Home » Events/Meetings »Planning & Design »STL Region » Currently Reading:

St. Louis Population: Census History, Estimates, Challenges and Projections

April 19, 2007 Events/Meetings, Planning & Design, STL Region 6 Comments

St. Louis, like most “rust belt” cities, experienced significant popuation loss during the later half of the 20th Century. Yes, old news but here is a recap:

In the 1950s St. Louis lost 106,770 people (12.5%), in the 60s that figure was up to 130,757 (17.4%), and in the 70s it continued to clime to 166,465 (26.9%). By the 80s we saw the losses slow to 56,119 for the decade (12.4%). In the 1990s the rate of decline dropped again, this time to 48,496 — the lowest decline in a decade, but still a major decline (12.2%). Added up we lost almost 60 percent of our population.

Nearly everyone we will agree the city is no longer hemorrhaging population as we had during the previous five decades. Today Mayor Slay and Planning Director Rollin Stanley announced the U.S. Census Bureau had once again partially accepted the city’s challenge to official 2006 population estimates. The Census had estimated a population of 347,181 while the city argued for 354,943. The final number per the Census for July 1, 2006 is 353,837.

Compared to the 2000 Census population of 348,189 we show a total net population gain of 5,648 in a six-year period. While an average annual gain of 941 people is not substantial it is certainly cause to celebrate compared to losing anywhere from 4,850 to 16,647 people per year (avg.) as in prior decades. Still, this represents a gain of only 1.6% since 2000 so I wouldn’t really call that gaining — more like treading water. When we have double digit gains in a decade then I think we can proclaim we are indeed increasing our population.

Census figures show a 1,175 drop in population from 350,214 in 2002 to 349,039 in 2003. The city’s figures, shown at today’s press conference, show our population lower than the census figures for 2001 & 2002 (347,954 & 347,252, respectively).  UPDATE @ 3:15pm – Director of Planning Rollin Stanley just returned my call from earlier with a clarification on why the census figures for 2001 & 2002 don’t match that of the city.  As the city had challenged 2003-06 figures the newly revised are etched in stone but the Census continues to make slight adjustments in those numbers which were unchallenged by the city (2001-02).  Regardless of the differences, the city & census seem to agree we continued to loose population very slowly between 2000 and 2003 for a net loss of 150 people.  Thus, our gains are only very recently. For 2006 we show an increase of 1,265 but in 2005 the increase was 1,867 and a large 2,666 in 2004. Each increase is a fraction of one percent of our population.

So while the census and the Mayor annually hug and come to agreement something is still not right with population figures: projections on future population from the East-West Gateway Council of Governments. Their most recent figures, from the Legacy 2030 Transporation Plan (adopted March 2005), shows St. Louis continuing to decline through 2010 before making a slow climb by 2030 to a figure lower than today:

This is not exactly a rosey picture. The 2000 figures shown above are from the 2000 Census, the balance are projections. We will know in a few years after the 2010 Census how accurate the projections, published in 2005, really were. I confirmed with East-West Gateway these are the most recent public projections they have released. A spokesperson indicated they are in the process of revising their projections and was uncertain what decisions, if any, were based on these figures from their Legacy 2030 Transportation Plan.

05popest

I put together the above chart to see the differences between the 2005 estimated projection by E-W Gateway and the Census estimates for the same year. Most were close but three stand out: St. Louis City, St. Louis County and St. Charles County. E-W Gateway under-estimated the populations of both St. Charles County (4.6%) and St. Louis City (7.4%) while over-estimating St. Louis County (a minor 1.6%). Clearly, the population is moving around differently than E-W Gateway had anticipated in just the first five years of their transporation plan, much less the remaining 25 years.

 

Currently there are "6 comments" on this Article:

  1. Mike G. says:

    Do you know if the entire region’s population has grown as a whole? I know a lot of people like myself that moved to the City from out of State. I’m wondering if we are (over)compensating for others still moving to the County?

