Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Missouri > St. Louis
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-02-2011, 06:46 AM
 
3,635 posts, read 10,748,416 times
Reputation: 1922

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawn10am View Post
I really don't think annexation is the answer. Memphis can annex and it's led to some negative results. As soon as the city annexes an unincorporated suburban area, white flight begins anew and people end up moving even farther out, resulting in even more sprawl. The area that it annexed then goes way downhill and becomes a suburban wasteland. Annexing suburban areas into the city lowers the population density and adds vast swaths of land that the city may or may not be able to provide services to. I'd hate to see that happen to St. Louis.
It's been negative sometimes, causing white flight (Raleigh, Hickory Hill, and now Cordova) but positive in past annexations (East Memphis). East Memphis has remained very stable over the years. It still manages to keep a lot of wealthy people in the city limits, mostly due to the high number of private schools. And it's not just a small part of Memphis, it's huge. It's suburban, but not in a sprawly way. In the St. Louis area, I'd compare it to Mid-County, though not as affluent, except in a few neighborhoods. It would be nice in St. Louis had those areas within its city limits and people actually stayed. It would add a lot of wealth and population to the city limits.

Last edited by Smtchll; 11-02-2011 at 07:16 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-02-2011, 08:41 AM
 
Location: Tower Grove East, St. Louis, MO
12,063 posts, read 31,623,677 times
Reputation: 3799
Give the county another two or three decades of population loss and aging infrastructure, and you might be surprised what they want then. Not saying it's by any means a given, but I also don't think it's an impossibility.

I'd particularly like to see the city rejoin the county as a separate muni within the next 5-10 years though. Seems like a solid first step.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2011, 09:52 AM
 
Location: Washington, DC area
11,108 posts, read 23,888,805 times
Reputation: 6438
KCMO has lost more than StL in the central city or it's very close. KCMO had close to 500k in less than 100 square miles. Now that same area has less than 250k and the entire city of over 300 square miles has about the same population as the original central part of kcmo did way back. The same can be said about many, if not most cities in the midwest and rust belt.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2011, 02:42 PM
 
Location: Kansas City, MO
3,565 posts, read 7,980,138 times
Reputation: 2605
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawn10am View Post
I really don't think annexation is the answer. Memphis can annex and it's led to some negative results. As soon as the city annexes an unincorporated suburban area, white flight begins anew and people end up moving even farther out, resulting in even more sprawl. The area that it annexed then goes way downhill and becomes a suburban wasteland. Annexing suburban areas into the city lowers the population density and adds vast swaths of land that the city may or may not be able to provide services to. I'd hate to see that happen to St. Louis.
Yes! Bigger is not always better! Quality over quantity. Besides, why would an urban city want to annex suburbs that are supposedly so unsustainable, inefficient and expensive to maintain. The only reason would be to make numbers look better on paper and partly disguise/dilute problems, and perhaps "redistribute" wealth in one way or another. Disguising/diluting problems, basically ignoring them, isn't going to solve anything.

Also, I tend to think power being in more people's hands, as in each municipality having it's own governance, each school district, etc. is better than centralizing power. Then cities can choose to go different routes, try different things, and learn from one another, set examples, and have their own flavor.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2011, 03:30 PM
 
Location: St. Louis
1,221 posts, read 2,748,863 times
Reputation: 810
That's really the only reason Memphis keeps annexing, to disguise its population loss. But that can only work for so long. In TN, no municipality can cover more than half of any county's land area. So Memphis will have to reckon with it one day.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2011, 04:45 PM
 
Location: Saint Louis, MO
3,483 posts, read 9,018,326 times
Reputation: 2480
Quote:
Originally Posted by WUSTL '14 View Post
Sometimes I dream about STL county finally giving in and allowing annexation...then I wake up and realize it will never happen. What a shame, it would make St Louis look so much more impressive, similar to how Indianapolis looks now after those annexations in the '60s.
Gotta remember, St. Louis County wanted to be part of St. Louis City back when the county was nothing but farmland. The city wasn't being very forward thinking, so they shunned the county off thinking "people live in the city...what do we want these farms for"...some years later it's been the city knocking on the county's door asking for some sort of merger, and now the county has no interest in being part of the city.

