Skip to main content

Full text of "St. Louis: A City & Its Suburbs 1973"

See other formats


Reproduced and distributed with the compliments of the University of 
TfZTl f^"^^ Extension Division for educational purposes, and 

pLn^ ""^^ ^^^''^ expressed in this report are those of 

the RAND Corporation . 




A CITYAND ITS SUBURBS 



PREPARED FOR THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 



BARBARA R. WILLIAMS 



R-1353-NSF 
AUGUST 1973 



SANIA MOMCA, CA. 90406 



PREFACE 



This report summarizes the results and implications of a year of analytical work 
concerning the decline of St. Louis as the central city of a metropolitan area, the 
implications for the city's future, and policy strategies for improving these future 
prospects. Although the work is primarily that of The Rand Corporation, vital 
assistance was provided by faculty members at three major universities in the St. 
Louis area: Washington University, St. Louis University, and the University of 
Missouri, St. Louis. The work was supported by the National Science Foundation. 
The project was one of a series of three urban studies that also includes an analysis 
of causes, effects, and control of two decades of explosive growth in San Jose, and 
adaptation to acute aerospace recession in Seattle. 

This report is oriented primarily toward the policy implications of the St. Louis 
analysis, and is intended for use by policymakers concerned with the future of the 
area. 



iii 



SUMMARY 



This report summarizes the research findings and policy imphcations of a series 
of studies conducted under the St. Louis project of the Rand Urban Pohcy Analj^^ 
Program. The analysis in St. Louis has been directed toward evaluatmg alternative* 
for decisionmakers at local, state, and federal levels who must deal with urban 



Sie central concern in St. Louis is the city's significant decline in popiUation 
and economic activity that occurred in the 1960s, and the rapid rate ofbmWing «id 
neighborhood abandonment that accompanied it. Because abandonment itse f might 
open possibilities for new development, the report asks what those possibiliti^^e 
how probable their achievement is. and how policymakers might encourage the 
reali^tion of desired changes. Three possible futures for the "ty are posed: con^ 
tinued decline; stabilization in a new role as an increasingly black suburb aiid 
return to a former role as the center of economic activity in ""^^^^P^^;^^^^^^^ 
As things stand, the most likely prognosis is for contmued decline. G ven outage 
revenue sources, however, the city of St. Louis might assume a new « /^^^ 

suburb among many other suburbs, making the transition easier for its population 



and institutions. 



ORIGINS OF ST. LOUIS'S PRESENT SITUATION 

. Decline in St. Louis is mainly a function of the same trends that have stimu- 
lated movement from central cities to suburbs across the United States The fast- 
paced decentralization of all American urban areas since World War II has been 
stimulated mainly by the desire for living amenities and productive facilities that 
could be provided most easily and cheaply at the periphery of cities. Rising incomes 
and improved transportation systems have facilitated the move to the suburbs. 
Certain federal policies-real estate tax incentives, interstate highway develoj^ 
ment, FHA and VA mortgage programs-have accelerated these trends. 

. However, St. Louis differs from some central cities in manifesting rapid and 
absolute declines in central city population and business activity. is. rapid 
metropolitan growth has brought explosive suburban development to some Ameri- 
can ur^an areS-mostly in the West and parts of the South-without inducing high 
rates of abandonment in their central cities. 



V 



VI 



• jS^. Louis's unusual rate of decline has come about because many phenomena 
that appear to accelerate central city decline in older metropolitan areas combine in 
unusual strength there. Many central cities of the East and Midwest contain a large 
stock of housing and industrial capital that is old and expensive to maintain and 
restore, further increasing the advantages of suburban location. This is particularly 
evident in St. Louis, a large portion of which was urbanized before 1900. 

The large amounts of flat farmland around St. Louis also made decentralization 
easier. Such land was readily developed for industrial and residential uses. 

St. Louis is a small city of 61 square miles. Its political boundaries, frozen since 
1876, have prevented the city from expanding its resource base as its proportion of 
disadvantaged residents increased. 

Large in-migrations of groups that vary from the existing population— such as 
rural, low-income families— appear to hasten the departure of more affluent families 
to the suburbs. St. Louis has been an important portof entry into urban life for rural 
migrants. The fact that many of these migrants are black seems to have precipitated 
the rapid departure of whites from particular neighborhoods; however, our research 
suggests that departures of people from the city are more class-related than race- 
related. At most income levels, blacks and whites left at about the same rate during 
the 1960s. 



PROGNOSES FOR ST. LOUIS 

The report argues that without major policy changes beyond the local level, the 
city will most likely continue to decline. It is unlikely either to become a stable, 
increasingly black suburb or to return to its former central economic function. Several 
demographic and economic trends induce this conclusion: 

• Heavy and prolonged out-migration of the city's younger white residents has 
left behind an elderly population in which death rates exceed birth rates. Growth 
of the white population therefore depends on massive in-migration- an improbable 
development. 

• While the city's black population continues to grow through natural in- 
crease, it began to decline in 1969, indicating a net migratory loss severe enough to 
offset its natural increase. 

• The city and its suburbs received unequal shares of metropolitan economic 
growth during the 1960s, with most industrial sectors declining in the city and all 
industrial sectors growing in the suburbs. If industrial location trends during the 
last half of the 1960s continue for another five years, St. Louis County* will contain 
that share of metropolitan business activity usually characteristic of a central city. 

Neither a survey of industrial developers in the area, a 1967 survey of people's 
expressed preferences for residential location in the area, nor more episodic evi- 
dence about industrial and residential location since 1970 supported the hypothesis 
that past decline has created new conditions in the city that will mitigate or even 
reverse past trends. 

The city has not '^bottomed out" so that large blocks of inexpensive empty land 
will readily stimulate new forms of investment. Rather, land remains relatively 

•The City of St. Louis is entirely separate in area and jurisdiction from the County of St. Louis. 



vii 



expensive to develop in the city. Nor have reduced numbers of people and businesses 
made public goods and services unequivocally easier to provide. Indeed, metropoli- 
tan decentralization has reduced the city's share of more affluent residents and 
increased its share of disadvantaged ones. Economic growth, as well, has gravitated 
to the suburbs. Thus, public revenues have become progressively more difficult to 
generate locally. New resources^ available to the city from sources outside the city, 
are essential to any improvement 



ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES FOR THE FUTURE 

Just as local policies did not cause the decline, local policies cannot readily 
change the trends and characteristics that did cause it and are still operative. The 
analysis suggests that, among the alternatives open to the city, promoting a new role 
for St. Louis as one of many large suburban centers of economic and residential life 
holds more promise than reviving the traditional central city functions. 

One strategy for assuming a more suburban role is to entertain administrative 
or jurisdictional changes that would allow municipal services and regulations to be 
geared to varying neighborhood needs. In this way, the city's large, heterogeneous 
population might capture some of the benefits of small homogeneous (and affluent) 
suburban municipalities where residents can purchase and control the public goods 
and services they want. 

To succeed, however, this strategy will require new outside resources— new 
mechanisms for generating revenues that make the poor a smaller financial burden 
for the jurisdictions where they live. Several mechanisms for doing this are offered 
for consideration: 

• A more substantial federal revenue-sharing program. 

• A state revenue-sharing program to support selected public goods. 

• A metropolitan revenue program, sharing revenue generated by industry in the 
metropolitan area. 

• A metropolitan earnings tax. 



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 



This report has been reviewed by Stephen Crocker, Paul Jordan, John Koehler, 
Robert Levine, Don Rice, and Gus Shubert of The Rand Corporation; by Professor 
William Alonso, University of California, Berkeley; by Norman Murdoch, Director 
of the St. Louis City Plan Commission; by Dempster Holland and George Wendel of 
St. Louis University; by Peter GrandstafT, Robert Markland, and Hugh Nourse of the 
University of Missouri, St. Louis; and by James Little of Washington University. All 
of the above have helped formulate the findings reported in this document— in many 
cases by arguing against them. However, members of the St. Louis research project 
developed these findings, and the author takes full responsibility for the implica- 
tions drawn from them. 

