KCRag Forum

i had always heard that STL was more "integrated" than KC but i find that hard to believe.  in KC, east of troost is probably 95% black, 4% latino, 1% other, but the same can be said of north STL.  the south half of STL seems mostly white with pockets of black and other.  Forest Park Southeast in particular (i think i'm getting that right) seems to have a strong black population.  other than that the south half of STL basically feels like midtown KC in terms of demographics and the north half of STL feels like east KC.

I don't know any hard data about segregation, but I've always been under the impression that the Delmar divide was as potent a cultural force as Troost. Maybe moreso historically. I know that STL has a history, as Staubio noted, of urban "gated communities" going back a couple hundred years. Perhaps STL's depopulation, which was largely a white exodus, and its resultant demographic shift has changed things. I think STL has a black majority now. Is this correct? Maybe its just 50/50. Regardless, one would expect that as the city's population became increasingly black, that some of the de facto segregation lines would blur. My own limitted personal experience, however, has always been that it is as or more segregated than anywhere else I've ever been outside of the deep south and Detroit.

St. Louis' South Side is majority black by a hair, and now has large percentages of immigrants as well.  I'd estimate that the South Side at large is around 48% white.  There are some neighborhoods, like St. Louis Hills, Holly Hills, Franz Park, the Patch, Clifton Heights, and a few others that are predominantly white, but 'hoods like Gravois Park, Benton Park West, Marine Villa, Mt. Pleasant, Tower Grove East, Dutchtown, etc. are all predominantly black and/or foreign born.  The whole city is about 46% white.

Search St. Louis, MO and look at the stats and maps. The southwest corner of the city is very white.

http://factfinder.census.gov/

FYI, European and Middle Eastern immigrants are counted as "white" in all census figures, so some of that should be taken into consideration.  St. Louis's South Side has a very heavy immigrant influence.

all i can say is that i wish i had been around saturday and sunday ( i was camping...). ironically, i think you guys went to corral liquors in granite on sunday, as did i to get some dogfishead (not distributed in missouri). i hope you visited US Steel if you approached nameoki road from the east, as she was belching fire and brimstone.

incredible report, staubio...

you should check out pershing avenue (where i live) in deb place if only for the residential architecture/feel and interesting neighborhood fabric some time. where i live is walkable (medium kcmo style walks) to central west end and the loop, but is often overlooked.

staubio wrote: A North STL street scene:

...and another:

Jesus look at that decay. What an embarrassment. I'm just glad my city is smart enough to take care of its old buildings.

so we have a new troll on the board?

ComandanteCero wrote: so we have a new troll on the board?

Are you implying that I'm a troll? Just because I'm new and giving my honest opinion?

I'm not one to start unnecessary bs man.

You're implying the city of St. Louis is stupid because it can't take care of its old buildings (while pointing out that your city does a better job because it's somehow smarter).  Sure it's an opinion, but it's not a particularly constructive or insightful one... but i'll go ahead and give you the benefit of the doubt.

Building stock is susceptible to economic and demographic forces more so than to city ordained policies.  If you lose half of your population, you'll have an oversupply of building stock, which will naturally go unused, and unmaintained.  Since WW2 with the creation of cheap housing in the suburbs, and quick empty highways to get to them, most cities lost large amounts of their urban populations.  Some lost more, some lost less (depending on their particular demographic flows and economies).  Most heavy industrial cities got hit hard by this, and that's why we see cities such as St. Louis, Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, etc etc have the problems they have today.  These forces were largely out of the control of individual city governments, who could only come up with band-aid stop gap measures that were usually too little (and often too late).

ComandanteCero wrote: You're implying the city of St. Louis is stupid because it can't take care of its old buildings (while pointing out that your city does a better job because it's somehow smarter).  Sure it's an opinion, but it's not a particularly constructive or insightful one... but i'll go ahead and give you the benefit of the doubt.

Building stock is susceptible to economic and demographic forces more so than to city ordained policies.  If you lose half of your population, you'll have an oversupply of building stock, which will naturally go unused, and unmaintained.  Since WW2 with the creation of cheap housing in the suburbs, and quick empty highways to get to them, most cities lost large amounts of their urban populations.  Some lost more, some lost less (depending on their particular demographic flows and economies).  Most heavy industrial cities got hit hard by this, and that's why we see cities such as St. Louis, Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, etc etc have the problems they have today.  These forces were largely out of the control of individual city governments, who could only come up with band-aid stop gap measures that were usually too little (and often too late).

