Poll, Population Goal for St. Louis in 2050
The population of the City of St. Louis is currently less than any point in the 20th century. Our population is what it was way back in the 1880s.
Our population decline was as spectacular as the climb. Both were the result of a number of factors. My poll this week, visible in the upper right corner of the main page, is asking what St. Louis’ target population should be by 2050.
“The U.S. has nearly 305 million people today, and is projected to reach 400 million by 2039 and 439 million in 2050.” [Wikipedia]Â With the U.S. population expected to rise substantially in the next 40 years, mostly in larger regions, what might we expect for the City of St. Louis and the St. Louis region?
I think St. Louis should work to keep pace with the overall growth in our national population. That would put us at 508,000, roughly, by 2050.   Such an increase isn’t going to happen overnight and it won’t happen if the regional population doesn’t increase as well.
Greater St. Louis has a population of 2.8 million. If our region were to grow at the projected national rate we’d have just over 4 million by 2050. Of course some regions will grow more while others will grow less. If the city and region do not grow at all that would be shocking and very telling of major issues.
I think at both the core and regional level we can take actions today to ensure things are rosey by 2050. A strong urban, walkable, transit-cvonnected core is important to the future health of the entire region. Our actions could have the reverse impact — causing us to miss a great opportunity to fill in our core (city + inner suburbs).
So thae the poll and share your thoughts below.
I think in order for St Louis City and region to grow we need to get out of this small town mentality. We also need to deal with the divisions across racial and class lines that poison this region.
St. Louis is not going to turn back into the urban mecca it once once. The economy has changed (not only the current crisis but the importance of river cities has been diminished by the highway system) making it more important to focus on the assets we have (central U.S. location, charming buildings, great parks, etc.). That being said, residents are too busy to decide on the whole that we need to change. Those who have the ability to change the city (politicians, local organizations, and active residents) must make the changes that will make residents stop and take notice of the positive impact urban renewal can have. For example, lets say we made trains more accessible which increased volume which increased discussion of the ease of taking trains which led to increased volume, and so on and so on. Eventually we may see bars and restaurants around the train stops or coffee shops, who knows, each stop is very different. Ultimately it would be feasible to take a train to, e.g. the loop and get off within 100 yards of a nice place to be, then you carry on into the reaminder of the neighborhood. At this point the population who doest have the foresight and imagination to picture this, would join in. Anyway, you see my point…maybe: those who “get it” must simply do it and let others follow.
Well said Keethler. I think for many, the small town mentality (which I love in my neighborhood) stops when many think about the city as a whole. Things seem large and out of control, and we feel small and insignificant. Truely though, the people who put themselves out there, can often have more inpact than they even realize, both positive and negative.
My population goal is a little higher. If more growth is to naturally happen in Urban areas, let’s say 65%, plus the influx of green living of another 10%, makes 75%, or 572,000. Good post, we need goals.
It’s so difficult to project outward that far. Any number of catastrophes could happen that might cause either a mass emptying or mass influx within the city. For example, if oil is completely tapped out and the replacement is not online, we could see similar densities to the 1950 figure as densely built environments are in demand once more. Or we could see that an intractable public schools crisis, concentrated poverty, and high crime keep St. Louis relatively stably populated at around 350,000. Or we could see a horrible earthquake damaging the city permanently, with some people never to return, and end up with less than 200,000 permanently.
I am more interested in the 2010 census and the mid-census estimate for 2015. What are your thoughts on that? I think an optimistic census count for 2010 would put the city at 366,000. If the housing market recovers and more schooling options are available, it is conceivable to reach 2015 with a population of 380,000.
“A lack of vision has held us back,” says one candidate running for mayor in another city that has lost half its population in the past 50 years. The result? In December the average price of a sold home was $7500. Locals like to to boast about how cheap StL real estate is compared to other cities with growing, livable, and prosperous neighborhoods.