The author wishes to thank those who carried out the analysis on which this 
report is based: Sinclair Coleman, Leola Cutler, Peter deLeon, John Enns, Cyrus 
Gardner, Peter GrandstafT, Marie Hoeppner, Dempster Holland, Charles Leven, 
James Little, Robert Markland, Peter Morrison, Hugh Nourse, Gerald Payne, Betsy 
Schmidt, Richard Slitor, and George Wendel. 



ix 



CONTENTS 

PREFACE • iii 

SUMMARY V 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ix 

Section 

I. INTRODUCTION 1 

n. METHODOLOGY 4 

Conceptual Design 4 

Research Design 7 

III. RESEARCH FINDINGS 10 

Models of Urban Change 10 

Demographic Analysis 14 

Economic Changes 24 

Racial Factors 28 

Policy Accelerators to Central 

City Decline 31 

IV. ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES FOR THE FUTURE 39 

Alternative Futures for St. Louis City 39 

Living with the Future 43 

Strategies for Local Policy 45 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

I. Documentation 49 

II. Selected Background References 51 



xi 



I. INTRODUCTION 



The St. Louis Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area" encompasses the City of 
St Louis and six counties lying on both sides of the Mississippi River: St. Louis, St. 
Charles, Franklin, and Jefferson Counties in Missouri, and St. Clair and Madison 
Counties in Illinois.^ Most of the SMSA lies in Missouri, three-fifths of it west of the 
City of St. Louis; the Mississippi forms the eastern boundary of its central city. The 
City of St. Louis is entirely separate in area and jurisdiction from the County of St. 
. Louis. The area surrounding metropolitan St. Louis is semirural, dotted with medi- 
um-sized towns. The closest metropolitan area of comparable size is Kansas City, 
about 275 miles away. 

In 1970, the population of the St. Louis SMSA was about two and a half million 
From 1960 to 1970 it had increased by only 12 percent, a rate lower than the average 
national metropolitan increase of 17 percent. Economic growth in the area has also 
been slow. As shown in Table 1. in the late 1960s the St. Louis area lagged behind 
the rest of the nation in growth of total income, per capita income, and employment, 
c^o * . ^""^ ^"'^ together contain about three-quarters of the 

SMSA s population-622,000 in the city and 951,000 in the county.' A strong and 
persistent westward progression in the area's settlement pattern has steadily 
drained St. Louis's share of area population and economic activity. From 1960 to 
1970, the city's population declined 17 percent while the suburban population in- 
creased by nearly a third; jobs declined close to 15 percent in the city but nearly 
doubled in the suburbs. 

Stark reminders of the city's demographic and economic losses are 2200 vacant 
and vandalized buildings, occupying an average of one-tenth of an acre each. Under- 
standably, St. Louis believes it is plagued by that set of problems widely lumped 
together as 'the urban crisis": a declining tax base, rising costs for providing ser- 
vices, a high crime rate, a problematic school system, high unemployment, racial 
mequities, and a spectacular rate of building and neighborhood abandonment. 

Uur analysis does not attempt to diagnose completely this formulation of the 
urban crisis. We give slight attention to problems that occur with great frequency 

in th.?rej^rt"" "metropolitan St. Uuis" are used interchangeably 

been add'^J °t!! fh.^^T"'' ''^^i.^A "^"""''^'^ ""^^ M""^o«> have since 

S of mo ^^'^ '"^ ^^'^ however, are based on the SMSA definition 

» Hereafter. "St. Louis" will refer to the city. Arhile St. Louis County will be so designated. 



1 



2 



Table 1 



COMPARISON OF NATIONAL AND ST. LOUIS 
SMSA ECONOMIC GROWTH, 1966-1970 



Item 


Average Annual 
Growth. 1966-1970 (%) 


U.S. 


St. Louis SMSA 


Total employment 


1.9 


1.0 


Total income 


2.8 


2.2 


Per capita disposable income 


3.2 


l.A 



Data provided by Regional Economics In- 
formation System, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Office 
of Business Economics, U.S. Department of Commerce; 
and from Eaonomic Report of the President, 1971. 



not only in cities, but in other places as well: crime, poor schooling, unemployment, 
racial inequities. Instead, we concentrate on events more peculiar to the structural 
change cities are undergoing, exploring the implications for a central city of the 
redistribution of population and economic activity in its metropolitan area. For this 
purpose, we chose building and neighborhood abandonment in St. Louis as the 
initial focus of our study. 

Abandonment is both a symptom and a cause of problems, but by making land 
available for new uses, it also offers possibilities of new directions for the future. Our 
objectives were to determine what those possibilities are, how probable their 
achievement is, and how policymakers might encourage the realization of desired 
changes. For purposes of analysis, we pose three alternative futures for St. Louis- 
continued decline; stabilization in a new role as an increasingly black suburb; and 
return to a former role as the center of economic activity in the metropolitan area * 
Which of these futures is the likeliest, and how policymakers might affect future 
directions, are analyzed by examining past change and current growth potential in 
St. Louis as a guide to the future. 

The analysis has required methods and concepts from more than one discipline. 
We have tried here-as in other Rand urban studies-to assemble a broad spectrum 
of evidence bearing on the reasons for St. Louis's current condition and prognoses 
for Its future from a number of disciplines, including demography, economics, soci- 
ology, and political science. To interpret this evidence, we have used statistical 
techniques and explored various lines of argument to form a coherent picture of 
where the weight of the analysis and prognosis lies. 

The picture, in brief, suggests that decline in St. Louis is mainly a function of 
the same trends that have stimulated movement from central cities to suburbs 
across the United States. The rate of decline is more acute in St. Louis because 
several factors that accelerate decline combine in unusual strength there. The 
problems of decline, however, do not lie in the fact that population and business have 

aonLT^fK* fl^ M "''^ «"CO™Pa*' a'' possible futures for the city. They include those futures that 
appeared both feasible and representative of the range of possibilities after initial data analysis. 



redistributed themselves within the metropolitan area, with the city losing and its 
suburbs gaining. Rather, the problem for the city is that it wants to remain attrac- 
tive to its current residents, to its metropolitan population, and to visitors-offering 
well-maintained public goods and high levels of public services geared to a variety 
of tastes. Its resources to do this, however, are more and more diminished because 
Its more affluent citizens have moved to the suburbs in massive numbers, and 
economic growth has gravitated with them. 

These two issues— metropolitan population and economic redistribution, and 
city redevelopment-are separable. However, our question is whether the redistri- 
bution has created new conditions in the city (e.g., more available land) that will 
attract new investment essential to central city redevelopment. Our analysis leads 
us to believe this is unlikely: relative to its own conditions in the past, St. Louis is 
better off in certain ways; relative to its suburbs in the present, St. Louis remains 
less attractive to new investment in important ways. We suggest that instead of 
focusing on the city as a geographic entity needing restoration, local policymakera 
focus on St. Louis's assuming a somewhat different role, functioning more like a 
suburb or a set of suburbs within the metropolitan area. However, as with all other 
policy directions we considered, this too requires additional revenues not now avail- 
able to the city. 

Section II of this report describes our research methodology. Section III— the 
keystone of the report-then applies the methodology: St. Louis is examined succes- 
sively in terms of demographic trends, both within the parts of the metropolitan 
area and between it and other areas; in similar economic terms, examining both the 
economy of the area and the division of the economy between the central city and 
Its suburbs; in regard to racial hypotheses about urban change, such as "white 
flight"; and finally, in terms of the additional impetus to decline imparted by federal 
and local policies. 

The final section of the report turns to policy strategies for the future. These 
strategies do not take the form of specific policy recommendations for St. Louis. 
Rather, they form more of an agenda for policymakers. Time and budget constraints 
required us to be selective in the analysis of the complex syndrome of urban decline- 
important parts of the research we think necessary to decisionmaking in St. Loui^ 
either remain to be done or are still in process at local universities in the area. Our 
analysis has been directed toward examining alternatives for decisionmakers at 
local, state, and federal levels who must deal with urban decline 



V 



II. METHODOLOGY 



CONCEPTUAL DESIGN 

Initial View: Abandonment as a Problem 

Lou,?w«?hf V' •? '^P'^ neighborhood change and abandonment in St. 
^.Z r f '"1 u ''''y other knowledgeable 

2nHo ; abandonment to be the city's most serious problem. Second. 

tuXrr ^'f 'r^'^'" ^^^^^^^ appropriate concejv 

tual counterpoint to the phenomenon of rapid growth central to our research in the 
ban Jose metropolitan area. 

In the St. Louis research, abandonment is considered to have occurred wherever 
there are empty, vandalized buildings and empty spaces within older neighborhoods 
For our purposes empty buildings and land are seen as part of the chy's spatial 
crnr."^ ~'"l t "'"'^ ''"'^ of inventory as goods held in the anticipation of 
changing demand. Empty land is most appropriately called inventory, since it pro- " 
v^es space for the expansion of existing land uses or the introduction of new land 

oT; ^^^^^^-^ be thought 

Citv Ra?rorr' "^^ 1" 1936, the St. Louis 

City Plan Commission published a study of shifts in land use that said: 

tekeJIhfcitv'^sSj ''Yf' terms-if adequate measures are not 
Sntral areas o^^^ gradual economic and social collapse. The older 

Sntinue until Ih 9 ^emg abandoned, and this insidious trend will 
continue until the entire city is engulfed.' 

