St Charles County's population passing St Louis City's

citysoul · PostApr 18, 2008#12008-04-18T04:47+00:00

For the first time in the history of St Louis, the city's population is now trailing that of TWO metro area counties: St Louis County and St Charles County.

St Charles County had an estimated 2007 population of 348,844. This was an increase of 10,125 residents since its 2006 estimate of 338,719.

In the fourth quarter of 2007, St Louis City's population was estimated at 344,683. This reflects a slight decrease since the 2006 estimate.

Of course, the city's numbers may again be challenged by Mayor Slay. A challenge to the 2006 estimate claimed the city's population had been under-estimated by 6,656 persons. A similar undercount of the 2007 figure would mean the city would have closer to 351,000 people.

Even so, a slightly-higher city estimate would be no match for St Charles County's rapid growth rate. The county currently adds an average of 844 new residents per month, resulting in a population that can be estimated at about 352,000 as of mid-April. Again, this surpasses the city's population estimate, even if adjusted due to an undercount.

Footnote: This topic is presented as simply an observation-- an interpretation of population statistics. It's in no way intended as a slap in the face to the city. That St Louis City seems to have virtually ended its hemorrhaging of residents should be celebrated.

carrieocity kills · PostApr 18, 2008#22008-04-18T16:57+00:00

i thought it surpassed us a long time ago (?)

doug · PostApr 18, 2008#32008-04-18T19:11+00:00

St. Charles is a parasite leeching residents from St. Louis County and City. The 844 new residents per month are not new to the Metro Area. This is sprawl, not growth.

juiceinkirkwood · PostApr 18, 2008#42008-04-18T20:35+00:00

Scary. I can only hope it stops some time. We are currently looking in the city (south city, Dogtown) and some inner-ring burbs (Maplewood, Richmond heights, U City). My wife who doesn't know the area keeps sending me places off of Craigslist in like St. Chuck....I say...ST. YUCK!

Sorry.

the central scrutinizer · PostApr 18, 2008#52008-04-18T22:33+00:00

Doug wrote:St. Charles is a parasite leeching residents from St. Louis County and City. The 844 new residents per month are not new to the Metro Area. This is sprawl, not growth.

So?

moorlander · PostApr 19, 2008#62008-04-19T00:42+00:00

^ no kidding, the way of the world.

warwickland · PostApr 19, 2008#72008-04-19T04:19+00:00

A good chunk of people new to the metro but from outstate MO seem to be gravitating towards St. Chuck, maybe this accounts for some. Otherwise, I'd guess this growth is coming in no small part from North County...same as it was when I was moved from North County to St. Peters in the 80s. Got to love the "West Plex."

Hopefully, someday, more of my peers that have grown up in St. Charles County will stop writing off the entire region as "dead" and fleeing after high school/college, and discover the City.

goat314 · PostApr 19, 2008#82008-04-19T04:48+00:00

^ Exactly! most of the St. Louis bashers are not from St. Louis City. People who say stupid bs like "St. Louis is boring" or "St. Louis doesnt have this and that, thats why I moved to XYZ City" are usually from St. Charles County or far West County like Chesterfield. I've heard people from St. Louis burbs say stupid things like "St. Louis is not even dense or urban enough for light rail expansion, thats why I wouldn't vote for it" or say something ignorant like "St. Louis didn't have any culture, thats why I moved to (insert every overrated, commercialized city in America) ". All of us on this forum know that is obviously crap and that St. Louis is one of the few "true" urban cities in America (although our urban fabric is quickly deteriorating thanks to the "grass is greener on the other side" attitude many in this area have), but it does piss me off when I hear so-called "St. Louisans" move to Atlanta or Florida and start selling out a city that they were never a resident in.

PostApr 19, 2008#92008-04-19T05:05+00:00

Although I think its normal for many teens to get bored with their hometowns and want to see something new (especially if your from a cookie-cutter suburb), it just seems like many St. Louisans hate where there from especially well. The irony is that its hard for me to find someone that is not from St. Louis and doesn't love St. Louis! I cant count how many times some of my college buddies from the "cosmopolitan and cool" city of Miami rave about how St. Louis is one of the coolest cities ever and our journey was about as extensive as the metrolink took us (pre-cross county extension) plus Six Flags

I agree with Warwickland.... I think its going to take the generation of angry suburban raised kids to rediscover the city their grandparents fled before we see any significant population shift.

citysoul · PostApr 19, 2008#102008-04-19T19:10+00:00

warwickland wrote:A good chunk of people new to the metro but from outstate MO seem to be gravitating towards St. Chuck, maybe this accounts for some. Otherwise, I'd guess this growth is coming in no small part from North County...same as it was when I was moved from North County to St. Peters in the 80s. Got to love the "West Plex."

