Readers Expect 2010 Census To Show Population Gain Over 2000 Census
Nearly 85% of you felt St. Louis will show a population gain over the 2000 Census figure with most thinking the number will be higher than the 2009 estimate.
Q: The 2000 Census had St. Louis’ population at 348,189, the 2009 estimate at 356,587. Where will the 2010 count be?
- More than 356,587: 82 [ 58.57%]
- Between 348,189 and 356,587: 36 [25.71%]
- Less than 348,198: 13 [9.29%]
- who knows, will just have to wait for the results 7 [5%]
- Other answer… 2 [1.43%]
I fall into the #2 camp, I think our number will be between the 2000 count and the 2009 estimate. Why? The methodology used for both is very different. Anything above 348,198 will still be huge though. Nearly 10% of you think we will show a loss, I hope you are wrong!
The “other” answers were:
- has to be more than 356,587 due to the amount of construction permits issued
- >375,000
The actual count taken in 2010 has nothing to do with building permits. In the last 10 years we’ve shifted population around. Folks are living in places they didn’t in 2000, like downtown, but other areas have emptied out.
– Steve Patterson
Population density can be a very positive thing, but it is not in and of itself an unassailable indicator of neighborhood “health” or viability. Lafayette Square and Soulard were more densely populated 50-60 years ago, as was the entire city, yet most would agree that those neighborhoods are more vibrant and stable today. A further example would be four-family dwelling home in 1955 to four large, low-income families as well as boarders living in the basement with a communal toilet, cots, and hot plates. Or a large, single-family house chopped up in 1945 into 12 tiny apartments for shoe factory workers up from the Bootheel during the week. Whole neighborhoods of the city were just like this in the “good old days” of 800,000+ population. Today, thanks to historic tax credits, those same buildings might respectively be two fee-simple townhomes occupied by two “yuppie” couples and a restored single-family house occupied by a small family…the shoe factory is now in China, but that's another topic! Density at these addresses is clearly reduced, but in terms of neighborhood health, safety, and investment, which usage is better? I cannot imagine how 850,000 people packed into 61 square miles (1950 census) was an optimal situation.
If my math is right, that is 2.639 people per square foot in the city limits!?? That seems like a lot of people per square foot to me!
Also, remember, even in the 1950's some portions of the city were never dense, like St. Louis Hills, so the density was even higher in some portions of the city, mainly inside Grand. BTW, I came up with 2,000 square feet per person.
1 sure mile = 27,878,400 sq. ft x 61 = 1,700,582,400 / 850,000 residents = 2000 sq. ft. per person.
haha, yeah, that sounds more reasonable….forgot to sq. the feet first!
This was before major highway construction. It was a very crowded, smoky, congested place, with people flopping in Forest Park to cool off during the summer, with thousands of dwellings that still had the can out in the back yard, perfuming the air, with neighborhoods where infants were routinely attacked by marauding rats. It was precisely the most densely populated areas that were deemed “slums” worthy only of demolition. This view was certainly flawed, but historic preservation, along with integration, had not been invented yet, at least not here. Author James Deakin described the core of St. Louis in the middle of the last century as “a swarm of misery.” He seldom had any nice things to say about the city that gave him his start as a writer, but to some extent, he had a point.
I recall a Jim Fox story wherein he described the can in his parents' yard and the neighboring yards attracting hordes of rats. Things are much improved in that respect. Now they just attract squirrels. Fat ones, too.
Yes St. Louis was dense at one time, but it is mistaken to equate 800,000 population with difficult living conditions. That is the whole point of city building to make life better for all. In fact is density is a plus, adding success to city services.
Nor am I sure that Lafayette Square and Soulard are more vibrant today. I lived in and owned property in Soulard for 10 or so years, and lived in Lafayette Square on the Park in the 70's, the 12 tiny apartment era. Mixing discussions of poverty and economic vitality produce confusion. I have studied old Soulard extensively and early Soulard body slams the current Soulard as an economic and social success. Dividing mansions into 12 apartments in Lafayete Square is another discussion, although I find it interesting that is what the Communists did in Russia.
With density you get into design, into architecture and creating public and private, intricate spaces within the framework of the dense city turning the city into a walk in the forest. Much of that intricacy has been demolished and lost, making St. Louis far too suburban.
In fact it is important to realize the false support of the suburbs, water, sewer, electric gas and so on are being subsidized for the less dense outer reaches of the area. This is significant money. But because the true cost of spreading out is not tracked, it has become hidden. (that does even not mention other factors such as roads, transit, oil wars etc)
So maybe 850,000 people in 61 sq miles is not optimum, but converting everything into a domain for “yuppie” couples is not an answer either.
The health and welfare of the community depends on many factors, and as New York and many other cities demonstrate, density can be a positive force, it just depends on the attitude going into the discussion.
Change in housing units is more important to fiscal health. But population change is the status symbol. It wouldn't hurt if St. Louis were more like Pittsburgh in its numbers. Basically, it's ok to shed lower-income families and older residents, if replacing with higher-earning and younger, albeit smaller, households.