According to the 2001 Census Map KC is...

KCDevin · Post by **KCDevin** » Thu Jul 24, 2003 11:39 pm

according to a map on the census bureaus site KC including the Kansas side may actually be more dense than STL, The MO side and KS side are almost equal according to the map and since STL is a little larger than KCMO (in the density point) wouldn't that mean when put together KCK and KCMO would be bigger than STLMO and ESTL?
http://eire.census.gov/popest/gallery/maps/co_01_04.php
here is the map
Also, according to the 2002 Population Estimates Wichita has passed STL in population and KC lowers to 37th largest city in the USA by population (due to another city passing it even though it raised in population)
http://eire.census.gov/popest/gallery/maps/co_01_03.php
that map shows that KC gained in population but STL lost alot

The 2002 Estimates also show
KCMO gaining by .2 percent,
STL losing -1.3 percent (Tied as lowest in Missouri with Marshall)
Wichita gaining by .8 percent
StJoe losing -.4 percent
Independence losing -.1 percent
Olathe gaining 5.3 percent (highest in Kansas)
Overland Park gaining by 2.8 percent
Note they are just estimates from 2000 to 2002

The highest gain in MO may be Ozark, MO gaining 7.7 Percent
The lowest loss in KS may be Junction City losing -3.1 Percent

http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/cities/subtab05.php
that is a listing of each state's population percentage change in population

interesting facts i think

phxcat · Post by **phxcat** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:33 am

Nice find, Devin- I think that you are right, that St. Louis is becoming much less dense because their sprawl far outruns their growth.

phxcat · Post by **phxcat** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:38 am

Does anyone know- I know that the JC- Manhattan area lost population previously because of military downsizing, what happens with troops in Iraq? Do they still count as part of the local population? Or are they counted as some other overseas category?

KCDowntown · Post by **KCDowntown** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:39 am

I think the range on the dark blue color distorts some of the data. A dark blue county could have anywhere from 800 to 67,150 people per square mile.

I now that KC proper is roughly 320 sq miles large, while STL proper is roughly 70 sq miles. While STL proper may have a hundred thousand or so less people, they are in about a fifth of the space. Certainly, the graphs demonstrate that STL is hermorraging population to the suburbs, but I think we have a long ways to go before KC is as dense as STL.

KCDowntown

KCDevin · Post by **KCDevin** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 1:04 am

Well, figuratively, don't forget that we are dense in the downtown and surrounding area, it is very wrong to take the population and divide it by the area because it says nothing about the actual density, its just a figure.

I don't think we have too long till we are more dense than STL, we surely have a larger area and way more people (443,471 vs 338,353 and 313.5mi square vs 61mi square)

Post by **dangerboy** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 6:40 am

KCDevin wrote:I don't think we have too long till we are more dense than STL, we surely have a larger area and way more people (443,471 vs 338,353 and 313.5mi square vs 61mi square)

KCMO has 25% more people, and 80% more land, so we have much more extra room than extra people. KCMO is around 1500 people per square mile, versus 5000 p/sqm in STL. The key is that St. Louis only has urban residential areas tha can only compared to KCMO south of the river to about 75th Street.

Kansas City would need more than 1.5 million people to reach the density of St. Louis, and that is never going to happen with the current suburban-type development in the Northland. We might be able to hit 600,000 with current trends, or maybe 800,000 if we had more New Urbanist development like Shoal Creek Valley.

phxcat · Post by **phxcat** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 8:58 am

Don't forget that we are moving toward each other. I don't know if we are getting more dense, but the core is getting denser, and the St. Louis area is certainly sparsening, on both sides of the state line at breakneck speed- The city lost another over 4,000 in one year! Of course they started with close to 900,000 people in those 60 miles, so there is a long way to go, but I would be intersted to see what the population would be in KC from the river south 10 miles and across 6 from the state line. That would give a better idea. And KCK I would imagine is denser than E. St. Louis, and they are getting things turned around too.

Post by **dangerboy** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 9:03 am

Only small parts of the core are getting more dense (River Market, Loop, etc), and those aren't compensating for the continued decline southeast of Downtown. Overall the core is staying level at best.

KCgridlock · Post by **KCgridlock** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 9:52 am

As Devin said, you have to compare built up areas (and even then, there are a lot of variables like parkland, flood plains, industrial areas etc that throw off numbers), but here is a better representation of the two cities by looking at “urbanized area”.

ST. LOUIS:
population: 2,078,000
land area: 829 sq. mi.
density: 2,507 per sq. mi.

KANSAS CITY:
population: 1,362,000
land area: 584 sq. mi.
density: 2,332 per sq. mi.

http://www.demographia.com/db-intl-ua2001.htm

KCDevin · Post by **KCDevin** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 11:06 am

thank you KCGridlock
but i still don't see how a city of 61 square miles can have over 800 square miles in its "Urbanized Area" which would include its metro???
How much would be added on to KC if St. Joe and its metro joined KC's metro (provided they still have their own metro inside a metro

)

tw · Post by tw » Fri Jul 25, 2003 11:52 am

the 61 square miles (stl) that is referred too is strictly the city. most of the county is built up and consider "urban". for example, look at U city, clayton, kirkwood, maplewood, richmond hgts., etc... those areas have no more room for growth, that's one of the "main" reasons st. charles has grown and is still growing because of the abundant land. plenty of land for new houses.