I think the fact that St Louis County's population has slipped back below one million illustrates that it is bleeding residents, mostly as sprawl. And when I think sprawl in this area, I immediately think St Charles County.

Now that St Chuck is filling up fast, that sprawl is spilling over into Lincoln County, which is currently the fastest-growing county in the state.

With the price of gas, I'm surprised that the tide hasn't begun to shift. Seems that by now, it would've become unfeasible for people in places like Wentzvile, Troy, Lake St Louis, etc. to commute such long distances. Seems like there should be a steady flow of residents back into the inner-ring suburbs and into the city itself. But I don't see it happening. Why is that??

goat314 · PostApr 19, 2008#112008-04-19T20:50+00:00

^ In most urban cities a good number of the jobs and economic activity is located in the central business district and city. Since St. Louis is such a fractured region with lack of vision we have a Clayton and Downtown St. Louis and with Creve Coeur and Chesterfields implementing there own suburban downtown districts it looks like we are headed for creating an even more decentralized region. This will be the power structure's excuse for not supporting mass transit in the future, they will just say that the region is too spread out and cost too much money. It would be cool if we could set up a European style multimodal transportation system like they have in London (which is a bunch of little suburban villages separated by great belts connected to the city core by high speed commuter rail). I do like the great rivers master plan which is sort of like creating a green belt, but we just need a good transportation plan to go with it.

Here is an example similar to what we used in my planning class. The orange areas represent urbanized areas the white in between is supposedly green belt and all these little villages are connected to London by highspeed commuter rail. Not saying St. Louis would ever do this just saying it would be great if we could emulate something like this!

http://londonairconnections.com/LondonH ... iesMap.png

migueltejada · PostApr 19, 2008#122008-04-19T23:24+00:00

^ I love naivety.

Did they also teach you in your planning class that the UK/Australian planning model is highly centralized? That means that local planning authority is superseded by regional, state, or crown authorities, which gives them the power to enforce planning policy? If so, that's more than they did in my class.

St. Louis (and the rest of the USA) lacks any form of regional, much less state planning authority. EW Gateway is a joke - a rubber stamp and even then it's a rubber stamp for transport, not housing development. The entire planning system in the US is incredibly fragmented, every municipality for itself. There's too much money to be made for a community to turn their city from farmland to residential and commercial land. No city in its right mind would ever consider the opposite. That's why hippies can scream all they want to about "sprawl" (which I have railed as not being as bad as everyone thinks), but the fact remains that unless people all over the metro area are willing to give up their local authority to cede to regional or state interests, it'll never happen. And no one, NO ONE IN THE HISTORY OF EVER will ever give up power to a stronger government authority in the USA. EVER.

goat314 · PostApr 20, 2008#132008-04-20T01:23+00:00

^ Please further explain my naivety "O' Knowledgeable Scholar"

. I really don't understand why some of you guy's got hard-ons for talking condescendingly to people, but I guess I shouldn't expect anymore. If you actually read my post (instead of jumping on the opportunity to belittle me), you would have noticed that I said "Not saying St. Louis would ever do this just saying it would be great if we could emulate something like this". I do realize that the Feds have little to no planning power in cities on an individual basis. Planning in cities are controlled by the local governments and I never denied this. I was just implying that it would be great if we lived in a country (or city in our case) that valued our social well being over the fastest and cheapest ways of handling things and thats all, but I guess your going to call me a socialist now, huh? Maybe even a hippie, because I value the practical method of transportation and I'm anti-sprawlsville! By the way, why would you love naivety? Does it make you feel like a big boy, to think that someone else knows less than you? Maybe you should take pride in thought, different perspectives and open discussion instead, because thats what Urbanstl.com is about.

jlblues · PostApr 20, 2008#142008-04-20T01:30+00:00

migueltejada wrote:There's too much money to be made for a community to turn their city from farmland to residential and commercial land. No city in its right mind would ever consider the opposite.

Not that I would hold it up as a model for success, but Portland has done so, as I'm sure you know.

stl1991 · PostApr 20, 2008#152008-04-20T04:49+00:00

citysoul wrote:
warwickland wrote:A good chunk of people new to the metro but from outstate MO seem to be gravitating towards St. Chuck, maybe this accounts for some. Otherwise, I'd guess this growth is coming in no small part from North County...same as it was when I was moved from North County to St. Peters in the 80s. Got to love the "West Plex."