S^eL'^ ^^^^'"'"endations of that Commission report could be fully implement- 

t.^Z u ^"'"^ " -P'^ly accelerated job opportuni- 

les at the same time that new housing construction was narrowly restricted. By 
1950 these conditions swelled the city's population to 857,000. close to its peak of the 
century a few years later. With the end of the war, new housing construction grew 

Ix.Jis!S:r[:MaS"l9T2' Jif'' Washington University. St. 



4 



vigorously— but in St. Louis County, not in the city— and existing densities in the 
city placed the county at a greater competitive advantage. 

During the 1960s, abandonment in St. Louis was widespread enough to warrant 
three studies funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,' 
a study by the Urban League, and a survey sponsored by the City Plan Commission 
on the problem of residential blight." It also stimulated a variety of research inter- 
ests and projects at local universities on problems of neighborhood transition. We 
have relied on this past and continuing research to provide richness of detail in the 
microanalysis of neighborhood change, and deployed our resources toward analyz- 
ing the possibilities of alternative land use for the future— viewing abandonment as 
inventory. 

2. Although abandonment figured as a major problem in most of our early 
discussions with local officials and citizens, many people understood that abandon- 
ment could also be viewed as an opportunity. We therefore reexamined a basic 
question: For whom is abandonment a problem? Since the voluntary relocation of 
households or businesses from one area to another ordinarily suggests improvement, 
abandonment may be viewed as an indicator of rising incomes, better housing, and 
land use opportunities for some people and businesses. 

For people left behind, however, some problems worsen. Public services decline 
—at the very least, in effectiveness— as the private incentives to housing and neigh- 
borhood maintenance diminish. And large blighted areas not only uglify a city but 
can mtensify old problems and generate new ones, such as increased vulnerability 
to fire. 

While the problems of declining areas often dominate local concern, many St. 
Louis decisionmakers had begun to view abandonment as a possibility for improve- 
ments. As evidence, several significant municipal codes were changed in the 19608: 
until the early 1960s, owner-protective code requirements caused demolition of a 
building to lag behind notification of condemnation by six months to a year; by 1970, 
code revisions had reduced that time to one week.* Since October 1970, the city has 
been engaged in a massive program, financed primarily by the federal government, 
to remove condemned buildings." 

Restructuring: The Future of the Central City 

Given the growing view of abandonment as opportunity, it seemed that policy- 
makers in St. Louis might benefit from research oriented toward future expecta- 
tions, asking how the city might manage the inventory it is accumulating How a city 
manages its inventory largely depends, of course, on what it can anticipate about 

//niynf wT'^'"^"'n!^"K"''"^.^"'^ Development. A Study of the Problems of Abandoned 

SvD7rlthrD^\^^^^^ """-^ ^''^y bourse and Lmc. LiUle. 

' The Center for Community Change and the National Urban League, The National Survey of Hous- 
ing Abandonment. .\pn\ 

* Alan .M. Voorhees and Associates, Inc., Technical Report on a Residential Blight Analysis for St. 
Louus. Missouri. Washington, D.C., March 1969. 

» City of St, Louis. Ordinance 55681, Section 2126.1, approved July 15, 1970. 

• In January 1972, MUD dwlared a moratorium on federal funds (or demolition. In addition, there 
trim^ri"^, f °" 9'"'* •"°"''>' ^'"^ "sed for demolition. The city has now allocated 
?.i.4m),ouo Irom rcu'nue-sharinj; money for continuation of a lart,'e-.scale demolition effort. Despite re- 
moval 01 much ol the oldest housing stock in the city, median rents fell from $66 to $57 and median 
housmg values fell from $12,000 to $11,000 (in 1967 dollars) between 1960 and 1970 



6 



future change. Thus, Rand's research in St. Louis has been structured to answer the 
following questions: 

• Without major policy changes, which of the following possibilities will most 
likely occur in the St. Louis metropolitan area over the next ten to twenty years? 

Continuation of past trends. The rates at which people and jobs depart from the 
city accelerate, and their rates of entry remain sluggish. The city's inventory ac- 
cumulates but competes poorly with surrounding suburban inventory for either 
business or residential investment. Selective out-migration causes the city s resident 
population to become smaller and older, with a growing proportion of disadvantaged 
persons, many of them blacks. Under these conditions, the city would presumably 
go into bankruptcy^ and become something like a ward of the federal government— a 
jurisdiction incapable of generating locally the revenues with which to manage 
itself 

Stabilization of current growth potential. As inventory accumulates in the city, 
it fails to compete with suburban locations for most types of industry. However, the 
black middle- and lower-income residential population in the city shows growth 
through natural increase. One of many suburbs, St. Louis retains the usual comple- 
ment of people-serving industries that prosper as its population increases either in 
size or affluence. 

Reversal of past trends. The city's accumulating inventory exhibits a selective 
competitive advantage over suburban inventory with respect to industrial develop- 
ment for which central location is a dominant consideration. Economic decline 
gradually "bottoms out" as past decline creates new conditions— available land, 
decreasing population densities— that attract new growth. The city again becomes 
an active hub of economic exchange within the metropolitan area. 

• Within the next ten to twenty years, can specified policy changes at the local, 
state, or federal level alter the likelihood that one or another of the above possibilities 
will occur? 

In answering these questions, we have drawn on the conceptual tools and ana- 
lytic methods of economics, sociology, demography, political science, and statistics. 
Our diverse research efforts, however, shared a common perception of basic urban 
processes. We assumed that metropolitan areas represent a set of political bound- 
aries (central cities, counties, smaller municipalities, etc.) normally subject to a 
more or less continuous procession of people and jobs entering and leaving. Any 
jurisdiction's population grows as it attracts more migrants than it loses and as it 
experiences more births than deaths. Its economy grows as its firms expand, produc- 
tivity increases, and jobs show a net increase. 

Although population and employment have been suburban izing for many 
decades, these changes have been especially pronounced since World War II. During 
the 1960s, an unprecedented number of the nation's central cities not only ceased 
to grow but lost population. Fifteen of the 21 central cities with over half a million 
residents in 1960 ended up losers, and 6 reported losses of 10 percent or more. The 
degree of decline in St. Louis may be exceptional, but St. Louis is no exception to 
the rule. 

' Bankruptcy means that the city would no longer perform the existing level of services because of 
an inability to pay bills, meet payrolls, etc. This form of fiscal crisis is discusst^d in the Advisory Commis- 
sion on Intergovernmental Relations, City Financial Emergencies: The Intergovernmental Dimension 
(forthcoming). 



exXaUrs for /^^^^ ^^'"^^ "'^^ yards, have been the usual 

falHn^f . ^ decentralization ofurban population. Changing technology and 

w TdtXTicfe^ r ^"^^^^ industriafdeLtralizatTon a. 

for es Nat oLl^^^^^^^^ accelerated the trends set in motion by these market 

creased homeowners' acce'ss to1he!l"'bs ' 

in J!"^ f^^t^o^' these market forces and federal incentives should be much alike 

^ aiThlTuf ''T' ^^^^ -"-^ --'^-b'y from one a ea 

i^Cnces to l: f'^^ We understand these different outcomes, despite common 

popuLtion coin V . '"'"'■P^"^ ^'^"'^^"'•^J in local 

population composition, industrial mix. governmental makeup, age topography 

and region; and (b) exogenous shocks peculiar to certain areas (e g part cE^^J 

areas, and legation propensities of major export industries). 

f«IHn!V ^"'^ research, we assumed that market forces (rising incomes 

fallmg transportation costs,' changing tastes, technological change) have provS 

city to suburb. Further, we have striven to identify the marginal accelerators of 
urban change more explicitly-the additional forces that have Le erat^d the^ 
national trends operative in the St. Louis metropolitan area. 

they promifet be th' ^^'^^^J^^''^^' '""^'^--^ policymakers to understand, as 
level To the ex^n ,7^"^ 'T'' "lodify-though perhaps not at the l<Kal 
juniiSons S urL ^'^^f '"^^^^ sources exogenous to local 

s one onhe reas^^^^^^^^^^^ ""'^ ^'"'^^ ^« '^^^"^^ ^hem.» This 

will L addressed to n.K , '^'"^^T ^P^^i^c cities 
De addressed to national as well as local policymakers. 



RESEARCH DESIGN 



To assess the likelihood of alternative futures for St Loni. T^.^A , a ^ . 
sen. of specinc research designed U, .ns.:/^!]::!:,^^^ ' ' 

• 'n^: „7;r:rsr r::: r -tardea 



8 



Selection of Variables 



Three sources guided our selection of conditions and policies to explore- the 

ZrZZ '''''' ^^^--^ '° R-d-s con! 

