compare STL to Chicago. In fact, the only time I have heard that, is when I was in KC for work, and a colleague said, "you guys think you are Chicago". Of course we don't! Most people that live in STL love visiting Chicago, and the Cards vs Cubs rivalry is very much alive, but thats it.