Yet, why is the population of the St. Louis metropolitan area larger than it has ever been in its history?

[aragx6]

I'm not seeing the correlation between a split city and county and a growing metro. You're saying you think the metro population would have decreased over the last couple of decades if it weren't for the city-county separation?

[stlouisan]

Originally Posted by aragx6

I'm not seeing the correlation between a split city and county and a growing metro. You're saying you think the metro population would have decreased over the last couple of decades if it weren't for the city-county separation?

I'm not saying that at all...I'm just saying that St. Louis' situation as an independent city makes it pretty unique compared to those other two. I would definitely think that had St. Louis County been a part of St. Louis city, the industries would have been more tied together. St. Louis County was mostly unaffected in a negative manner by the decline of the city except to gain in its population...economically and politically it was completely separate from the city, so any decline the city experienced wouldn't cause the county to decline. Detroit and Cleveland are not independent cities, so it's not completely unreasonable to think that the real estate and economies of their counties wouldn't correlate to a decline in the cities.

[xenokc]

Originally Posted by 1greatcity

I think it illustrates that the St. Louis area is an attractive place to live, and that it contains enough jobs to support its population. People don't tend to stay in an area in which they are unhappy, or in which there are no jobs.

However STL metro is growing only due to birth rate. There is actually a net loss of migration...

St. Louis, MO-IL MSA Population and Components of Change -- Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University Home

Though most larger Midwest metros have a net loss of migration except MSP, Indy, KC and Columbus.

[Chicago76]

Maybe I'm alone here, but since when is 4 to 4.5% growth over a decade a good thing for a metro?

Looking at St. Louis' closest 1 million+ metros:

Younger southern neighbors Nashville, Birmingham, and OK City all grew 7+% to over 20%, with Nashville and OK City in particular are doing well. The nearest Ohio River metros Louisville and Cincinnati grew at 12.5% and 6.0%. Memphis grew at over 9%. The closest I-70 corridor cities of KC, Indianapolis, and Columbus all grew between 10% and 16%.

The only peer cities in the group that grew slower were Chicago and Milwaukee at 3.7% and 4.0%. Chicago was hurt more by the international immigration policies of a post 9/11 world (and the Mexican immigration backlash) more than anyone else in the group. You could also argue that because they do have greater proximity to the real underperformers in the Upper Midwest, that relatively speaking, they're doing better.

I realize that in many ways STL is more of a rust belt city than many of these metros, but I'd still expect Cincinnati or better levels of growth. Posting better results than the Clevelands, Detroits, Buffalos, Rochesters, and Pittsburghs of the world isn't good enough, and people shouldn't interpret the results as something to celebrate.

That would be like the Cubs celebrating a 71-91 season because they finished 15 games ahead of the Astros in the NL central.

That's not to say that STL isn't on the right track. Growth this decade was comparatively better than it was in decades past. This is where MSA growth gets tricky: a collar county might grow 10%, but because there are enough commuters, the entire county now gets included in the MSA, which tends to inflate true growth of a region. It's easier to look at which counties were in the MSA in 2010 and then compare population on a similar basis going back.

1970 to 1980: 1.3% decline
1980 to 1990: 3.0% growth
1990 to 2000: 4.6% growth
2000 to 2010: 4.3% growth

Considering the economy over the last 10 years, this was probably the best decade for the region since the 1960s. We still need to do better.

[Chicago76]

Originally Posted by xenokc

However STL metro is growing only due to birth rate. There is actually a net loss of migration...

St. Louis, MO-IL MSA Population and Components of Change -- Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University Home

Though most larger Midwest metros have a net loss of migration except MSP, Indy, KC and Columbus.

This is a good point. Add Cincinnati to the list too. They're barely net positive thanks to international/domestic migration on a combined basis. If you look at areas that are 500K plus, Omaha and Madison are growing thanks to net domestic migration alone.