^tTknn M c'^t'^'''-" ^''^^"^'"^ informal discussion 

with knowledgeable St. Louis citizens and local officials 

d^lli; ''''''^".'"^''u^* conditions have been unique in determining St. Louis's 
fatZi. f P«'"t^d to the city's aging physical stock- and the 

Xd to h " '^^'^'^ '"""^ ''^^ '^^^ 1950s. Local policies 

Sfedtold ' ' ZT ''""^ ^"'^'^ ^^^""^ "^"-^ ^hose related to the city's 
Zlr^^^!l ?f o^-it« banking community. We repeatedly 

heard about the set of local decisions that, in effect, have frozen the city's boundaHe^ 
to encompass 61 square miles since 1876. exacerbating the subsequent effect of 
ly dTsSbeTr'-r f'T f-^her out. City banks, frequent' 

acquTre oLllT ^ 7Tf '"'^'^ ^""^ '"^^^ "^'^ ^^P'^^l difficult to 
acquire locally. We subjected each of these conditions and policies to as thorough an 
empirical test as we could devise with available data sources 
esta^tJf T' '"^^"'•es of the incentives that various real 

ari%^ • ^TJ*"^" of investment in the St. Louis metropolitan 

IZLZ J T 'r™"""* J'"" have influenced industrial and 

ITother ^h""^"S ''•^^^^ fro- one part of the area to 

economv totef '""''^'''f ' ^'''"'^ ^^^^^^ ^^^"'^'"^^ «^'he metropolitan 

economy to be an appropriate complement to the detailed demographic anal^is we 

rfC^T'""' 'T' T''''' "° d^^'^'-^-^^ between the structure 

Inomv w^lJh ""'"'T ^'^^"^"^y (or changes in it) and that of the national 
economy which might be responsible for the high rate of decline in the central city. 
An analy IS that would go beyond the documentation of structural changes in the 
bwTnve' r «^^hose changes (i.e.. tracing decline in some sector to 

Z ^^''^ '^"^ of investment) required more re- 

sources than we had available." 

prof^slttlhrer"'-'"' ^^^^"^^ ^t-^-d 

professors at three universities in the St. Louis area: Washington University St 

^uis University, and the University of Missouri. St. Louis.- Our univeS'co t 

o:^:s^'^ad^"^''"^^''^ '^^^'^^"^^"^ analysis of pnC dat^ 

sources. In addition, concurrent research funded by the Department of Housing 

See Sec. II of Bibliography, 
tion'.' m^S^NSF^Sli^jt''' """"^'^ •''^-^ 5.;nma;^Po/,c,5/a^.;„.„, The Rand Corpora- 

Lol Urv^tf ^ItsT^"^^^^^^^^ b":'^ 't'-"- ^^''O- De-PSter Holland. St. 

portions of several dtiesandudSrSu^^^^^^^^^ ^'^^ abandonment and those 

Midwestern Cities," 1973 (unpublished pajr) ^"^ P°P"'^"°" Change in Seven 

Moill^fSo'^,?;:^^^^^ ^^P'^r^ F. Fisher, et al.. "A 

1972. See especially' thVf^compln^ r'Sment." 2- March 

HolL'J^S^TnXnSt L^TsSiveSvVpT"^"'^.'"^^^ ^^'^''^'^^ Dempster 



9 



and Urban Development^® has furnished data germane to our research interests. We 
have also relied heavily on secondary data sources.'^ 

Projections of Trends and Current Composition 

It is a tricky business to project the future of anything so complex as a city. 
Simple extrapolations of trends are particularly vulnerable to unforeseen shocks 
such as technological innovations or new federal policies. And today's linear trend 
may become exponential tomorrow.^® For example, the normal filtering of housing 
in a metropolitan area — the orderly passage of successively lower income groups 
through the housing stock — may turn disorderly and set off large-scale disinvest- 
ment if income distributions between successive groups vary sharply. 

In various ways, we have sought to strengthen the projections discussed below 
with types of data that explain, rather than simply describe, the salient trends. For 
example, in assessing the future trend in migration away from the city, we rely not 
merely on descriptive census data but also on survey data that reveal people's 
intentions and expectations about moving. And in considering the crucial role of the 
automobile in patterns of metropolitan settlement, we have weighed the possible 
effect of the rising price of gasoline on automobile use. We cannot foretell every 
exogenous shock to the metropolitan area, however. While we take a systematic 
approach to those contingencies we can now identify (e.g., the rising price of gaso- 
line), our projections are firmly anchored in the caveat, 'If everything else remains 
the same. . 



Corporation, R-1358-NSF (forthcoming). Charles Leven and James Little have received a separate grant 
from the National Science Foundation to do a survey of movers within selected migration corridors of 
the SMSA, aimed at developing a model of residential preference, entitled, A Study of Determinants of 
Inter-Neighborhood Mobility, GI-37861-NSF. 
HUD Grant M0PD4, 1972. 

The U.S. Census; Office of Business Economics, U.S. Department of Commerce; interviews carried 
out as part of the City Plan Commission's survey of residential blight; and vital statistics data furnished 
by the City's Department of Health. 

Or it may change direction as well. 



III. RESEARCH FINDINGS 



Starting with a model that provides the underlying explanation of population 
redistribution in all major metropolitan areas, we then examine conditions associat- 
ed with dilferential growth rates in central cities. After that, we analyze change in 
St. Louis from a number of standpoints: 

• Demographic, including trends in the city and the suburbs, changing re- 
placement capacity of various components of the city population, implications of 
demographic trends, and effects of interurban migration. 

• Economic, including implications for the city of slow growth in the met- 
ropolitan area, changes between the city and the suburbs, and the results of a survey 
of industrial developers taken specifically for this analysis. 

• Racial, involving various tests of the accelerating effects of racial aversions 
on jurisdictional and neighborhood change. 

• Financial and legal, including contributions of current policies that acceler- 
ate other trends, especially federal highway and income tax policies; local jurisdic- 
tional boundaries; and the effects of local banking conservatism. 



MODELS OF URBAN CHANGE 

St. Louis is by no means unique among American central cities in showing 
absolute declines in population and jobs in the 1960s. Two events of the last twenty 
yearsr— rising incomes and falling transportation costs— have affected central cities 
in the United States in such a way that all of them should either be growing more 
slowly than their suburbs or experiencing absolute declines in population and jobs. 
That is, it can be argued that in concert, the desire to provide and consume public 
services collectively (because they are cheaper that way) creates powerful incentives 
for firms and households to locate near one another. But countering factors make 
for dispersion: land is cheaper away from the central city, and more space is avail- 
able for modern spread-out, low-rise industrial and commercial operations. Further, 
cities typically provide a fixed bundle of public services intended to be uniform 
across neighborhoods. However, varying demands for public services are imposed by 
diflTerent subgroups (young families, the aged, higher income people, lower income 
people). To get the level and mix of public services they want, households must move 
to or create jurisdictions containing people of similar needs or tastes. Thus, the 



10 



11 



heterogeneity of a city's population itself creates incentives for subgroups to disperse 
and regroup in more homogeneous jurisdictions. 

Although cities, under many conditions, maintain a tenuous equilibrium be- 
tween the opposing forces that impel clustering and dispersion, rising incomes and 
falling transportation costs have tipped the scales in favor of dispersion to the 
suburbs. 

Within that broad truth, growth rates in central cities still vary. To compare 
the strength of conditions associated with differential growth, Emmett Keeler and 
William Rogers devised a simple three-equation structural model of central city 
change in metropolitan areas of over 250,000 population.' The variables used in the 
model, with their means and standard deviations, are given in Table 2. This model 
assumes that SMSA total income growth and population growth are jointly deter- 
mined, and that SMSA population growth together with other exogenous variables 
determine central city population growth (see Fig. 1). Applied to 124 urban areas, 
the analysis shows SMSA income and population growth closely linked. It can be 
seen from the first equation in Table 3 that Congressional power, stronger city 
governments, and manufacturing have added to SMSA income growth. Natural 
increase and a good climate independently add to SMSA population growth (second 
equation). Central city change is mainly related to SMSA population change, but 
older cities with more old or black citizens lost more population, even with SMSA 
population change taken into account (third equation). 

Applying this model to St. Louis,^ we found that the mo/or phenomena associat- 
ed with the city's 2 percent annual rate of population decline were the slow growth 
of the metropolitan area (-0.33%), the city's age (-0.7%), its high percentage of 
black population in 1960 (-0.3%), a limited-power mayor form of city government 
(-0.2%), high median age of the population in 1960 (-0.2%), and a high density 
(-0.2%). The city's age showed a stronger association with decline than did any of 
the other variables. This finding supports other evidence (discussed below in the 
subsection on racial change) that associates decline with an old housing stock. It 
should also be noted, however, that the model explained only 60 percent of St. 
Louis's rate of decline (the actual rate was 2.5 percent a year; the model explained 
1 .5 percent),^ so that other factors, not included among the explanatory variables, 
are also important in St. Louis. 

