Welp, this is a wild disappointment (Kansas City, St. Louis: good schools, to live, safe)

[BoomBoxing]

Yeah something is off but I really don't feel like it's worth putting much of a fight up about. You have to figure the next time the census does an "estimate" that it will probably show St. Louis at or near the 2009 number of 355,000+. Regardless, population levels are stagnant and we need to try something new to get the number to really move in a positive direction the way it is in the outlying parts of the region.

Also, I think a lot of what's happening is the suburbs are more affordable now than ever. Combine that with job centers being spread throughout the region and you have a tough case to make to get people to move into the city or for some people to stay in the city. Particularly families with several kids. There are a lot of really great tangibles for city living that appeal to many people, but at the end of the day it comes down to what makes the most economic sense.

One thing I've noticed over the past several years is that people who live in the city are there because they want to be there. There's so much pride in the city...from the ubiquitous "CITY" stickers to the city flags I see all the time...the STL Style t-shirts I see people wearing. Not to mention all the positive people I meet out and about and that post on forums like this...people who really care about STL's future and are trying to be a part of a solution. I know it's still definitely the place I want to be.

Enough pep talk though, let's get to work STL!

[MoNative34]

The city is attracting new residents. The problem is retention. Growing up, I remember seeing a lot of elderly people in south St. Louis. My grandparents lived there. A few years ago, I went back to the street where they lived and the people I knew growing up had passed on and the neighborhood had mostly younger people.

A friend of mine purchased his first home in Southhampton on Winona. Nice tudor style house. His street was similar... Younger couples. They loved it. Then they had two kids and had to move. If they could fix the schools, I think the city could retain more.

[loki03xlh]

The loss of population isn't a bad thing in and of itself. I'm more concerned about who has moved out of and into the city. I would bet that the city South of the Delmar has stayed the same or increased population while I am sure North city had decreased dramatically. Good, hardworking people will continue to flee the North side until crime there is at least down to the level it is in the rest of the city.

Our population problem will not improve until two things are fixed:
1. Crime: St. Louis is listed as the most dangerous city in the country. Yeah, some of you say that it is because it is landlocked, a city that is not included with the entire metro area in crime stats because of the "Great Divorce", blah, blah,blah. The cold, hard fact is that the city proper, as a whole is dangerous when compared to other cities. The city knows it, the county residents know it, and because of the reports, the rest of the country knows it. That's a main reason why new people don't move to the city and why others are leaving. I read too many crime reports where the suspect carjacks someone, performs a robbery, burglary, drive-by, or murder, then we find out that the person has done it 2,3,or 4 times before and is back on the street waiting trial, or on probation. The police can only do so much. The rest of the justice system needs to get their rear in gear and send these punks away. As long as thugs know they will be back on the streets in a couple of months or sooner, there is no reason to reform.
2. Schools: Parents who have a choice will not send their kids to schools the are dangerous and under or non-performing. Too many 20-somethings graduate college, move to the city, get married, have kids, then move to the county once their kids are old enough for preschool. The city has to give them a reason to stay. The kids MUST be able to go to a good school and be safe enough to walk home afterwards.

I have hope for the city. I am looking into buying investment property in south city, and eventually moving there myself. This problem will get better, but it will take time. It took 60 years to lose 500,00 residents. It will take that long to get them back.

[1greatcity]

There's no way the city lost 29,000 people. Remember, many of those residents who left the north side moved to the south side. Even the census figures agree that Downtown and Midtown increased in population. Most south side neighborhoods have either held steady or increased. All in all, I think the previous estimates made by the city were a lot closer to the mark. The census was in error, plain and simple. I hope Mayor Slay challenges the numbers, as he has in the past.

[stlcitygirl]

Loki03,
But people ARE moving to the city. Almost every 20-30 something I know moved to South City. Thats why its a little shocking.

[loki03xlh]

Originally Posted by stlcitygirl

Loki03,
But people ARE moving to the city. Almost every 20-30 something I know moved to South City. Thats why its a little shocking.

I know, I was sure that the city would add more people, but it seems that folks are moving out of North city faster than the younger folks are moving to South city. Also do you know of any 20-30 somethings that moved to South city and have kids, and are sending them to public schools?

I moved to the area 2 years ago. I don't have kids, but my girlfriend has two daughters and there was no way I was going to move to the city and send them to public schools. Private schools are out of the question for us, and we cannot afford them.

If it was just me, I would of moved to South city, no problem. A little crime doesn't scare me, it's a trade-off for living in a city.

[stlcitygirl]

^I do know several people that send their kids to a public school that is very good, its called Kenard. A huge chunk of the neighborhood kids go to St Margarets, which is private, but I don't think too pricey. There are good public options in the city, you have to do your homework.

[loki03xlh]

Originally Posted by stlcitygirl

^I do know several people that send their kids to a public school that is very good, its called Kenard. A huge chunk of the neighborhood kids go to St Margarets, which is private, but I don't think too pricey. There are good public options in the city, you have to do your homework.

I have heard of Kennard. For a lot of people to move their families into the city, they want to be able to send their kids to the local neighborhood school, and not have to worry about getting into a gifted school that may or may not be in their neighborhood. I know that my GF's younger daughter would not make it in a gifted school, but she deserves a good public education, just like any other child.
Also, I personally do not agree with the arguement that parents should have to look into magnet or charter schools as an alternative to SLPS. SLPS should be fixed, NOW.

[aragx6]

KC has hardly been a leader in school progress (from what i have seen KCMO's SD is in much worse shape overall than St. Louis' at this point), but I thought this was interesting:

Hale Cook Elementary School | Movement to Open as a Neighborhood School within KCMSD

Essentially it's a new neighborhood school they plan to open. The simple fact is they're creating a small (about 350 kids) neighborhood school with what I'll politically call carefully chosen boundaries.

[MUTGR]

Well the story is certainly getting attention. It is linked on drudge today.

I would say the death of the exurbs, at least in the St. Louis metro area, has been greatly exaggerated.