[xenokc]

Yeah, it appears the 'new economy' cities of the midwest have the real growth in every category. STL is doing a pretty good job transitioning though and I suspect in a few more years it could see positive net in-migration. It's all about jobs in the end and most midwest cities have some catching up to do from lots of lost jobs in last few years.

[goat314]

St. Louis is doing relatively well compared to other post-industrial metros. I think St. Louis is doing fairly well transitioning into the new economy, but being located in the state of Missouri, which has a ridiculously rural bias, hinders the kind of economic growth needed. St. Louis would also benefit from better planning in the urban core and suburban areas, rehabilitated infrastructure in terms of bridges and public transit, more international refugees/immigrant programs, better cooperation between city and county in economic development, and improving racial relations and disparities. I think St. Louis is on the right path, but is late to the game.

[stlouisan]

I'm quite shocked that Chicago isn't growing in population...I would think it would be. Minneapolis is also doing pretty well. Even Pittsburgh is on the rebound.

[1greatcity]

Originally Posted by Chicago76

Maybe I'm alone here, but since when is 4 to 4.5% growth over a decade a good thing for a metro?

Looking at St. Louis' closest 1 million+ metros:

Younger southern neighbors Nashville, Birmingham, and OK City all grew 7+% to over 20%, with Nashville and OK City in particular are doing well. The nearest Ohio River metros Louisville and Cincinnati grew at 12.5% and 6.0%. Memphis grew at over 9%. The closest I-70 corridor cities of KC, Indianapolis, and Columbus all grew between 10% and 16%.

The only peer cities in the group that grew slower were Chicago and Milwaukee at 3.7% and 4.0%. Chicago was hurt more by the international immigration policies of a post 9/11 world (and the Mexican immigration backlash) more than anyone else in the group. You could also argue that because they do have greater proximity to the real underperformers in the Upper Midwest, that relatively speaking, they're doing better.

I realize that in many ways STL is more of a rust belt city than many of these metros, but I'd still expect Cincinnati or better levels of growth. Posting better results than the Clevelands, Detroits, Buffalos, Rochesters, and Pittsburghs of the world isn't good enough, and people shouldn't interpret the results as something to celebrate.

That would be like the Cubs celebrating a 71-91 season because they finished 15 games ahead of the Astros in the NL central.

That's not to say that STL isn't on the right track. Growth this decade was comparatively better than it was in decades past. This is where MSA growth gets tricky: a collar county might grow 10%, but because there are enough commuters, the entire county now gets included in the MSA, which tends to inflate true growth of a region. It's easier to look at which counties were in the MSA in 2010 and then compare population on a similar basis going back.

1970 to 1980: 1.3% decline
1980 to 1990: 3.0% growth
1990 to 2000: 4.6% growth
2000 to 2010: 4.3% growth

Considering the economy over the last 10 years, this was probably the best decade for the region since the 1960s. We still need to do better.

The St. Louis Metro area's rate of growth in 2000-2010 even exceeded that of the big-leaguers: New York, LA, Chicago, and Boston.

[Chicago76]

Originally Posted by 1greatcity

The St. Louis Metro area's rate of growth in 2000-2010 even exceeded that of the big-leaguers: New York, LA, Chicago, and Boston.

That shouldn't be surprising though, because land is at a premium in all 4 and they are prohibitively expensive for a lot of the general population. Growing out to cheaper areas is tough when you're 90 minutes from downtown. I do agree that it's still a net positive for STL in that respect.

The challenge for STL is to diversify its economy to attain the level of growth in other mid-markets of the north: Columbus, KC, Indy, and Minneapolis are ahead in this department substantially. Cincy is growing a bit better than STL...Milwaukee a bit less. Cleveland, Detroit, Rochester/Buffalo obviously have issues. Pittsburgh isn't growing, but I'd argue that their population and business mix is more dynamic at the moment. They're losing their industrial roots (and the blue collar workforce) faster, but their CBD and white collar diversification has led to inmigration for that subset of the workforce.