We now turn to other analyses that examine factors included in the models we 
have just discussed, and additional factors useful in understanding how St. Louis got 
where it is. We also discuss the implications of these factors for projecting the city's 
future. 



p 1 9^1m^ iJr 1 D^o c^^^' ^ Classification of Large American Urban Areas. The Rand Corporation, 
K-1 J46-Nbt , May 1973. See Appendix D therein for applications of the model to 124 urban areas, 59 urban 
areas with central cities over 200,000, and St. Louis. 

' To estimate the effect of different St. Louis characteristics on the city's growth rate, values of the 
dependent vanab es for bt. Louis were multiplied by the parameters estimated in the regression for 124 
urban areas (Table 3). 

' For some other declining cities-e.g., Pittsburgh, Baltimore, and Newark-the model explained 
almost all the decline. 



12 



Table 2 i 
SELECTED STATISTICS FOR 124 METROPOLITAN AREAS^ 



Variable 


Abbreviat ion 


Mean 


Standard 
Deviat ion 


Total Income growth" 


EcGro 


0.0709 


0.015 


bnSA population change" 


SMSCh 


0.0175 


0.014 


Central city population change^ 


CC Ch 


0.0070 


0.019 


Congressional power^ 


CONG P 


0. 2A 


0. 45 


Type of city government^ 


C GOV 


2.60 


1.30 


Manufacturing ratio^ 


MANUF 


0.3A 


0.08 


High school graduates^ 


HSG 


0.53 


0.05 


Age of cityg 


Age C 


2.03 


0.31 


Ginl coefficient^ 


Gini 


0.341 


0.028 


Federal employees^ 


FEDEM . 


0.07 


0.03 


South (dummy) 


SOUTH 


0.32 


0.47 


Birth rate minus death rate, 1968 


Nat Inc 


0.0089 


0.003 


Unemployment, 1970J 


Unerap 


0.13 


0.018 


Climate^ 


Clim 


-6.8 


9.5 


Old in central city, 1960 (decile) 


CC Old 


4.9 


2.5 


Density central city (log) 


DENSC 


3.73 


0.26 


Black in central city, 1960^ 


Black 


0.24 


0.12 



Data base minus Honolulu, which does not seem to fit into the 
same pattern. All variables in percents are transformed by variance 
preserving transformation in the calculations, 
b 

Annual rate of growth, 1960-1970. 

c 

This variable is 1 if a key Congressman or Senator has city as a 
base. 

^Weak mayor « 0, stronger « 1.2, comm. « 3, manager ■ 4. 

Percent of nonagricultural employed. 
^Percent of population. 

^Population of city in (1890 + 1910 1930)/1960. 

A large value for inequality. 

^Percent of population, 1969. 

■^Percent of work force. 
K 

Ten people were asked to rank ten major cities on a scale of 1-5 
for desirability of climate. The average ranking was regressed 
against summer and winter mean noon temperature and annual rainfall. 



13 



Congressional Power 
Manufacturir>g Ratio 
% High School Graduates 
% Federal Employees 
Uncmplo/ment 



South 
Gini (Inequality) 



Cllrnate 
Birth - Deaths 
1968 



Total 
Income 
Growth 
1960-1970 



SMSA 
Population 

Growth 
1960-1970 



Age of City 
City Government 





Central City 
Population 

Growth 
1960-1970 


Black, Spanish in City 1960 
Old People in City 1960 







Fig. 1 — Model of metropolitan growth 



14 



Table 3 

A MODEL OF GROWTH AND DECLINE^ 
124 Urban Areas^ 



EcGro « 0.95 SMSCh + 0.0035 CONG P + 0.0015 C GOV + 0.025 MANUF - 0.023 HSG + 0.0072 Age C 
(2.9) (3.5) (1.9) (l.A) (2.2) 

0.082 Gini + 0.0055 SOUTH + 0.017 FEDEM - 0.039 Unemp + 0.13. 
(2-3) (2.8) (0.7) (1.1) (0.6) 

Standard error « 0.00565. 

SMSCh = 0.93 EcGro - 0.042 Gini - 0.007 SOUTH + 0.37 Nat Inc + 0.0002 Clim - 0.0342. 

(11) (+1.2) (3.4) (1.9) (2.25) (2.2) 

Standard error = 0.0063. 

CC Ch = 0.60 SMSCh - 0.018 Age C - 0.026 Black + 0.001 C GOV - 0.0012 CC Old 
(^•^) (2.7) (+2.3) (1.1) (2.3) 

+ 0.0084 DENSC + 0.0114. ' 
(1.7) (0.5) 

Standard error = 0.0114. 

SOURCE: Keeler and Rogers. A Classification of Large American Urban Areas, 
NOTE: See Table 2 for explanation of the variables, their abbreviations, means, and 
standard deviations. 

Estimated by two-stage least squares. 
All but Honolulu. 

c * • . • . • • • 

Values in parentheses are t-ratios. 



DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS^ 

The population of metropolitan St. Louis, like that of other metropolitan areas, 
changes through natural increase (the difference between births and deaths) and 
through migration. A continual process of redistribution is under way in the area 
as people move into and out of particular neighborhoods. During the 1960s, dis- 
similarities between population change in St. Louis and its metropolitan ring 
became intensified. 



Comparative Trends in the City and Metropolitan Ring 

St. Louis is a city of 600,000 in a metropolitan area of about 2.4 million people. 
During the 1960s, St. Louis's population declined 17 percent while its suburban ring 

* Taken from Peter A. Morrison, San Jose and St. Louis in the 1960s: A Case Study of Changing Urban 
Popzi/a/tonjy, The Rand Corporation, R.1313.NSF (forthcoming). 



15 



population increased 29 p^ercent. The central city decline was acute, compared with 
that of most cities. Examination of the demographic change components (Table 4) 
reveals why. 

The white population declined mostly because of massive outward migration, 
chiefly to the suburbs. Between 1960 and 1970, 34 percent of the white city-dwellers 
moved away. But whites also declined because their death rate steadily approached 
their birth rate, and since 1965 has exceeded it. Those who remained in the city 
added only 2 percent to their numbers (nationally, the increase in the white met- 
ropolitan population was 11 percent). 

It was a different picture for blacks. There was no gain or loss through net 
migration during the 1960s, but the black population rose 19 percent through natu- 
ral increase, very close to its national rate of 21.6 percent. Annual population 



Table 4 

COMPONENTS OF POPULATION CHANGE IN ST. LOUIS, 1960-1970 
(Rates per hundred 1960 residents) 



Area 


Total 
Change 


Natural 
Increase 


Net 
Migration 


Both Races 


St. Louis SMSA 
St. Louis City 
Remainder of SMSA 
(suburban ring) 


12.3 
-17.0 

28.5 


11.5 
7.3 

13.8 


0.8 
-2A.4 

U.7 


Whites 


St. Louis SMSA 
St. Louis City 
Remainder of SMSA 
(suburban ring) 


9.4 
-31.6 

26.6 


10.1 
2. A 

13.3 


-0.7 
-34.0 

13.3 


Nonwhites 


b 




St. Louis SMSA 
St. Louis City 
Remainder of SMSA 
(suburban ring) 


28.2 
18.6 

53.8 


20.2 
19.5 

22.0 


9.7 « 
-0.4 

37.2 



SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of 
Population and Housing: 1970; General Demographic 
Trerids for Metropolitan Areas, 1960 to 1970, Final 
Report PHC(2)-U Tables 10-12; PHC(2)'27, Table 3; 
PHC(2)-n, Table 3, Government Printing Office, 
Washington, D.C. , 1971. 

^Rate of increase attributed to excess of births 
over deaths. 

^In this section of the table, "Total Change" 
applies only to the black population. "Natural In- 
crease" and "Net Migration" apply to the nonwhite 
population as a whole, but in the St. Louis SMSA, 
virtually all nonwhites are black. 



16 



estimates, however, show the black population in St. Louis to have peaked in 1968 
at around 269,000. By 1972, it was estimated to have dropped below 250,000. In view 
of the black population's positive natural increase, the only explanation is that 
blacks have been migrating out of the city since at least 1968 (and almost certainly 
before). 

