Why is the population of St. Louis less than half it was in 1950, and less now than in 1880? (St. Charles: crime, houses)

[Highpointer]

The Cardinals won the World Series tonight, and it would appear to me that with the Cardinals' success, St. Louis should be one of the most popular cities in which to live and one which should attract many new residents. However, I have checked the population history of St. Louis, and it appears that St. Louis has lost more than half of its population since 1950. Its population today is only 37% of its population of 1950. Here is the population history of St. Louis since 1950, when it reached its population peak:

1950 856,796 +5.0%
1960 750,026 −12.5%
1970 622,236 −17.0%
1980 452,801 −27.2%
1990 396,685 −12.4%
2000 348,189 −12.2%
2010 319,294 −8.3%

St. Louis was the fourth-largest city in the USA in 1910, but in the past 100 years its population has dropped precipitously, and it is now the 58th largest city in the USA. The population of St. Louis is smaller now than it was 130 years ago, in 1880.

Why has the population of St. Louis dropped so much over the years? A great American city should be gaining in population, not losing so many people.

[Smtchll]

most other cities annex. Memphis has been annexing the surrounding areas for decades, so it makes it seem like the city hasn't had any population loss. In reality, the original city limits has definitely lost population. St. Louis is stuck with its original, small city limits. It can't annex and regain the population that moves further out. Of course, that doesn't explain everything because St. Louis County (completely separate from the city) has lost population since the last census too. However, it was only a 1.7% population loss, and the first decline in population in over a century. About 1 million people live in the county, so it's misleading when you read that St. Louis only has 319,000 residents. The STL metro as a whole has never declined in population.

[moorlander]

answers
1. landlocked city with small footprint
2. poor leadership and decision making
3. national trends toward auto centric/suburban living
4. real/perceived crime issues
5. large companies deciding to relocate
6. City/County divide

Keep in mind that the St. Louis MSA continues to grow.

[jskirwin]

As the other commentators. I wish to add though that moorlander is right about the overall growth of the metro area. My family immigrated to the US and settled in the area just south of Busch stadium at the end of the 19th century. They then moved onto the South Side in the early 20th, then to South and West St. Louis County in the late 20th. Now some have moved into Jefferson and St. Charles.

You can't look at just city statistics. You have to consider the entire metro area including the growth of counties in Illinois on the other side of the river. If you don't you'll think that St. Louis is dying; it's not. It's a very vibrant city IF you consider the whole area.

[MrRational]

Most industrial cities had a population peak at about 1950...
most of this was wake from WW2 production jobs.

Since then even the domestic use industrial work has declined...
and not just in St Louis.

hth

[stlcitygirl]

They are correct, there are around 3 million people in the STL metro area

[1greatcity]

I, for one, am glad there aren't 856,000 people living in the city of St Louis nowadays. Can you imagine dealing with 2 1/2 times the current volume of traffic? Not to mention more than double the litter, a sizable increase in the incidents of crime, even longer waits at the DMV, etc. etc. Me thinks we are enjoying a better quality of life in our city with its lower population.

[flynavyj]

well, don't forget you'd also have a significantly increased tax base, contributing to: more extensive mass transit, more police presence, and a more thorough street cleaning program, and most likely better schools. This doesn't even take into account the general improvements of a significantly larger urban core, more walkable neighborhoods, and the increase in population density that city residents always go gaga for...In all accounts, I believe a DRASTIC increase in city residents would net an improvement for the city as a whole...

PS, the DMV sucks everywhere...unless you go in the first 1/3 of the month (not on the first though) and do so at opening hours. Helps if you can find a location where everyone is timely too, so there are even less "stragglers" left over. Just a tip

[aragx6]

^I think you're both right; there's clearly a happy medium that I'd like to see reached and it's somewhere between 319K and 856K. From what I've read, at its peak, St. Louis was overcrowded and living conditions for many were poor, so I'm not convinced we want to return to that. 500k would make me happy as a clam though.

To the OP: There are quite a few "collar" municipalities that hug the St. Louis city limits that would have, without the city/county split (which you can read about here), most likely been annexed long ago. The city limits' itty bitty 61 sq/mi is incredibly small in comparison to most other American cities and has an affect on overall population numbers as well as more targeted statistics such as poverty and crime.

[masterwood89]

Originally Posted by aragx6

^I think you're both right; there's clearly a happy medium that I'd like to see reached and it's somewhere between 319K and 856K. From what I've read, at its peak, St. Louis was overcrowded and living conditions for many were poor, so I'm not convinced we want to return to that. 500k would make me happy as a clam though.

I've heard that unofficially between 1946-1949 the population was closer to 900k before a lot of the NoCo suburbs were built in 1949 and 1950. Yes the main problem imo was the severe overcrowding of certain sections of the city. Over 30k people had communal toliets and some families were living in basements with no windows. Also when you take into consideration the numerous examples of urban renewal. The riverfront had 20k people living on it now it has 0 people. Mill Creek Valley had 10k people now maybe has 100 people? All the houses in Koscuisko have been destroyed. The 4 highways that gash the city have destroyed many homes as well. St. Louis will never be able to achieve the population it once had and thats really not a bad thing, not only for St. Louis, but for many cities in the Midwest and Northeast.

Really I think the city could easily have 600-650k people again, but that would be the peak if we still can't annex anything. It would push the density for the city between 9,600k-10,500k and that would be perfect for the city.