Is St. Louis more cliquish than other cities its size? (Cape Girardeau: unemployment, school)

[Matthew Hall]

Older places are always more socially complicated than younger ones. That is what cliquishness really is. St. louis is more so than other midwest cities, but that is an opportunity as well as a problem. I've lived in omaha and everyone seems very open, but as dull as dishwater. Connecting to different people in different ways add depth and variety to life. It certainly makes st. louis more interestsing than other midwest cities in my opinion. Pittsburgh, cincinnnati have much the same vibe in this respect.

[Old Trafford]

Originally Posted by xenokc

Then why is there near zero net migration. Many do move there but not many stay more than 5-10 years. It's very clear this is the case with both pop stats and migration stats. Ask a person who leaves why they left... Like I said, a friend who went to school there had a great time but she didn't want to stay based on city personality. Most times I've asked it's not about crime or jobs, it's that they didn't fit in the end. I'm just proposing that this clique thing may be related and I don't think I'm way off base.

Look closely at these stats..
http://www.metrooutlook.org/assets/migration2007.pdf

I'm sure there are other reasons STL is not growing but I wouldn't disregard city personality as one of them. It may be hard for STL to grow if it ignores the possibility of this issue. Am I a really being unreasonable?

Your "stats" are from 1994-2005 - and happen to coincide with some fantastic boom years for KC in telecommunications, I am not sure what they even have to do with the “cliquishness” of St. Louis. My guess is that things are more even now. In fact the city is doing a good job of retaining young people-

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/article_65084ffb-8377-5880-85b5-f64398e0fac3.html

St. Louis had the largest percentage population gain of college educated 25-34 year olds in the country.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-04-01-1Ayoungrestless01_ST_N.htm?csp=34news&utm_source=f eedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+usa today-NewsTopStories+%28News+-+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

Remember most of the population loss was families moving children out of the St. Louis School district. St. Louis’s largest population group loss was children 6-18, what was Kansas City’s? (I am talking actual urban KC - south of the river so we can show apples to apples)

Come back and take a look, it may not be place you remember, or maybe you just need to see it through more experienced eyes.

[xenokc]

I've been talking about STL metro. Both of those articles point to mostly young educated moving from suburbs to the city, which is great BTW, but not the metro as a whole growing from outsiders (and staying). The 2010 census only showed about 5% growth for the metro, not exactly an influx as that is about the rate of net birth/death rate. Even so, I've posted several times that STL metro/city do manage to pull many from the outside, probably nearly as much as KC, but apparently not many are staying for more than 5 years.

If the stagnant population growth is not due to city personality, it is jobs or crime? I'm simply proposing city personality might (likely?) have something to do with it because so many people who do leave mention that.

Hope I'm wrong and that things are changing in STL. MO needs STL to thrive and grow. The GMP numbers aren't exactly showing this though as STL metro has the second lowest GMP per cap of major midwest metros.

[Matthew Hall]

Don't assume that the young professionals moving to downtown are primarily from within the st. louis region. The appeal of downtown may have been enough to draw them from other metros. How can we find out?

[moorlander]

Originally Posted by xenokc

I've been talking about STL metro. Both of those articles point to mostly young educated moving from suburbs to the city, which is great BTW, but not the metro as a whole growing from outsiders (and staying). The 2010 census only showed about 5% growth for the metro, not exactly an influx as that is about the rate of net birth/death rate. Even so, I've posted several times that STL metro/city do manage to pull many from the outside, probably nearly as much as KC, but apparently not many are staying for more than 5 years.

If the stagnant population growth is not due to city personality, it is jobs or crime? I'm simply proposing city personality might (likely?) have something to do with it because so many people who do leave mention that.

Hope I'm wrong and that things are changing in STL. MO needs STL to thrive and grow. The GMP numbers aren't exactly showing this though as STL metro has the second lowest GMP per cap of major midwest metros.

I believe the St. Louis region grew ~4.6% over the past decade if memory serves.

[Matthew Hall]

True the total net growth was 4.6% percent, but where did the new downtown residents come from? St. louis is not detroit, cleveland, or pittsburgh which all had net MSA loses of more than 3%. That is a big difference.

[Chicago76]

Originally Posted by xenokc

I've been talking about STL metro. Both of those articles point to mostly young educated moving from suburbs to the city, which is great BTW, but not the metro as a whole growing from outsiders (and staying). The 2010 census only showed about 5% growth for the metro, not exactly an influx as that is about the rate of net birth/death rate. Even so, I've posted several times that STL metro/city do manage to pull many from the outside, probably nearly as much as KC, but apparently not many are staying for more than 5 years.

I'd use a bit of caution when trying to infer anything from something as general as 2000-10 population changes, especially if you're trying to figure out how many inbounds stay due to something like "metro personality".

1-2000-10 natural growth rate is influenced by things like age of population, which is unaccounted for.

2-2000-10 growth doesn't tell you where the inbounds are coming from or their sociodemographics. A good example: Indy vs. STL. According to the 1997-05 chart, Indy is doing a better job than even KC of attracting new residents. Who are those residents? A lot of them happen to be Mexican. Some basic numbers: there are roughly 55K more Hispanics living in Marion Co (Indy proper) that there were 10 years ago. That's a lot in a county with a population of 900K and most accounts for a huge portion of the inbounds. STL city and county added roughly 15K Hispanics from a total population of roughly 1.3 million. Per head, Indy's growth in the Hispanic population is more than 5x greater than STL. Indy is a huge distribution hub that also happens to be only 3 hours from Chicago, which is the Hispanic capital of the MW. It's not an accident that most of the Hispanic population there lives right off 65 on the NW side, which is only about a 2 hour shot to the first suburbs of Chicago. There is nothing wrong with this, but it's vastly different than your run of the mill middle class (predominantly white) transplant leaving after 5 years because they didn't feel like they "fit in" with a particular areas.