KCDevin · Post by **KCDevin** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:01 pm

yes i know its just the city, but how can the city be 61 square miles and have a urbanized area of over 800 square miles? it seems impossible unless they count STL County and all the other countys. Oh well, is st joe considered part of the urbanized area of KC?
BTW if current growth rates don't change, KC will pass STL in metro population in about the year 2050. I will be 62 years old then

Someone on the internet doubted KC will ever reach 5,000,000 or even 8,000,000 people, I happen to think thats bull, KC is no different than STL, or any other city that reached over 1,000,000 people.
Did STL become the 3rd largest city in the US because of the movement west? its population boomed for 10 years then dropped rapidly.

tw · Post by tw » Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:31 pm

devin, stl city population drop because of their stupid city fathers decision some 150 yrs. ago....they declared stl city as a city and county. that decision created borders which made the city ony 61 sq. miles. years ago, most of the people (there) lived within the city boundaries. due to natural migration (a need for new and affordable housing), people moved out to the suburbs, hence your drop in population. most US cities incorporated their surrounding counties, not stl city. so when folks talked about stl losing population, its really not true, technically yes, but as a region, no!

KCDevin · Post by **KCDevin** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:51 pm

wow arent you defensive of STL,
a drop in population is a drop in population if it was caused by a border change or not. How do you explain STL losing 12% of its people in 1990-2000? They are moving to the suburbs, simple. i know that because i've seen maps showing population loss in the city, and great increase in the metro. So basically if STL reached 1,000,000 by itself KC can too and will.

Post by **dangerboy** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 3:03 pm

KCDevin wrote:So basically if STL reached 1,000,000 by itself KC can too and will.

That is very unlikely. Like I said above, development and housing construction have changed considerably from the first half of this century. In order for KC to reach 1,000,000 everything in the Northland would have to be built with the density of Midtown. That is why St. Louis reached 1 million - the entire 60 square miles were built very densely.

The current low-density suburban development in the Northland and south of I-435 in KCMO cannot physically accomodate enough people to push our total to 1 million.

phxcat · Post by **phxcat** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 6:24 pm

but how can the city be 61 square miles and have a urbanized area of over 800 square miles? it seems impossible unless they count STL County and all the other countys. Oh well, is st joe considered part of the urbanized area of KC?

When they say urbanized area, I think they are talking about the area that is built up. Driving down I-35 through Olathe, the urbanized area ends just pasat 151st street, though Johnson County (and thus metro KC) extends several miles farther- since that land is relatively undeveloped, and Gardner and Edgerton have not grown together with Olathe, they are not part of the urbanized area. Along I-29, the urbanized area will end somewhere around KCI, I don;t know if Platte City would be part of it or not. In St. Louis, the city proper stops at the boundary, but you wouldn't know the difference if didn't see the signs. As you drive down I-70, you stay "in town" until you get past St. Peters, and maybe Lake St. Louis- that is the urbanized area.

St. Louis was huge before because it is freakin old. It has been a settlement since before the Revolution and grew because of fur trade- much of which passed through St. Louis, and lead. Back then people built dense- they didn't have cars and they couldn't travel far. Kansas City was much younger and smaller back then and is therefore much less dense. And, you should see Phoenix!

Someone on the internet doubted KC will ever reach 5,000,000 or even 8,000,000 people, I happen to think thats bull, KC is no different than STL, or any other city that reached over 1,000,000 people.

St. Louis was never over 1,000,000 and will never be that big again. I think KC could grow that big, but only for the same reason that Phoenix has- there is a lot of room to grow up north, and they could conceivably just keep annexing land if other cities don't stop them. I would prefer to see the Vancouver thing happen in the dowtown-Crossroads area, but even that would take a lot of development to double the size of the city.

I used to compare the size of Shawnee to San Franciso and think the same thing, but Shawnee would have to be built like Manhattan (NY for that to happen! And so would KC.

Post by **dangerboy** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 9:25 pm

I think everyone is talking about different things. Neither city has ever been over will ever be 1 million. Both metro areas are well over a million. It sounds like you are comparing St. Louis City against the whole KC metro.

KCgridlock · Post by **KCgridlock** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 11:07 pm

Devin, you have to compare metro areas when comparing cities. You have to ignore political lines.

Look at this map, this is a good representation of KC and StL built up areas.

You absolutley can not compare StL proper to KC proper, you just can't do it, it will never make any sence.

Continuous urban development is in green:

KCDevin · Post by **KCDevin** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 11:29 pm

why? they dont help any citys economically or with its business

phxcat · Post by **phxcat** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 1:37 am

If you are talking about political (withing the city) or taxes, then yes, you can compare the cities. But when you are talking about how an area will support sports teams, buildings downtown, or representation in Jeff City, the metro area is what is important. San Antonio proper is one of the ten largest cities in the country- but it has no suburbs, and the metro is not that big, so it has little clout and only one pro sports team.

When we say you can't compare KC and St. Louis growth, it is because St. Louis' 61 miles cannot become 65 miles or 70 miles- they are stuck with 61 miles, and are compleely surrounded by other cities. Any growth has to come inside those 61 miles. If North Kansas City or Gladstone took up everything north of the river, KCMO would not be growing much, if at all, for the same reason.

Does that make sense?

KCRag Forum