– –
Boasting about affordability comes in a package that too few here seem to understand or appreciate. There is no major grocery chain in the city and it “does not have the financial resources and the economic base to solve its own problems.” Sound familiar? http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-detroit-housingjan29,0,5435392.story
Can’t we just start with one goal at a time? How about putting St. Louis back into St. Louis county? Or, getting rid of competition for Tax Financing measures that make all our little municipalities fight over the same piece of the regional corporate pie? Why can’t we all just get along?
Minor nitpick: Wikipedia has 2007 estimates posted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Louis,_Missouri#Demographics) which shows a higher population number for the City.
I see no future scenario, here or anywhere else in the country, where the single-occupant-vehicle is no longer the primary means of transportation for the vast majority of our population. The technology powering these vehicles will likely evolve to provide more options and better efficiency, but the simple convenience of being able to go directly from point A to point B, whenever you want, in a private, climate-controlled pod of some sort, will remain as a HUGE driving factor (bad pun, I know) in the decisions most people will make in how they live their lives. Sure, some people will choose to make some or all of their trips as pedestrians, cyclists or transit riders, but they will, unfortunately remain a much-too-small minority, likely making less than 5% of the trips being made every day.
.
Given that construct/assumption, I can see the region continuing to grow, slowly, and if we can address some fundamental infrastructre issues/perceptions in the city (crime, public school system, racism, taxation rates, etc., etc.), I can see the city bouncing back, to a certain extent, as well. But outside of downtown and the CWE, I’d expect to see any reinvestment following a lower-density, suburban-scale model, much like what’s happening in the surrounding suburban areas and much like we see in Grand Center and Loughborough Commons and many other “city” projects. Our land values are simply too low to justify structured parking (as much as we want to see it, as urban advocates). And given our recent efforts at (not!) funding a viable public transit system, the one big driver for higher densities outside of downtown (TOD – transit-oriented development) appears poised to “whither on the vine” before our eyes. Parking those pods, be they scooters or Suburbans, will continue to drive our built environment – sorry.
.
As a region, we do have a lot of things that can work in our favor – a central location, plenty of water, good transportation infrastructure (for moving both goods and people), winters that are pretty tolerable and comparatively low land costs. We have an airport that can accomodate a lot more traffic and a “spare” one in Illinois if Lambert ever gets too congested. We have the parks and the architecture and the pro teams and the universities that we all support to varying degrees and argue about incessently. I’m no tax expert, but I think our tax rates aren’t too scary, especially when viewed in their entirety, in comparison to other states and regions. And our negatives aren’t that great. Our summers are hot and humid, but so are the summers in 80% of the rest of the country. We face a potential major earthquake, but so does most of urban California (and that hasn’t slowed them down). We don’t have a beach or major ski slopes, but we do have good air connections to places that do.
.
Other areas, especially growing ones in the west and south, are starting to face some major water supply issues. We ocassionally face the opposite (floods), but we have the luxury of an abundant and predictable supply. Some places will never be major manufacturing or distribution hubs, simply because of geography and their distance from major markets – we have been and can likely be again. Unfortunately, our biggest hurdle probably remains one of perception – too many recent graduates and too many CEO’s simply don’t have St. Louis on their radar when it comes to looking at options. We don’t have the same fundamental attraction of an NYC or a Chicago or an LA, of a San Diego or a Portland or a Seattle, of a Phoenix or a Denver or an Austin, or even of an Atlanta or a Charlotte or a Nashville. We’re more in the league of an Omaha or a Cleveland or a Birmingham or a Louisville. WE know that we have a lot to offer, albeit in a smaller, less-hectic package, but we’re rarely anyone’s first choice.
.
We have two fundamental choices to make. One, do we really want to grow more rapidly (like an Atlanta or a Phoenix) or are we comfortable with our current, slow(er) rate? And two, if we want to grow more rapidly, what do we want to do to stand out / become more cool / register on more people’s radar around the country? Personally, I’m conflicted. I lived a lot of my adult life in a booming area, and while it offered a lot of opportunities for me as an architect, I also watched a lot of land being gobbled up in ever-expanding suburban sprawl. I also watched a lot of the original physical amenities being “loved” to death, making a lot of what I originally found to be special becoming harder and harder to access and enjoy. Forest Park and the waterfront are both accessible and enjoyable today – would they remain so if the population doubled over the next two or three decades? Finally, in most boom areas, affordable housing becomes an ever-increasing challenge. For better or worse, housing remains very affordable around here. And while most of us could benefit from a big run-up in home values, do we want our kids and grandkids struggling a lot more than we did to buy that first place?