Exactly. Which is why I do not feel sorry for aging cities.

Why is it that places like KC and Mpls dont have the dramatic losses that Stl, Detroit etc have?

DefaultAlias wrote: Jesus look at that decay. What an embarrassment. I'm just glad my city is smart enough to take care of its old buildings.

And what city is this?  Those pics could've been taken in KC if they could be taken anywhere west of the Mississippi. 

WinchesterMysteryHouse wrote: And what city is this?   Those pics could've been taken in KC if they could be taken anywhere west of the Mississippi. 

Lol. I make it VERY clear what city I rep and it ain't KC.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to the Nicollet Mall to conduct some business.

DefaultAlias wrote: Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to the Nicollet Mall to conduct some business.

DefaultAlias wrote: Lol. I make it VERY clear what city I rep and it ain't KC.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to the Nicollet Mall to conduct some business.

well, please stop by the pharmacy.

PIMPIN' AT THE MAWL

DONT FRUNT BITCH! THIS BE MY JAMBA JUICE!

DefaultAlias wrote: Lol. I make it VERY clear what city I rep and it ain't KC.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to the Nicollet Mall to conduct some business.

I'm off to the Michael Mall.

bahua wrote: PIMPIN' AT THE MAWL

DONT FRUNT BITCH! THIS BE MY JAMBA JUICE!

  HISTARICLE!

For the record Nicollet mall is in Minneapolis.  The twin cities do not suffer from the same problem as many post industrial cities but they do also have their share of old decrepit building stock.  And yes this qualifies as trolling my opinion. 

And these photos could totally be KC.  And for whatever its worth at least STL's old decrepit neighborhoods are more likely to be brick buildings with density, as opposed to KC's 1950's stand alone houses made out of wood where the porch is falling into the ground.  I'd take STL's old shitty neighborhoods way over KC.  Think of STL ghettos being a horrible version of the westside or colombus park and KC's neighborhood the ghetto off of Van Brunt. 

DefaultAlias wrote: Exactly. Which is why I do not feel sorry for aging cities.

Why is it that places like KC and Mpls don't have the dramatic losses that Stl, Detroit etc have?

Actually, KCMO was far worse than StL.  How on earth can a city with the vast land area it has lose as many people as it did in the 70-90's is beyond me.  Even today, with the growth of the northland, it's barley enough to offset the southland decline and even out south, there is enough room for 200-300 thousand more people, even at KC densities.

It's also amazing how when you leave the city limits of KCMO, chances are good, you will enter a "more" densely populated suburb right as you cross the line.  Such as Indep, Raytown, Lee's Summit, Grandview, Belton, Gladstone, Liberty and Johnson County (way out south).  Look at places like Indy, San Antonio etc where massive growth has occurred inside the those town's very large city limits while KCMO continued to loose people in the core and raise cows in its rural portions.  One reason for this is KCMO is now putting money into the northland for roads, sewers etc and some of that is through tifs because the city simply doesn't have the money to do it any other way.  Well, now that the ball is finally rolling, the northland is beginning to take on an economy of its own and should be able to grow much of its own infrastructure from here on out, but now we have to remember that now the northland is subsidizing the core of KCMO, something most suburban areas don't have to do and this will probably mean the northland will still require some public subsidies to get roads built that a place like Lee's Summit or Olathe shouldn't.

But we can't do nothing.  No infrastructure means no development and you end up with places like the are between Raytown and LS or most of the 435 corridor all around the city.

What I'm saying is that KC should be the last city to be giving StL a hard time for a declining "city" population.

God damn, I've gone off on a tangent.

Anyway, I don't see KCMO ever reaching the population that StL once had in an area 1/10 the size, so I think we might want to take care of our own issues before dissing on StL...

going to STL the weekend of 7/20. need a late-nite cocktail/wine bar that's within a mile from the ballpark hilton (other than the hotel bar). any recommendations?