It's not as if being in the city is some sort of exclusive club...had St. Louis County residents wanted to be part of the city...they'd have moved there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2011, 07:55 PM
 
2,233 posts, read 3,165,944 times
Reputation: 2076
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcmo View Post
KCMO has lost more than StL in the central city or it's very close. KCMO had close to 500k in less than 100 square miles. Now that same area has less than 250k and the entire city of over 300 square miles has about the same population as the original central part of kcmo did way back. The same can be said about many, if not most cities in the midwest and rust belt.
Well...KC has lost about 50% of its core population while StL has lost close to 2/3. So KC has not lost "more", either numerically or as a percentage, but it is a smaller city and always has been, and St Louis at its peak was very dense and urban while KC at its peak was merely denser than it is now, but not really on the same level as StL historically.

Certainly your larger point still stands, St Louis is not an outlier in terms of core city population loss for the urban midwest. It has happened everywhere, though suburban annexation masks it on paper for places like Indy, Columbus, Memphis, KC, Omaha, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2011, 08:13 PM
 
Location: Round Rock, Texas
12,950 posts, read 13,342,606 times
Reputation: 14010
I lived on Hancock Drive in South St.Louis (Jefferson Barracks) from 1954-57.

The city seemed huge to me - over 750,000......and the 'burbs were just starting to boom.

My brother was in the 2nd graduating class (1956) at Bishop DuBorg High School. I attended St.Bernadette Parochial elementary.

So long ago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2011, 08:26 PM
 
Location: Jefferson City 4 days a week, St. Louis 3 days a week
2,709 posts, read 5,097,146 times
Reputation: 1028
Quote:
Originally Posted by s.davis View Post
Well...KC has lost about 50% of its core population while StL has lost close to 2/3. So KC has not lost "more", either numerically or as a percentage, but it is a smaller city and always has been, and St Louis at its peak was very dense and urban while KC at its peak was merely denser than it is now, but not really on the same level as StL historically.

Certainly your larger point still stands, St Louis is not an outlier in terms of core city population loss for the urban midwest. It has happened everywhere, though suburban annexation masks it on paper for places like Indy, Columbus, Memphis, KC, Omaha, etc.
Memphis really is not part of the urban midwest. It's the South, and part of the New South at that. From what I can tell, Memphis has gained in population, like the rest of the South. Last time I was there it seemed as though the city was nowhere near the state of decay of any midwestern cities. In any event, I might also say that Kansas City includes all of Jackson County, whereas STL only includes the city. It really doesn't make it a fair comparison. THe overall metro has grown in population, however.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2011, 10:37 PM
 
3,635 posts, read 10,748,416 times
Reputation: 1922
Quote:
Originally Posted by stlouisan View Post
Memphis really is not part of the urban midwest. It's the South, and part of the New South at that. From what I can tell, Memphis has gained in population, like the rest of the South. Last time I was there it seemed as though the city was nowhere near the state of decay of any midwestern cities. In any event, I might also say that Kansas City includes all of Jackson County, whereas STL only includes the city. It really doesn't make it a fair comparison. THe overall metro has grown in population, however.
I don't think it's the New South. It's nothing like Nashville or Atlanta. People don't move to Memphis from other places, usually. I don't think the city of Memphis grew from 2000-2010. According to this...
Mapping the 2010 U.S. Census - NYTimes.com
The county grew 3.4%, and it looks like it was almost all from suburban growth, not Memphis growth.

Actually I think Memphis is way more comparable to St. Louis than to any New South city. We have a Central Corridor stretching from Downtown to the opposite edge of our city. I dont know if anyone here actually calls it that, but it parallels Downtown, Midtown, and CWE in STL. The difference is, instead of 1 "bad side" we have 2. Both the North & the South sides of Memphis are considered bad. The good areas are the Central Corridor, East Memphis (comparable to Mid-County) and Cordova (comparable to West County suburbs, except it's going downhill) It's weird because STL almost mirrors Memphis when I think about areas that are similar to each other.

Last edited by Smtchll; 11-02-2011 at 10:49 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Missouri > St. Louis
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top