I think the fact that St Louis County's population has slipped back below one million illustrates that it is bleeding residents, mostly as sprawl. And when I think sprawl in this area, I immediately think St Charles County.

Now that St Chuck is filling up fast, that sprawl is spilling over into Lincoln County, which is currently the fastest-growing county in the state.

With the price of gas, I'm surprised that the tide hasn't begun to shift. Seems that by now, it would've become unfeasible for people in places like Wentzvile, Troy, Lake St Louis, etc. to commute such long distances. Seems like there should be a steady flow of residents back into the inner-ring suburbs and into the city itself. But I don't see it happening. Why is that??

But the people who live in Wentzville don't work downtown they work and shop in st.charles county so its not that bad a drive

citysoul · PostApr 20, 2008#162008-04-20T06:11+00:00

Actually, I work in the city with people who live in the Wentzville area. In fact, one woman drives to the city from Desloge, which is in St Francois County. It takes her over an hour on a good day.

Personally, I wouldn't do it. It makes little sense to live so far from your job, or to work so far from your home. That's like 480 hours a year spent commuting, not to mention burning gasoline and contributing to pollution. A shorter commute translates to more personal time to spend with family or taking care of other obligations.

The one real advantage I can see to living in the surrounding counties is that the school systems are generaly better than the city's. But those co-workers I spoke of-- who commute from places like Wentzville and Desloge-- don't even have kids.

Also, it doesn't make sense to me (as a city resident) why anyone would not want to live close to all the great amenities the city has to offer. People who live in the ex-urbs have to endure even more of these long "commutes" to attend a museum, to eat at a cool Middle-Eastern restaurant, to visit the Botanical Gardens, to see show at the Muny or Fox, or to attend a Cardinals game.

stl1991 · PostApr 20, 2008#172008-04-20T14:20+00:00

i agree but there is no way the majority of people are willing to commute over an hour to work everyday.

ntbpo · PostApr 20, 2008#182008-04-20T21:54+00:00

It's easy to surpass St. Louis city in population when you have 10 times the land area.

St. Charles County-605 sq mi

St. Louis City- 62 sq mi

St. Louis city density 350000/62= 5645 people per sq mi. (happy)

St. Charles county density 350000/605= 578 people per sq mi. (sad)

migueltejada · PostApr 20, 2008#192008-04-20T23:12+00:00

goat314 wrote:^ Please further explain my naivety "O' Knowledgeable Scholar" . I really don't understand why some of you guy's got hard-ons for talking condescendingly to people, but I guess I shouldn't expect anymore. If you actually read my post (instead of jumping on the opportunity to belittle me), you would have noticed that I said "Not saying St. Louis would ever do this just saying it would be great if we could emulate something like this". I do realize that the Feds have little to no planning power in cities on an individual basis. Planning in cities are controlled by the local governments and I never denied this. I was just implying that it would be great if we lived in a country (or city in our case) that valued our social well being over the fastest and cheapest ways of handling things and thats all, but I guess your going to call me a socialist now, huh? Maybe even a hippie, because I value the practical method of transportation and I'm anti-sprawlsville! By the way, why would you love naivety? Does it make you feel like a big boy, to think that someone else knows less than you? Maybe you should take pride in thought, different perspectives and open discussion instead, because thats what Urbanstl.com is about.

Yeah, I read the post in full - didn't care, my point still stands. But furthermore:

Most planners have this loveley ability to ignore economics when they make decisions, as if the first law of physics doesn't exist in planning (every action has an equal and opposite reaction).

Placing a hard green-belt around a city (aka AN URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY) does two things: 1 - it increases density, uptake in under-utilized or vacant lots, and internal investment in infrastructure to handle said influx (assuming population keeps increasing. Generally, planners accept this is a good thing. However, it also: 2 - raises the cost of housing, which in turn raises the cost of everything else.

Now, with people on a fixed income, this is devastating. If you're not on a fixed income, you've got an OK situation, provided you don't lose your job or get hit with large unexpected expenses (car wreck, medical, etc.). If you're a homeowner, your property taxes get jacked up, if you're a renterm, your rents get jacked up. This puts a ton of stress on everyone.

Now, for this there's two options: 1. Leave it as is, 2. Subsidize low-income housing/institute a scheme to artificially keep rents down (eg - rent control). You'd be hard pressed to get people to willingly part with more taxes to subsidize someone else's place to live, so you'd probably have to go with rent control. That creates a disincentive to own property, especially with rising property taxes. So you'd get people selling property, driving the relative value down, while builders/developers fail to build new buildings because they can't sell the properties cause there's little incentive to own as an investment - so you'll only get OO developments - which again - KILLS YOUR RENTAL MARKET. So now you've got overpriced rental properties that no one wants to own, upkeep goes down because it's a fixed resource and there's little new units coming onto the market and little incentive to stay competitive - which leads to the creation of....slums!

