St. Louis population density. Misleading? (people, around)

[aaronstlcards]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

What do you think?

Is St. Louis's overall population density (5,724.7/sq mi) is misleading considering it dense, vibrant western corridor? I'm from the Chicago suburbs and when I was in St. Louis last spring I really thought the central west end (from the very short time I was there) was really a lot like Chicagos Lincoln park. (with the high rises, universities and park nearby).

As much as Forest Park is a true gem of St. Louis, its enormous size (along with a huge cemeterey on the north end (from what I saw on google earth) as well as a couple other huge parks in the city (Tower Hill Park?)), in contrast to the city propers rather small size, makes St. Louis pop. density figure kind of small.

I really to see all the great changes there! It wasn't for the civil war cutting off river trade in the 1800s, St. Louis might be as big as Chicago today!

Yes, yes, i've been thinking the same thing. And now that someone else brings it up, I decided to do some research. St. Louis city is 62 sq. miles and included in that is about 5 sq. miles of parkland. So the city has 57 sq. miles of space where people can live.
City plus 5 sq. miles of parkland
Population: 354,361
Area: 62 sq. miles
Population Density: 5,715.5 people per sq. mile
City minus 5 sq. miles of parkland
Population: 354,361
Area: 57 sq. miles
Population Density: 6,216.9 people per sq. mile

Central West End really isn't the typical neighborhood in St. Louis; it's really on the high-end of density and is among about five other neighborhoods that really just have that urban, vibrant feel (similar to neighborhoods in Chicago, Philly, Washington).

[ktCakes]

I think you're right about green space. St. Louis City planners really got it right (in my opinion) when they figured in so many wonderful parks and green spaces.

[1greatcity]

^Well, Wikipedia says the city of St Louis had an estimated population of 370,900 in 2008. For fun, let's use that figure: The city's density would then be 5,982 persons/sq mi. (or 6,507 in your 57 "habitable" square miles).
Why not take this one step further and exclude other parts of the city where people can't live: cemeteries, the arch grounds, water reservoirs, public stadiums, the municipal dock, etc. I bet our density would really skyrocket!

[STLMetro]

Originally Posted by 1greatcity

^Well, Wikipedia says the city of St Louis had an estimated population of 370,900 in 2008. For fun, let's use that figure: The city's density would then be 5,982 persons/sq mi. (or 6,507 in your 57 "habitable" square miles).
Why not take this one step further and exclude other parts of the city where people can't live: cemeteries, the arch grounds, water reservoirs, public stadiums, the municipal dock, etc. I bet our density would really skyrocket!

You need to recheck that Wikipedia estimate. I went to the reference that they got the statistic from (U.S. Census) and it has been updated.... 354,361 is the number, over 61.92 sq. miles of land, 5,616 is the density.

St. Louis city QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau

If we started taking out non-livable land, then every other city would go up as well. Chicago's Lincoln Park and Graceland Cemetary would help them out a lot.

[ktCakes]

Yes, but St. Louis is unique in the amount of green space we have in an urban city. Forest Park is more than 50% larger than Central Park. Add to that Tower Grove, Carondolet etc. and we have one of the largest amounts of green space of any city in the US. A city of only 62 square miles has 3,000 acres of park land and another 170 strips and triangles that have about 200 acres.

[STLMetro]

Originally Posted by ktCakes

Yes, but St. Louis is unique in the amount of green space we have in an urban city. Forest Park is more than 50% larger than Central Park. Add to that Tower Grove, Carondolet etc. and we have one of the largest amounts of green space of any city in the US. A city of only 62 square miles has 3,000 acres of park land and another 170 strips and triangles that have about 200 acres.

Once again, this is a drastic overstatement. We are average at best, only 8.5% of our land is parkland. While 62 sq. miles sounds small, it is 39,630 acres, 3,381 of which is parkland...

http://www.tpl.org/content_documents/citypark_facts/ccpe_TotalAcresPercentofLandArea_09.pdf (broken link)

[zach_33]

Chicago has about 7300 acres of park space on 228 square miles - so if StL has 3000 acres on 62 sq miles... the ratio here is higher in the Lou, but its not like they aren't in the same ballpark. What strikes me about St. Louis is the number of empty lots, razed and condemned buildings, particularly on the north side. For example, do Google street view of the area bounded by Bell, Sarah, Vandeventer, and Cook - keep in mind that there are many many swaths of St. Louis that look like this. It's completely anecdotal, but I don't recall seeing a lot of streets like that in Chi-town.

[ktCakes]

huh. I had always heard differently. Everyone from out of town comments on it, especially my family from Chicago. Maybe it's just where I live.

[zach_33]

Originally Posted by ktCakes

huh. I had always heard differently. Everyone from out of town comments on it, especially my family from Chicago. Maybe it's just where I live.

something that might drive that perception is that average people can feel safe wandering around Forest Park, so most residents take advantage of it at one time or another. Up in Chicago, you could live there your whole life and never step foot in most of the large parks (Humboldt, Garfield, Douglas, Washington, to name a few) because they are in higher crime regions of the city. Shame, too, because they are magnificently designed parks.

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by zach_33

Chicago has about 7300 acres of park space on 228 square miles - so if StL has 3000 acres on 62 sq miles... the ratio here is higher in the Lou, but its not like they aren't in the same ballpark. What strikes me about St. Louis is the number of empty lots, razed and condemned buildings, particularly on the north side. For example, do Google street view of the area bounded by Bell, Sarah, Vandeventer, and Cook - keep in mind that there are many many swaths of St. Louis that look like this. It's completely anecdotal, but I don't recall seeing a lot of streets like that in Chi-town.

We got that here in Chicago too on the south and west sides. Its not quite on the same level as in St. Louis or Detroit, either in extent on the city-level scale, nor is it on the street level scale, but you can do a google maps search and look at these Chicago neighborhoods, and see similar, you just got to go out and look for it. (Which I would advise you to be careful of, since they are not always in the best areas).

Google map these south side Chicago neighborhoods:

Woodlawn, Gran Boulevard, Washington Park, Back of the Yards, Englewood, West Englewood, Roseland, anywhere around lake Calumet on the far south side has patches of swamp that have never been developed in and around industrial areas.

Also, try many areas on the west side too. Look at areas around south of the major medical district and west of UIC. We also have the "South Loop Wilderness" south of the Loop about 1 or 2 miles between the lakefront and the south branch.

I guess the fact that I'm telling you where to look, means you have to look for them, so I guess you made a point.