So Much For St. Louis

St. Louis' population, according to the most recent Census data, is now about 319,000, the smallest number since 1870. Even more disheartening, the city's leaders seemed to expect that gentrification would boost the city's population, but St. Louis actually lost another 8.3 percent of its population during the past 10 years. (Only Birmingham, Ala., and New Orleans, which of course experienced a Hurricane Katrina-led exodus, lost more people in the same time span, the Times reports.) If you're anticipating a gain in population, only to see a substantial, decline, boy, were your predictions way off the mark. St. Louis' mayor sounds despondent on his blog, calling for "an urgent and thorough rethinking of how we do almost everything."

Many people, including me, like to think that the pendulum in U.S. lifestyle and development patterns has swung toward the urban after about 60 years pointed away from it. Unfortunately, this is largely wishful thinking. Net migration continues to favor suburbs and leave cities smaller in population. This pattern is particularly painful in the Rust Belt and the Midwest, where St. Louis proper has lost about half its population in the last two-plus generations -- the rule, not the exception. Funny thing is, when people list American cities on a depressing, long-term downward trajectory, St. Louis is at best the fourth one mentioned, after Detroit, Cleveland and Buffalo. It's a classic example of unreversed urban decline but relatively anonymous at the same time.

As I've written in these pages before, a column of David Brooks' from shortly after last November's national elections accurately articulates why the Midwest is the most relevant region of the U.S. today: "If America can figure out how to build a decent future for the working-class people in this region, then the U.S. will remain a predominant power. If it can't, it won't." Only Minneapolis, Pittsburgh and Columbus have figured out how to reinvent themselves in the late-21st century -- around some combination of health care, biotech, the arts and higher education -- while all of the rest, with their millions and millions of residents, are still searching for a relevant identity in contemporary politics, economics and culture.

Funnier thing is, all of the current philanthropic money devoted to rescuing cities heads toward New Orleans. Even Detroit, which has become its own cause celebre, doesn't receive much. Of course New Orleans is a worthy cause, considering the titanic natural disaster and bureaucratic mismanagement it endured crippled one of the world's most captivating places. But considering it's a city positioned below sea level whose economy before Hurricane Katrina wasn't Detroit but sure wasn't Boston either, what argument is there for not devoting the same attention to the Midwest?