The redistribution of St. Louis's population during the 1960s and early 1970s 
was marked by a sharp withdrawal of residents from areas adjacent to the original 
central business district, and racial turnover in an area north of the city's center. 
To examine these changes in greater detail. Rand developed a model for estimating 
annually the population of city health districts.* (This model will enable city depart- 
ments to continue to monitor changes in the population's size and racial composition 
at the health-district scale throughout the 1970s.)* 

As can be seen from Fig. 2, substantial numerical increases in black population 
were registered in five health districts north and west of the city's center. In fact, 
four-fifths of the total citywide increase in black population occurred in this area. 
Since 1970, however, there has been no appreciable increase of blacks anywhere in 
St. Louis except in health districts 7 and 9. 

In districts where blacks increased substantially during the 1960s, the white 
population registered sharp declines (Fig. 3)— in some cases falling to less than 
one-fifth of its 1960 numbers.^ Since 1970, the white population in health district 23 
has stopped declining. In the eight other darkly shaded districts in Fig. 3, however, 
the white population has declined 15 percent annually from 1970 through 1972. 
Population in districts on the city's south side declined moderately or slightly during 
the 1960s and remains almost totally white today. 

TTiese hardly random changes in racial location in St. Louis continue to reflect 
the city's long history of residential segregation. (Until 1962, city newspapers car- 
ried separate advertisements for real estate open to blacks and whites.) 

Trends in the Suburbs 

Demographic trends were somewhat more uniform outside the city (Table 4). 
Natural increase and net migration contributed equally to the white population's 
26.6 percent increase during the 1960s. The black population's 53.8 percent subur- 
ban growth was attributable more to net migration than to natural increase.' St. 
Louis's suburbs attracted migrants largely from the city but also from outside the 
metropolitan area. Increasingly, migrants of both races entering the St. Louis SMSA 
bypassed the city and settled in the suburbs (mainly in St. Louis County). It can be 
seen in Fig. 4 that the total stream of new arrivals to St. Louis City between 1965 
and 1970 was smaller (both absolutely and relatively) than it had been a decade 
earlier. For blacks, the inbound stream was numerically about the same; but in 
relative terms, newly arriving blacks increasingly favored the suburbs. 

• The city is divided into 26 health districts, which range in population from about 10,(X)0 to 50,000. 

uli^,'^^^ ^' ^"^^'l-'^^ Population Estimates for the City of St. Louis, 1960-1972, with a 
Model for Updating Them, The Rand Corporation. R-1373-NSF (forthcoming). 

' Whereas Fig. 2 shows numerical increases, Fig. 3 shows percentage increa.se8. The two figures are 
necessanly mcompatible: in Fig. 2, there are many instances where the numerical base is very small and 
growing, whereas m Fig. 3 the base is typically large and shrinking. 

* Suburban blacks register a high overall rate of growth between 1960 and 1970 because their 1960 
population base was miniscule (81,000). 




NOTE: Cifywide, the block population Increased 39,814 
befwcen I960 and 1970. 



Substantial increase ( > 8,000) 
Moderate increose ( 2,000-6,000) 



I I Slight Increase (< 2, 000) 

r% j;°o| Decline . 



< 1,000 blacks either year 
Major park or cemetery 



Fig. 2— Districts gaining and losing black population, St Louis City 
Health Districts, 1960-1970 




oefween I960 and 1970. 

^^ir^l Major park or cemetety 

Fig. 3— Decline of white population, St. Louis City Health Districts, 

1960-1970 




°Dafa shown for 1955-1960 refer to nonwhites. 



Fig. 4— Destination of migrants entering the St. Louis SMSA, 1955-1960 
and 1965-1970 (persons 5 years old and over, residing outside SMSA 
or abroad five years previously) 



Changing Replacement Capacity 

The importance of these sharply divergent growth dynamics reaches beyond the 
mere decline of the city's population to the cumulatively weakening effects of pro- 
longed and severe out-migration. These effects are evident in the white population: 
heavy and prolonged out-migration has drawn away potential parents and left 
behind an elderly population that no longer regenerates itself 

The severity of out-migration by young adults can be gauged by following in- 
dividual age cohorts from 1960 to 1970 (Fig. 5). For example, if there were no net 
migration, the number of persons 5 to 14 years old in 1960 would appear as persons 
15 to 24 years old in 1970, less a small allowance for mortality during the decade. 
Below age 45, this allowance is minimal (at most 5 percent), so any sizable discrepan- 
cy between a young adult cohort in 1960 and 1970 indicates the extent of migration 
that has taken place. Figure 5 gives stark evidence of extensive out-migration in the 
early adult years. For example, in 1960 there were 37,900 white females aged 15-24, 
but by 1970, only 17,900 aged 25-34 remained— a 53 percent reduction. There were 
31,100 males aged 25-34 in 1960, but only 15,900 aged 35-44 in 1970— a 49 percent 



20 



Age 



1960 



I I 1970 





75 + 






^^^^^^^^^^ 

65-74 






35 40 



Fig. 5 — Age distribution of white population, St. Louis City, 
1960 and 1970 



reduction. Overall, 46 percent of whites aged 15-34 in 1960 were gone by 1970, 
leaving St. Louis with a sharply diminished pool of prospective parents. 

This diminished replacement capacity is illustrated more directly in Table 5, 
which shows: 

• Women in the middle and later childbearing years have grown more scarce. 
In 1960 white women 25 to 44 years old made up 22.1 percent of all white women 
in the city; by 1970 the figure had dropped to 17.6 percent. (Part of this drop stemmed 
from the changing national age distribution.)® 

• The proportion of elderly whites has risen. Whites 65 and over made up 14.5 
percent of the population in 1960, but 19.2 percent in 1970. (The corresponding 
figure nationally was 10 percent in both years.) 

• Partially as a result of these changes in age structure, the crude birth rate 
per thousand whites declined from 22.1 in 1960 to 12.0 in 1972; and the crude death 
rate per thousand whites rose from 14.8 to 18.0. (Part of the decline in the birth rate, 
of course, was a consequence of the national trend in the birth rate, which dropped 
nearly 25 percent during the 1960s.) 



• For white women nationally, this age group declined from 26.4 percent to 23.5 percent of the total 
population between 1960 and 1970. 



21 



Table 5 

BLACK AND WHITE REPLACEMENT CAPACITY IN ST. LOUIS, 
1960-1972 



i. IIU a L OL 


1 Q<ir» 

lybu 


1970 


1972 


Women in later childbearing 
years (25-44) 
White 
Black 


1 

22. 1% 
27.1% 


17.6% 
22.7% 


NA^ 
NA 


Population 65 and over 
White 
Black 


14.5% 
6.8% 


19.2% 
8.3% 


NA 
NA 


Crude birth rate 
White 
Black 


22.1 
34.4 


14.5 
25.1 


12.0 
24.9 


Crude death rate 
White 
Black 


14.8 
11.4 


17.7 
11.3 


18.0 
11.2 



Since 1965, the white population has ceased to replace itself, its death rate 
having exceeded its birth rate. By 1972, deaths exceeded births by a margin of 3 to 
2. Since it is now undergoing natural decrease, St. Louis's white population will 
continue to shrink whether or not net out-migration continues. Only a dramatic rise 
m fertility or a massive influx of young adults can alter this situation. 

The city's black population has not undergone severe migratory change and 
retains its strong replacement capacity: in 1972, its crude birth rate was 24.9 per 
thousand, but its crude death rate was only 11.2. Nevertheless, the black population 
began to decline in 1969, indicating a net migratory loss severe enough to offset its 
natural increase." This recent shift could signify an increase in departing migrants, 
a reduction in entering migrants, or a combination of both. What weak indications 
we have favor the first of these explanations." 

General statements about an entire city invariably mask specific neighborhood 
exceptions. This is true of St. Louis, where certain areas are registering growth by 
attracting new residents. Two important questions are: Where are these new resi- 
dents coming from— outside the city or other parts of the city? At what rate is the 
change occurring? If the change is internal, or if new residents are coming from 
outside, but at a slow rate, then the significance is small. 

althou^!t"!! hi IT" ^""^ difficult to forecast, a dramatic rise cannot be entirely ruled out. 

plSon-s'^e^^^^^^^^ - -^^'^'y - ^PP-^'^e bearing on the 

Uf^dafi^^ThemSet"" ^«"'»'"^« City of St. Louis. 1970-1972. with a Model for 

lOfiS onH 1o7r'" u'^- ^ i"'*'^^'* ^^^^ "''•''ack migrants entering St. Louis between 

in rrr.; 1J70 was about the same as between 1955 and 196(>-around 10,000. Thus, only an increase 
in gross out-niigration could account for the change in net migration. 



22 



latit^rL S '"^ ^'■""^^^ '"^^"'"^ considerable 

lat tude for judgment. One local view we encountered repeatedly was that young 

^H^ Z T '•^•"""^"^^ -'^h suburban living and attracted to inexpensively 
.unn ^l'^;^ h°"«'ng..are beginning to move back to St. Louis. Evidence offered in 
suppor of this view is anecdotal: a south-side realtor claims to have more buyers 
than sellers; a particular parish reports that whereas few new families moved in last 

SLlTd'hu^H '^i'.r'' ''^^^""'^ ^^P^^P'^ ^"^"^ « neighborhood 

festival, and hundreds of would-be newcomers inquire about buying a home there. 

