Is St. Louis more cliquish than other cities its size? (California: live in, moving to) - Missouri (MO) - Page 8 - City-Data Forum

BoomBoxing · 07-15-2011, 12:39 PM

I don't have evidence or stats or anything but if you're seriously trying to say that KC is less cliquish than St. Louis, I have to call shenanigans. KC is not some national draw. KC doesn't even have a tier 1 or tier 2 university, right? KC does not have a national reputation as a progressive place to come to express yourself artistically (No STL doesn't either, but that's not my point).

I am actually a big fan KC and think it's underrated in many ways. But people move where the jobs are and KC is up and coming economically, but it is not at St. Louis' level. And the majority of the people who have taken the poll on this thread don't seem to think St. Louis is cliquish for a city its size (or chose the silly answers) so I am not exactly sure why you keep stating that as fact.

xenokc · 07-15-2011, 12:48 PM

yeah, i'll try to keep KC out of it... it's not a big national draw, never said it was.. KC is in the middle... was only saying KC has more new blood than STL and there's lots of different methods that show this. STL has some universities that bring people in but apparently not many are staying.

This is really interesting migration data that shows migration of various cities... STL also did a study that shows the same data. Pretty fascinating detail down to how many are moving in/out of cities...

http://www.metrooutlook.org/assets/migration2007.pdf

My original point, KC aside, is that STL is cliquey because it's not drawing/keeping enough new blood to overcome it. That's pretty reasonable and there are all kinds of stats to support it.

stlcitygirl · 07-15-2011, 12:55 PM

^ But again, More than a third (36.4%) of the population growth in the KC metro area was accounted for by the increase in hispanics. So while it is true, KC had more growth in the last 10 years than STL, it doesn't say a word about KC being able to keep residents because its less cliquey.
Anyway, this conversation got way off track. The OP question, is it more than other cities. I say NO, I never had a problem meeting anyone. The hardest time I ever had meeting people was down in Florida, that was brutal.

BoomBoxing · 07-15-2011, 12:58 PM

Perhaps, but the thread title is cities of comparable size. Unless there is some sort of economic boom like the research triangle in NC or the relatively good economy in Texas, I don't think net migration, and "cliquishness" (is that a word?) are much different in St. Louis than most cities. My ex-gf lives in Phoenix and it took her years to make friends and build a social circle...I think it really just depends.

Heck I'm in DC, the transplant capital of the US, and find a lot of people are somewhat cliquish. I have made some friends though so it's not bad.

xenokc · 07-15-2011, 01:19 PM

You might take a closer look at the net migration data. STL is different.

Back to the OP, I would say that STL is more 'cliquey' than most others and has more of an inward demeanor with less fresh blood than most other markets (and posted stats to support the latter). I would also say that this may have something to do with the flat migration. I work at sites around the country (last two jobs over many years) and STL does stand out - would also say the same about Cincy, Cleveland. Just my two cents.

kshe95girl · 07-15-2011, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stlcitygirl

^ But again, More than a third (36.4%) of the population growth in the KC metro area was accounted for by the increase in hispanics. So while it is true, KC had more growth in the last 10 years than STL, it doesn't say a word about KC being able to keep residents because its less cliquey.
Anyway, this conversation got way off track. The OP question, is it more than other cities. I say NO, I never had a problem meeting anyone. The hardest time I ever had meeting people was down in Florida, that was brutal.

Totally agree with the FL thing, I have lived here 21 years, I have never, ever lived anywhere where people were more shallow and cliquesque than here.
I have far more friends in the STL area than I have here.
The only thing I can chalk it up to is so many of the people here seem to be here to either retire, or they are just here short-term.

aragx6 · 07-18-2011, 08:50 AM

Man I wish I could see all those transplants in KC. I suspect it's not significantly different in St. Louis (but I've never been a part of the workforce there) but I work in an office of 120+ people here on the Plaza in KC and I can count the number of transplants on one hand -- almost everyone here is a born and raised Kansas Citian.

xenokc · 07-18-2011, 09:40 AM

^Anecdotal of course... where I live/work, about 25% are not from this side of midwest. The migration stats show a pretty accurate story as IRS data is more accurate than Census data and it shows KC gaining/maintaining quite a bit more from the outside.

Is interesting that KC has more from STL than STL has from KC...
17,940 moved from STL to KC, 16,343 moved from KC to STL, a net 1,597 to KC.

KC aside... it's hard to acknowledge but STL metro is simply not keeping people. Many variations of stats show this and it shouldn't be ignored. Many move there but then move out after a few years given the near net zero migration gains and 5% growth (birth/death net difference). STL needs to figure out how to maintain people and this clique thing actually might have something to do with it. Just ask a person why they leave and some variation or near tangent of the clique thing is usually brought up.

STL (and KC) both need to grow with city-minded as MO is going from a swing state to almost solidly red with the growth of Southern MO small town minded/praise jesus people.

aragx6 · 07-18-2011, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xenokc

^Anecdotal of course... where I live/work, about 25% are not from this side of midwest. The migration stats show a pretty accurate story as IRS data is more accurate than Census data and it shows KC gaining/maintaining quite a bit more from the outside.

Is interesting that KC has more from STL than STL has from KC...
17,940 moved from STL to KC, 16,343 moved from KC to STL, a net 1,597 to KC.

KC aside... it's hard to acknowledge but STL metro is simply not keeping people. Many variations of stats show this and it shouldn't be ignored. Many move there but then move out after a few years given the near net zero migration gains and 5% growth (birth/death net difference). STL needs to figure out how to maintain people and this clique thing actually might have something to do with it. Just ask a person why they leave and some variation or near tangent of the clique thing is usually brought up.

STL (and KC) both need to grow with city-minded as MO is going from a swing state to almost solidly red with the growth of Southern MO small town minded/praise jesus people.

I think the bolkded part is silly. I know more people who've moved to St. Louis and loved it than the reverse.

xenokc · 07-18-2011, 10:41 AM

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?