     
  2. john says:

    Virtually every financing/lessor project promotion data package I’ve reviewed contains underlying assumptions/projections (regarding population trends and income data) for the region which projects further declines. It would be misleading to potential investors/lessees to do otherwise given the strong historical trends. It becomes furhter problematic for analysts as numerous governmental entities have conflicting data. Defining the denominator as the basis of deviation understates the miscalculations.

     
  3. Rob says:

    This is a well-reasoned and methodologically-sound post.

     
  4. Jim Zavist says:

    Both sets of numbers are estimates / best guesses, based on available data that’s been manipulated and extrapolated. Until there’s another actual census in 2010, there won’t be any “hard” numbers (and even those won’t be “perfect”). And, as with everything statistical, these numbers can and will be manipulated toward whatever end is desired, whether it’s competing for federal funding or taking a shot at E-W Gateway.

    I do agree with the broader conclusion – that the metro area is not growing as rapidly as many sunbelt metropoli (metropolises?) – and that we’re just continuing to sprawl outward. I am surprised by some of the Illinois numbers, given the amount of suburban growth that’s obviously happening over there – if the numbers are actually close to being “right”, there should be no need for another bridge over the Mississippi.

    Negative growth (population loss) is not good. Maintaining the status quo isn’t all bad, however, nor is growth always a “good thing”. New stuff popping up in farm fields on a daily basis can be fun or can be depressing – it depends on ones’ perspective. In many areas where explosive growth is happening, the environment and the existing infrastructure is being stressed, many times severely. (And, as we all know, aging infrastructure can be as fragile as overstressed infrastructure.) The flip side is affordability. Invariably, it’s less expensive to buy an existing home in a stagnant market than it is to but a new one in a booming market.

    The biggest challenge with a lack of growth in population (over the total area) is the parallel lack of jobs growth. When there a lot of new jobs out there, there seems to be more “churn” in the jobs market. People are less afraid to leave an existing job for a new one, since there are so many to pick from. In stagnant areas, like ours, it’s a lot harder, especially if you’re younger or have been out of the working world for a while, to get one’s “foot in the door” – there simply are fewer opportunities, since many folks just hunker down, do their job and try to stay where they are. This is probably the biggest challenge in attracting both new people and new businesses to the area, and it’s a chicken-or-egg problem!

     
  5. john says:

    In attempting to avoid the long explanation, the third dimension in this type of analysis should be included. The demographic profile (including assumptions on birth/mortality rates, etc.) is critical to understanding the ramifications of these projections. The city and inner suburbs have a larger percentage of their population in the elderly categories then national norms.

    This will increase the need for new residents in order to keep the population in the flat to positive growth categories. Are we doing enough to improve the attractiveness of the region? Making it less biking and pedestrian friendly alienates the very group the area needs to attract. The New I64 as designed fails to meet anything close to what is known as “complete streets”.

    SLPS, crime, negative press, etc. hardly helps and there is the whole litany of other problems we don’t need to reitierate. What’s troubling is that these problems are all man-made … but it is also the source of hope.

     
  6. ed hardy clothing says:

    We'r ed hardy outlet one of the most profession
    of the coolest and latest ed hardy apparel, such as
    ed hardy tee ,ed hardy bags,
    ed hardy bathing suits, ed hardy Polos,
    ed hardy board shorts , ed hardy men T-shirt,
    ed hardy swimwearand more,
    ed hardy clothing. We offers a wide selection of fashion
    cheap ed hardyproducts. Welcome to our shop or just enjoy browsing through
    our stunning collection available wholesale ed hardy in our shop.

    our goal is to delight you with our distinctive collection of mindful ed hardy products while providing value and
    excellent service. Our goal is 100% customer satisfaction and we offer only 100% satisfacted service and ed hardy
    products. Please feel free to contact us at any time; we are committed to your 100% customer satisfaction. If you're
    looking for the best service and best selection, stay right where you are and continue shopping at here is your best
    online choice for the reasonable prices. So why not buy your ed hardy now, I am sure they we won’t let you down.

     

Comment on this Article:

Advertisement



[custom-facebook-feed]

Archives

Categories

Advertisement


Subscribe