3-Migration patterns have much less to do with perceived cliquishness than they do with regional job growth. If jobs in certain industries where there is a local worker shortage are in abundance, then outsiders will show up. Word of mouth from former neighbors who moved to ATL, Dallas, etc and are having a "great time" helps, but unless you can land a job, there really isn't anything to draw someone to an area...unless we're talking about the top tier cities that new grads are dying to try out for a few years: LA, SF, Chicago, DC, NYC, Boston, etc.

[Old Trafford]

Originally Posted by xenokc

I've been talking about STL metro. Both of those articles point to mostly young educated moving from suburbs to the city, which is great BTW, but not the metro as a whole growing from outsiders (and staying). The 2010 census only showed about 5% growth for the metro, not exactly an influx as that is about the rate of net birth/death rate. Even so, I've posted several times that STL metro/city do manage to pull many from the outside, probably nearly as much as KC, but apparently not many are staying for more than 5 years.

If the stagnant population growth is not due to city personality, it is jobs or crime? I'm simply proposing city personality might (likely?) have something to do with it because so many people who do leave mention that.

Hope I'm wrong and that things are changing in STL. MO needs STL to thrive and grow. The GMP numbers aren't exactly showing this though as STL metro has the second lowest GMP per cap of major midwest metros.

Well St. louis did suffer the closing of 3 auto plants (2 Chrysler and 1 Ford) from 2006 to 2009 - that was 6,000 jobs, probably explains a bit of the GDP drop. However, since 09, things have been quite good.

http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/article_ff1858c4-8dc1-5aaa-b4de-d39f424cb676.html

Here is the Brookings report, St. Louis ranks 54 th world wide in recovery. It actually has been an OK 2 years, but remember St. Louis was very slow growth prior to that, as most older metros are.

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2010/1130_global_metro_monitor/1130_global_metro_monitor_profiles/St.%20Louis.pdf

KC if your curious-

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2010/1130_global_metro_monitor/1130_global_metro_monitor_profiles/Kansas%20City.pdf

At 4.5% we are in line or better performing than our peers, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Pittsburg and Detroit.

While everyone would like to see the number rise the economic engine was not there in the 90’s and 00’s to provide it, loss of industrial might negated what gains that were in health care and financial sectors, both of which are strong points for St. Louis.

Actually when this recession ends I think the metro will be poised for health again, but more to the point, cliquishness might be a problem here, but maybe no worse than anywhere else, and probably not the reason for anemic growth.

After all downtown and the rich neighborhoods have made great strides, Metrolink is now well funded and a model of light rail, the urban suburbs Maplewood, U-City and Clayton are flourishing. Neighborhoods like the Grove, Tower Grove, Old North, Shaw and about 5 others where you would have probably not dared go in 10 years ago are awash with coffee shops, bars, resturants people on the street, and surprising enough… baby carriages, I have to smile when I think about when I left here in the 90’s to what it is today. It’s good… and it has legs.

And then with the China Hub… Well who really knows...

[xenokc]

Originally Posted by Chicago76

2-2000-10 growth doesn't tell you where the inbounds are coming from or their sociodemographics. A good example: Indy vs. STL. According to the 1997-05 chart, Indy is doing a better job than even KC of attracting new residents. Who are those residents? A lot of them happen to be Mexican.

See page 7...
http://www.metrooutlook.org/assets/migration2007.pdf

KC and STL have more international in-migration than Indy. KC's are mostly Mexicans and STL had a big Bosnian migration and some Mexican... and both getting more Asian.... but both more Intl than Indy overall. A big chunk of Indy growth is from Chicago (page 25). Indy had more domestic in-migration than international unlike KC/STL.

STL was actually having international gains and domestic loss and they offset each other. (page 7) This may have changed recently. Will be interesting to see the next migration report from 2005-2010, which should come out next year.

3-Migration patterns have much less to do with perceived cliquishness than they do with regional job growth.

I would agree that jobs are a bigger factor. But the migration numbers show that many people who do come in don't stay for more than 5 years. Jobs would be one reason but given that many people mention city personality when they leave, it may have something to do with it as well. The fact this thread exists is an indication. And if it does and STL ignores it... well you can't solve a problem if you don't acknowledge the core causes.

KC's recent problem is that people are now moving here w/out a job (via a friend works for MO State job employment service, who feeds BLS data). I'm surprised that KC's unemployment is still below national avg given this recent influx.

[xenokc]

Originally Posted by Old Trafford

[
Here is the Brookings report, St. Louis ranks 54 th world wide in recovery. It actually has been an OK 2 years, but remember St. Louis was very slow growth prior to that, as most older metros are.

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2010/1130_global_metro_monitor/1130_global_metro_monitor_profiles/St.%20Louis.pdf

KC if your curious-

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2010/1130_global_metro_monitor/1130_global_metro_monitor_profiles/Kansas%20City.pdf

Here's more recent data straight from the Feds... STL has second lowest Per Cap GMP in the Midwest (3rd post in thread). Manufacturing does have better GMP than the Service industry and a lot who had manufacturing jobs in STL probably went to the service industry.

//www.city-data.com/forum/kansa...y-kc-does.html

The original source from Feds is here...
http://www.bea.gov/regional/gdpmetro/