Now my scenario is incredibly over-simplified, but the fact remains that these forces are always at play within cities that try to enact UGBs and it's a VERY delicate operation (note Manhattan has one of the highest costs of living in the world for this very reason - a natural UGB!)

juiceinkirkwood · PostApr 21, 2008#202008-04-21T02:31+00:00

My boss at my job in Creve Coeur lives in Troy, MO (Lincoln county). I work with a guy who lives in St. Charles that literally won't go to the city for a baseball game, because he is seriously afraid of it.

village idiot · PostApr 21, 2008#212008-04-21T03:38+00:00

I hate Saint Charles because it's cool to hate Saint Charles.

stlmike · PostApr 21, 2008#222008-04-21T05:58+00:00

ntbpo wrote:It's easy to surpass St. Louis city in population when you have 10 times the land area.

St. Charles County-605 sq mi

St. Louis City- 62 sq mi

St. Louis city density 350000/62= 5645 people per sq mi. (happy)

St. Charles county density 350000/605= 578 people per sq mi. (sad)

Exactly. St Charles is ten times the size and is just barely catching up. Big deal.

doug · PostApr 21, 2008#232008-04-21T12:17+00:00

Miguel, the cost of housing could use an increase in St. Louis. That would lead to reinvestment making our property more attractive for rehab. We cite our cheap housing as a reason to move here, but the fact is that St. Louis is seeing very little migration. EW Gateway report shows our population growth to be dismal compared to other regions. People don't seem to care about our cheap housing, so we should stop caring how cheap it happens to be. People will pay to live in an area which is dense, offers a diverse range of services, and has great urban infill and rehabs, regardless of price.

UIC planners actually show that rehab is more attractive than suburban style.

But asking Missourians to pay more for anything, even if its good in the long run, isn't popular. That's why a green belt will never happen in St. Louis. We can only hope for gas prices to increase.

We currently have too much vacant housing. If we do a green belt, we can put mixed income housing on transit lines, as they do in Hong Kong, which would allow these individuals access to many jobs. We then subsidize the housing in order to make up for the dead weight loss created by high housing prices. This would remove spatial mismatch, as jobs are in the urban core and more accessible via transit. We are subsidizing their housing, but this would reduce unemployment. 91,000 people in this region don't have a car or access to transit.

jcity · PostApr 22, 2008#242008-04-22T03:40+00:00

bring on the UGB! aren't we one of the least dense metro areas in the country? yes, the city is dense, but in terms of number of people per 14 counties in the MSA, I don't think we are overall. How many vacant lots on the north side could be rebuilt, etc.

Do European cities have UGB's? I would assume they would, otherwise their vast countrysides would be nothing more than garbage sprawl like I-70 in St. Charles.

migueltejada · PostApr 22, 2008#252008-04-22T05:36+00:00

JCity wrote:bring on the UGB! aren't we one of the least dense metro areas in the country? yes, the city is dense, but in terms of number of people per 14 counties in the MSA, I don't think we are overall. How many vacant lots on the north side could be rebuilt, etc.

Oh, if only it were true. But it's not. Here's why:

Say we create a UGB and it stops at 270, just cause that makes life simple. Logic would dictate that land values would instantly increase - yes? Ok, good. Now, that's because demand goes up while supply stays unchanged - provided population continues to increase. All settled on that. As such, people will have to build in the slums because there's no where else, and people will flock there and all will be right in the world, yes?

Wrong.

The fallacy in the logic is that this demand will be equally distributed across the area. It won't. Why don't people want to live in the North Side right now? Racism, sure. Crime's usually the biggest, coupled with lousy schools, poor access to services, etc. A UGB will not make NSTL a more attractive place to live. Demand will still be low. What you'll actually get is more applications and demand for areas like Ladue, Creve Coeur, Kirkwood, Webster, Clayton, U-City - nice, safe "lily-white" places. The demand to live in these areas will be astronomical, since there's no where else for people to go, and these are the most desirable areas. The cities will be fighting off high-rise developments left and right. People think clayton is dense now? Just wait for a UGB.

Will development occur in the north side? Of course it will. There's always slum lords. But the majority of the activity WON'T occur there. If anything, the region's population center will be further to the west than it is right now.