I would love to see St. Louis grow dramatically in size and become the great urban environment it once was with state-of-the-art transit, new quality architecture, strong schools, thriving culture, etc. Unfortunately I don’t think the leadership (and frankly most of the residents in the metro area) has the vision to see this and make this happen. We are still developing new suburban sprawl type projects within the city! Until St. Louis can wake up and become more forward thinking, the best that can happen if for our growth to continue to be stunted. At this point I would rather fight for our assets, what we do have left, to be preserved. Once a vision is established then we will have a direction for growth to occur. I would rather St. Louis not become the next Atlanta.
Jimmy Z, you make some excellent points and I agree with them wholeheartedly. Personally, I’d like to see St. Louis grow some more but in a manageable way (so not St. Charles or Chesterfield). There is so much vacant land to develop in the city of St. Louis it is unbelieveable. However, it will stay vacant for decades unless the city of St. Louis razes and rebuilds its’ public school system, introduces more grocery stores/retail/banks into North City, and makes a commitment to stay with the program and not give up on it after 10 years. Positive change can happen in the city of St. Louis; but we have to elect the right people to do it, which we haven’t done in a long time.
In How the Crash Will Reshape America: The recession will accelerate the rise and fall of specific places within the U.S. The Rust Belt in particular looks likely to shed vast numbers of jobs, and some of its cities and towns (Cleveland, St. Louis, Buffalo to Detroit) will have a hard time recovering.
– –
“Between 1940 and 1960, the homeownership rate rose from 44 percent to 62 percent. Demand for houses was symbiotic with demand for cars, and both were helped along by federal highway construction, among other infrastructure projects that subsidized a new suburban lifestyle.” Basically government sponsored programs and legislation that led to a combination of higher home ownership and a dramatic increase in the reliance on cars and highways. Has that bubble burst? Who in their right mind trusts GM, MoDOT and your local zoning czars?
– –
The author who also wrote The Rise of the Creative Class recommends many of the same things Steve prefers to explain. (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200903/meltdown-geography) “If there is one constant in the history of capitalist development, it is the ever-more-intensive use of space. Today, we need to begin making smarter use of both our urban spaces and the suburban rings that surround them—packing in more people, more affordably, while at the same time improving their quality of life. That means liberal zoning and building codes within cities to allow more residential development, more mixed-use development in suburbs and cities alike, the in-filling of suburban cores near rail links, new investment in rail, and congestion pricing for travel on our roads.” How many of the these priorities are being implemented in St Louis that are both economical and effective?
john – in my mind, few, if any. Our first/biggest challenge is to simply reverse the jobs drain. That can’t be fixed with zoning or building codes; it means reinventing our local economy, and it means changing perspectives and preconceptions, locally, regionally and nationally. A growing economy will create demand for land and development, potentially both good (urban infill) and bad (suburban sprwal). Whether it means trying to replicate “new” successes elsewhere (computers, biotech, aquariums, etc.), focusing on our traditional strengths (primarily water, a central location and a robust transportation infrastructure) or blazing our own trail (who knows, a variation on the creative class scenario?), it sure doesn’t mean continuing to focus on building more and more shopping centers! Without more and better jobs to replace our fading manufacturing base, we will be doomed to what your first paragraph predicts – absent increased demand, “the ever-more-intensive use of space” simply won’t occur, and we’ll look in 2050, as a city and a region, much like we look today, only older, and likely shabbier and poorer . . .
To have Metro grow requires more taxes. To get more taxes requires making a valid argument: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zohxmWM63-M Just making vague promises for one new line, sometime in the future, and/or threatening to (or actually) cutting back on service in the area that generates a significant amount of the current (but meager) taxes, is NOT!