Shrinking St. Louis – Area drops out of nation’s top 20 cities

Fox 2 St. Louis ^ | March 22, 2018 | Joe Millitzer and Vic Faust

[GuavaCheesePuff]

St. Louis is no longer one of the top 20 largest metropolitan areas in the country. Newly released US Census Bureau numbers show the city's population declined by more than 4,500 people to just over 308,000 residents. That's the largest drop since the 2010 census.

The St. Louis region is now 21st on the list of the nation's metro areas.

The Baltimore area, which had been ranked 21st, swapped spots on the population list with the St. Louis region. The City of Baltimore saw a drop in population greater than St. Louis city, but Baltimore’s loss represented a 0.9 percent decrease, compared with a 1.4 percent loss in St. Louis.

[x]

This goes back to 1876 when St. Louis City voted to separate from St. Louis County because they couldn't be bothered paying for roads and sewers and such in what was then a sparely settled rural area. As a result growth in the suburbs meant losses for the city.

I wouldn't necessarily assume the city's shrinking over the last decade or two was due to white flight. That's certainly possible, but there are also plenty of African-Americans moving from the city to places like Ferguson, MO. By this point it could be a similar situation with Detroit, where more blacks are leaving than whites.

[Cronos]

While it is clear that St Louis and Detroit were Democrat run cities, do note that the largest cities are all mostly run by Democrats

•#1 New York City, NY. Population: 8,550,405. ...
•#2 Los Angeles, CA. Population: 3,971,883. ...
•#3 Chicago, IL. Population: 2,720,546. ...
•#4 Houston, TX. Population: 2,296,224. ...
•#5 Philadelphia, PA. Population: 1,567,442. ...
•#6 Phoenix, AZ. Population: 1,563,025. ...
•#7 San Antonio, TX. Population: 1,469,845. ...
•#8 San Diego, CA. Population: 1,394,928.

Losing the key focus of an area can have a negative cyclical effect. So detroit carmakers shutting down had a knock-on effect on employment, population etc

Similarly New york is growing despite the constant terrorist threat because if a city has a large population that means that more people come in, more interaction, more idea generation, more jobs, more startups, more innovation, etc. a positive cycle

You see this world-wide - the successful cities suck in more and more people and more and more industries.

But they need to be careful to keep infrastructure good, facilities (cleanliness, safety, party places, child-friendly places etc) growing as well

If they do so it is a successful city and the net outcome is that neighbouring cities will lose

I can see the same in Poland where I live -- Warsaw (which I live :)) is booming, sucking in more and more industries. It has large parks, greenery, fun places for youngsters in teh city centre and yet very safe, family areas and forests just 30 minutes tramway ride away. And excellent public services. So more and more jobs and more people and more culture and more "happening"

At the same time cities that are a 100 to 150 km radius from us are dying - like Łódż or Radom. Cities further off, like Kraków or Wrocław or Gdańsk are growing albeit slowly.

In the North-East (of the USA that is), you will see Mega-city one stretching from DC to maybe Boston. Ditto for Mega-city two along southern California and Mega-City three in the Houston-Dallas area.< MG-4 around Toronto-Chicago

And if you visit the Pearl Delta region there is a gigantic mega-city with about 40 million people.

Smaller cities will suffer and become quaint towns, like Brugge or Pisa, once great trading cities, but now bypassed by time.