1 V „nr? ^^yP°th«s's that a return to the city has commenced cannot be tested direct- 
ly until the next census is taken. Nevertheless, some signs of this alleged reversal 
should appear in our specially prepared population estimates for health districts on 

dltr cril nt J'"' ^^"'^ ^^'^^ P«P"'^^'- of health 

distncte 1, 3, and 14 has increased since 1970. The increases are small (3, 7, and 5 

Tre^rXn n ^*TV''' ''''' '^^^^^ '''' --'^^^^ health district 

disS 3 tnd \T"^" ' J '^^^ ""'^ ^^^^ 1971 it declined. Health 

incr^rl T'T^''^ l^^l- W« '=«""<'t ^'^'^^ whether these 

^Zrhe c7ty ' " - ^ P-P^« -1-ting 

Hp '^''"'''^ "^^^ speculate about whether and to what 

J^rtualW r vrT'.'' ^" ''^^ P'^P^^^^O" °" the south side 

liZnn\ ^hite^"d advanced in age. In coming years, more and more houses 
TrZ T ""r ^ population dies off". Some of this housing may well 

d^nf /T- T"^' ''''' '''^''^^ ^o-th in some neighborLods 
despite declining population citywide. 

oc^mrdt';^''%S;T ^^^^^^^^^^Phic evidence we have, we can assert that the 
oi^mZ/decline of St. Louis's population will continue and may well accelerate We 

acJuirSlt. Z 'u" ^"''^^""^l cumulative loss of city-dwellers' has 

acquired it^ own dynamic: the elderly now die off- faster than the young are born. 

fK. f-T' ^!"hstantial proportion of whites are either entering or already within 

thP P'-o.^^^tive parents are becoming scarce among St. Louis's whites, and 

Lounf ?htwt;r" ? f ^'^"'^ ^^^^ -ntinu "to 

mount The white population's crude birth rate is therefore likely to fall, barring a 

" '"'"^'^ " ^ ^^--^"^ ^"^^--^ -fl- of child-bearing 

tiallv °True ^h^ '"^'T? "^"^^'^ ''^^^'^ P°P^'^«°" ^^w substan- 

hnl l ^'"^'.^^^ hlack population is expanding steadily through natural increase 
but black migration out of the city is more than enough to cancel that increlT' 

Accumulation of Disadvantaged Citizens 

T^n!tl'"'f f °" '^^"^^"^ metropolitan-Wide distribution of population, St. 

. V ^^"'^ V^'' '""'P''^^- P«P"'^t'0" has come to be comprised of 
those citizens who are disadvantaged, as the following comparisons show 



23 



• Between 1960 and 1970, the city*s black population rose from 29 percent to 
41 percent, but only from 6 percent to 7 percent in the rest of the metropolitan area. 

• The city's residents 65 years and older increased from 12 percent of the 
population to 15 percent; they stayed at 8 percent in the remainder of the metropoli- 
tan area. 

• For families and unrelated individuals, median income in the city was 79 
percent of that for the SMSA in 1959; city income was only 68 percent of SMSA 
income by 1969. 

• The proportion of relatively high-income families declined sharply. In 1959, 
1 1 percent of families in the city had incomes at least double the city's median family 
income; by 1969 only 4 percent had such incomes. 

• The proportion of relatively low-income families rose slightly. In 1959, 16 
percent of families in the city had incomes below half the city's median family 
income; by 1969, 21 percent had such incomes. 

Through selective out-migration, problems of dependency and poverty— not ex- 
clusively problems of St. Louis— have come increasingly to be located mSt. Louis. 

Migration 

In this context, it is important to clarify how migration contributes to or allevi- 
ates the problems facing St. Louis and its residents. Like other metropolitan areas, 
St. Louis is linked with urban and rural areas throughout the country by migratory 
interchange. Among white migrants, this is a broadly connected system, indicative 
of metropolitan St. Louis's niche in a national system of manpower exchange. The 
migration of blacks, however, is more of an urbanizing process: incoming migrants 
enter metropolitan St. Louis mostly from rural origins in such states as Mississippi, 
Missouri, and Arkansas. Outgoing migrants go to metropolitan destinations, often 
large centers such as Los Angeles, Kansas City, and Chicago. For many blacks, St. 
Louis serves as an entry point into urban life. 

The city, however, is where most black in-migrants to the metropolitan area 
settle. An important question here is: How do these incoming migrants fare com- 
pared to the St. Louis residents they join? Although we lack the requisite data for 
exploring this point thoroughly, it is possible to examine the unemployment experi- 
ence of recent in-migrants after their arrival in St. Louis and compare it with St. 
Louis residents they join. »^ Data in Table 6 show that among blacks, recent migrants 
differ little from long-term residents with respect to unemployment at any age. 
Among whites, recent migrants also have unemployment rates similar to those of 
long-term residents (except for the 20-24 year age group). There is, however, a sizable 
difference between blacks and whites in every category: blacks are substantially 
more unemployed than whites. 

The effects of migration, then, have to be judged cautiously. In trying to analyze 
these effects, a major difficulty is that standard social and economic statistics are 
compiled and organized mostly by areas rather than by groups of people. Conse- 

Specifically, we compared the 1969 unemployment experience of recent migrants (defined as per- 
sons entering St. Louis between 1965 and 1970) with that of long-term residents (natives and earlier 
migrants). The source of these data was the 1970 Census Public Use Sample. 



24 



Table 6 

UNEMPLOYMENT RATES IN ST. LOUIS FOR RECENT MIGRANTS 
AND LONG-TERM RESIDENTS, 1969 



Age and Migration Status, 1970^ 


Percent 
Unemployed, 1969 


Whites 


Blacks 


20-24 years old 






Recent migrants 


6 


11 


Long-term residents 


3 


10 


25 years old and over 






Recent migrants 


1.6 


3.5 


Long-term residents 


1.5 


3.6 



SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1970 Census 
of Population^ Public Use Sample of Basic Records. 



All persons 20 years old and over in the labor 
force. Recent migrants are persons who moved to 
St. Louis between 1965 and 1970. Long-term resi- 
dents are persons who lived in St. Louis in both 
1965 and 1970. 



quently, we can observe the experience of places, but not of people. These experi- 
ences can differ sharply. For instance, black in-migrants from impoverished rural 
areas in states like Mississippi may be less affluent or employable than the mostly 
white population they join in St. Louis. If this is true in St. Louis (as it is in other 
cities), then area indicators (e.g., unemployment or poverty in St. Louis) may register 
a worsening of local conditions. But measures of individuals' experiences (e.g., their 
unemployment experience or poverty now, compared with what it was before they 
came to St. Louis) may show marked improvement. 



ECONOMIC CHANGES 

Slow Economic Growth in Metropolitan St. Louis 

We have seen that economic and population growth are slower in metropolitan 
St. Louis than in the nation as a whole. To what extent does this slow growth account 
for the central city's decline? There is certainly reason to believe that faster growth 
in the metropolitan area would be useful to the central city, but the Keeler and 
Rogers analysis discussed earlier indicated that slow metropolitan growth is not 
the variable most strongly associated with central city decline in St. Louis. 

Further, the policy implications of stimulating metropolitan growth to gain 
positive effects for a central city are curious. Built into an "average" metropolitan 
growth rate for the nation is the fiact that some areas fall below, some above that 

A Classification of Large American Urban Areas. 



25 



average. The most obvious way to change relative rankings is for metropolitan areas 
to compete v^ith one another for jobs and people. While proponents of local growth 
are accustomed to such competition/^ there is no compelling rationale for public 
policy at a higher level to artificially equalize the economic performance of met- 
ropolitan areas by redirecting people and jobs toward certain areas and away from 
others. 

Even if a local metropolitan area competes and wins, what are the relative 
benefits of so doing? In California, San Jose's rapid economic and population expan- 
sion produced its own set of problems:^® affluence increased, but its distribution did 
not become notably more equitable (Chicanos did not appear to benefit as much as 
Anglos); certain environmental amenities deteriorated as tract housing develop- 
ments and freeways destroyed orchards and serene vistas; and while San Jose's 
residents seem less concerned today with what urban planners regard as the aesthet- 
ic outrages of rapid growth, local policymakers were sufficiently skeptical of the 
benefits of rapid growth to ask Rand whether continuation of such growth was 
essential to economic well-being. Similar problems beset some of the suburbs of 
metropolitan St. Louis: traffic congestion, sudden new demands on municipal ser- 
vices, unplanned and inefficient land use are much more characteristic in the grow- 
ing suburbs than in the central city. 

