U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Missouri > St. Louis
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-29-2011, 12:10 AM
 
Location: Renton, WA
579 posts, read 1,146,541 times
Reputation: 473

Advertisements

The Cardinals won the World Series tonight, and it would appear to me that with the Cardinals' success, St. Louis should be one of the most popular cities in which to live and one which should attract many new residents. However, I have checked the population history of St. Louis, and it appears that St. Louis has lost more than half of its population since 1950. Its population today is only 37% of its population of 1950. Here is the population history of St. Louis since 1950, when it reached its population peak:

1950 856,796 +5.0%
1960 750,026 −12.5%
1970 622,236 −17.0%
1980 452,801 −27.2%
1990 396,685 −12.4%
2000 348,189 −12.2%
2010 319,294 −8.3%

St. Louis was the fourth-largest city in the USA in 1910, but in the past 100 years its population has dropped precipitously, and it is now the 58th largest city in the USA. The population of St. Louis is smaller now than it was 130 years ago, in 1880.

Why has the population of St. Louis dropped so much over the years? A great American city should be gaining in population, not losing so many people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-29-2011, 04:59 AM
 
3,644 posts, read 8,996,337 times
Reputation: 1797
most other cities annex. Memphis has been annexing the surrounding areas for decades, so it makes it seem like the city hasn't had any population loss. In reality, the original city limits has definitely lost population. St. Louis is stuck with its original, small city limits. It can't annex and regain the population that moves further out. Of course, that doesn't explain everything because St. Louis County (completely separate from the city) has lost population since the last census too. However, it was only a 1.7% population loss, and the first decline in population in over a century. About 1 million people live in the county, so it's misleading when you read that St. Louis only has 319,000 residents. The STL metro as a whole has never declined in population.

Last edited by Smtchll; 10-29-2011 at 05:08 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2011, 07:12 AM
 
Location: Clayton, MO
1,520 posts, read 3,115,585 times
Reputation: 431
answers
1. landlocked city with small footprint
2. poor leadership and decision making
3. national trends toward auto centric/suburban living
4. real/perceived crime issues
5. large companies deciding to relocate
6. City/County divide

Keep in mind that the St. Louis MSA continues to grow.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2011, 08:18 AM
 
Location: rural North Carolina
272 posts, read 684,497 times
Reputation: 329
As the other commentators. I wish to add though that moorlander is right about the overall growth of the metro area. My family immigrated to the US and settled in the area just south of Busch stadium at the end of the 19th century. They then moved onto the South Side in the early 20th, then to South and West St. Louis County in the late 20th. Now some have moved into Jefferson and St. Charles.

You can't look at just city statistics. You have to consider the entire metro area including the growth of counties in Illinois on the other side of the river. If you don't you'll think that St. Louis is dying; it's not. It's a very vibrant city IF you consider the whole area.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2011, 10:06 AM
 
Location: The Triad (NC)
28,482 posts, read 62,084,629 times
Reputation: 32131
Most industrial cities had a population peak at about 1950...
most of this was wake from WW2 production jobs.

Since then even the domestic use industrial work has declined...
and not just in St Louis.

hth
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2011, 04:46 PM
 
Location: Saint Louis City
1,563 posts, read 3,314,369 times
Reputation: 629
They are correct, there are around 3 million people in the STL metro area
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2011, 03:18 PM
 
Location: South St Louis
3,794 posts, read 3,453,015 times
Reputation: 1957
I, for one, am glad there aren't 856,000 people living in the city of St Louis nowadays. Can you imagine dealing with 2 1/2 times the current volume of traffic? Not to mention more than double the litter, a sizable increase in the incidents of crime, even longer waits at the DMV, etc. etc. Me thinks we are enjoying a better quality of life in our city with its lower population.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2011, 04:59 PM
 
Location: Maryland Heights, MO
3,291 posts, read 6,997,414 times
Reputation: 2003
well, don't forget you'd also have a significantly increased tax base, contributing to: more extensive mass transit, more police presence, and a more thorough street cleaning program, and most likely better schools. This doesn't even take into account the general improvements of a significantly larger urban core, more walkable neighborhoods, and the increase in population density that city residents always go gaga for...In all accounts, I believe a DRASTIC increase in city residents would net an improvement for the city as a whole...

PS, the DMV sucks everywhere...unless you go in the first 1/3 of the month (not on the first though) and do so at opening hours. Helps if you can find a location where everyone is timely too, so there are even less "stragglers" left over. Just a tip
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2011, 07:31 AM
 
Location: Tower Grove East, St. Louis, MO
12,064 posts, read 27,907,260 times
Reputation: 3760
^I think you're both right; there's clearly a happy medium that I'd like to see reached and it's somewhere between 319K and 856K. From what I've read, at its peak, St. Louis was overcrowded and living conditions for many were poor, so I'm not convinced we want to return to that. 500k would make me happy as a clam though.

To the OP: There are quite a few "collar" municipalities that hug the St. Louis city limits that would have, without the city/county split (which you can read about here), most likely been annexed long ago. The city limits' itty bitty 61 sq/mi is incredibly small in comparison to most other American cities and has an affect on overall population numbers as well as more targeted statistics such as poverty and crime.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2011, 07:56 AM
 
Location: The City of Shoes and Booze
136 posts, read 221,594 times
Reputation: 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by aragx6 View Post
^I think you're both right; there's clearly a happy medium that I'd like to see reached and it's somewhere between 319K and 856K. From what I've read, at its peak, St. Louis was overcrowded and living conditions for many were poor, so I'm not convinced we want to return to that. 500k would make me happy as a clam though.
I've heard that unofficially between 1946-1949 the population was closer to 900k before a lot of the NoCo suburbs were built in 1949 and 1950. Yes the main problem imo was the severe overcrowding of certain sections of the city. Over 30k people had communal toliets and some families were living in basements with no windows. Also when you take into consideration the numerous examples of urban renewal. The riverfront had 20k people living on it now it has 0 people. Mill Creek Valley had 10k people now maybe has 100 people? All the houses in Koscuisko have been destroyed. The 4 highways that gash the city have destroyed many homes as well. St. Louis will never be able to achieve the population it once had and thats really not a bad thing, not only for St. Louis, but for many cities in the Midwest and Northeast.

Really I think the city could easily have 600-650k people again, but that would be the peak if we still can't annex anything. It would push the density for the city between 9,600k-10,500k and that would be perfect for the city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Missouri > St. Louis
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top