Economic Growth: City Versus Suburbs 

Economic decentralization has paralleled the movement of population in met- 
ropolitan St. Louis. Between 1960 and 1970, the city's share of SMSA population 
shrank from 39 to 26 percent. Its share of area jobs declined from 61 to 42 percent. 

The figures in Table 7*^ illustrate how sharply the city and suburban economies 
were diverging during the latter half of the 1960s. In St. Louis, earnings grew only 
in the government and service sectors; all other sectors declined. In the suburban 
ring, all sectors registered positive growth. Table 8 shows that within the service 
sector, city employment grew slower than suburban ring employment; indeed St. 
Louis lost employment in ''hotels" and "personal" services and showed only a minis- 
cule increase in "legal" services and "amusement." These growth rates, combined 
with declining earnings in industrial and commercial sectors, strongly suggest that 
the center of economic activity is shifting away from the central city. We estimate 
that if these trends continue until 1975, St. Louis County will have captured a share 
of business activity approaching that usually associated with the central city of a 
metropolitan area (see Table 9).*® 

Survey of Industrial Developers 

To supplement the projections based on past aggregate data. Professors D. K. 
Holland and G. D. Wendel of St. Louis University carried out a survey of eight 

X'iljorous effbrts to recruit business at the regional level are planned by the St. Louis Regional 

Commerce and Growth Ass^x:iation formed in 1971. 

These rosuhi; are reported fully in Levine and Alesch, Growth in San Jose. 
" Taken f rom C. Gardner and G. Payne, An Economic Analysis of Central City Decline, The Rand 
Corporation, R-135a-NSF (forthcoming). 
Ibid. 



26 



Table 7 

ANNUAL GROWTH RATES OF EARNINGS BY SECTOR AND INDUSTRY, 
ST. LOUIS CITY AND SUBURBS, 1966-1970 

(In percent) 





St. Louis 




Sector 


City 


Suburbs 


Government 


5.3 


7.1 


Private 


-3.1 


6.1 


Manufacturing 


-A. A 


3.5 


Transportation, communications, 






Utilities 


-1.9 


9.2 


Trade 


-5.1 


11.7 


Finance, insurance, real estate 


-2.0 


7.1 


Services 


3.0 


7.1 


Total 


-2.3 


6.3 



SOURCE: Data provided by Regional Economics Infor- 
mation System, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Office of 
Business Economics, U.S. Department of Commerce. 



Table 8 

EMPLOYMENT IN SERVICES, ST. LOUIS CITY AND SUBURBS, 
1959 AND 1970 





St. 


Louis City 


Suburbs 




Number 


of Jobs 


Held 


Number 


of Jobs 


Held 


Service 


1959 


1970 


AGR^ 


1959 


1970 


AGR 


Hotels 

Personal 

Auto 

Repair 

Amusement 

Medical 

Legal 

Education 

Nonprofit 

Miscellaneous 


5,672 
7,86A 
2,190 
1,184 
2,123 
13,299 
1,072 
3,177 
8,396 


4,687 
7,025 
2,609 
1,690 
2,177 
20,317 
1,173 
10,244 
10,486 


-1.91 
-1.13 
1.75 
3.56 
0.25 
4.24 
0.90 
11.71 
2.22 


962 
4.039 
1,185 

705 
2,056 
6,030 

352 
1,134 
4,029 


3,351 
7,043 
2,626 
1,077 
3,611 
21,712 
946 
5,905 
8,442 


12.48 
5.56 
7.96 
4.24 
5.98 

12.81 
9.89 

16.50 
7.40 


business 


7.144 


14,744 


7.27 


1,114 


6,211 


17.18 



SOURCE: County Business Patterns, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 1959 and 1970. 



Average growth rate. 



27 



Table 9 

PERCENTAGE OF SMSA EARNINGS BY SECTOR, ST. LOUIS CITY, 
ST. LOUIS COUNTY, REMAINING SUBURBAN RING, 
1970 AND 1975 



Remaining 





St. Louis 


St. 


Louis 


Suburban 




City 




County 


Ring 




Sector 


1970 


1975 


1970 


1975 


1970 


1975 


Total nonfarm 


43 


33 


35 


47 


22 


20 


Government 


38 


36 


30 


32 


32 


32 


Federal government 


50 


46 


15 


25 


35 


29 


Private 


44 


33 


36 


50 


20 


17 


Manufacturing 


42 


33 


36 


47 


22 


20 


Transportation, communications. 














utilities 


55 


41 


23 


41 


22 


18 


Wholesale and retail 


46 


27 


37 


69 


17 


4 


Finance, insurance, real estate 


51 


39- 


35 


47 


14 


14 


Services 


43 


33 


35 


47 


22 


20 



SOURCE: Gardner and Payne, An Economic Analysis of Central City 
Decline. 



industrial developers in the St. Louis area.*® On the whole, industrial developers 
substantiated the conclusions of other analyses: that industrial dispersion in met- 
ropolitan St. Louis had been stimulated by the search for more space and by the 
construction of interstate highways. At one stroke, these highways made available 
large, relatively inexpensive tracts of suburban land and lowered transportation 
costs. The developers also indicated that high crime rates in the city gave added 
impetus to dispersion. 

Interviews with these developers pointed up two objective limitations facing 
any concerted effort to reverse industrial suburbanization: 

• More land is available in the suburbs than in the city. At present, about 1300 
acres (not all zoned industrial) are available for development in St. Louis, whereas 
4200 acres already zoned for industrial use are available for development in St. 
Louis County. Furthermore, despite widespread abandonment in St. Louis, develop- 
ment remains more expensive there than in the suburbs.^° Moreover, recent cut- 
backs in urban renewal funds have virtually eliminated the land write-down feature 
that formerly made the cost of city land development nearly competitive with subur- 
ban land development. 

• High crime rates have reduced the attractiveness of the land available for 
redevelopment in St. Louis. Yet crime rates depend heavily on the income level and 

*• These firms manage 50 percent of the area's industrial parks. A full description of the interview 
and analysis method used in the study, the sample of developers interviewed, and the full report of 
interview results are given in Holland and Wendel, Development of Industrial Parks. 

*° That is, in general, it remains expensive to buy abandoned property, clear it, and develop it or sell 
it to developers. Even with subsidized demolition (most of the clearance that has taken place is federally 
subsidized), the potential redeveloper must iixke into account the negative effects of surrounding, deteri- 
orating neighborhoods. 



k 



28 

age structure of the local population, factors that municipal governments can do 
little to change.*' 

From the survey of developers, we know that the most attractive land in the city 
for industrial development is distant from low-income residential neighborhoods 
and accessible to highways. From the developer's viewpoint, then, accumulating 
spatial inventory in the city is a necessary but not sufficient condition for future 
business investment. 



RACIAL FACTORS 

Several data sources we have examined show a strong relationship between the 
presence of blacks and a rapid exodus of whites at the neighborhood levelboth within 
St. Louis and in surrounding suburbs. However, the hypothesis that city-wide popu- 
lation decline is largely a matter of "white flight" (i.e., racially motivated departure) 
was not substantiated. This finding fits with the analysis by Keeler and Rogers," 
which shows a weaker relationship between race and central city decline than 
between the city's age and its decline. 

Race and Central City Decline: The White FUght Hypothesis 

Precipitous neighborhood change may be explained in part by racial transition, 
but the aggregate population decline of the city appears to be a response to other 
factors. In one attempt to account for the pattern of residential and industrial 
dispersion evident in the St. Louis metropolitan area, we tested three hypotheses 
that seemed to be plausible explanations of trends that have left St. Louis City with 
a population composed increasingly of blacks." 

• Industries in which whites are overrepresented have been suburbanizing 
more than other industries. A high proportion of whites have been choosing to live 
close to their jobs. 

. Other things being equal, nearly everyone prefers suburban residence to city 
residence. If whites' incomes have been rising more than blacks', a higher proportion 
of whites will have moved to the suburbs. 

• The white population has been leaving the city to escape the black popula- 
tion (the "white flight" hypothesis). 

We examined black and white departure rates from the central city adjusted for 
interracial differences in income and job location within the metropolitan area." 

^JuJl^^l^l^iT^A^^^^J"^'' ^^rK^^- ^"'^ ^ ^ ^■^^ ^^f" °«j<"- "iine reduction program 

sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice. 

" A Classification of Large American Urban Areas. 

nof'l^f*" n of the hypotheses might account for all of the city's demographic change, they are 

not^mutually exclusive. Indeed, it is unlikely that a single mechanism has been operating 
i« k-t" '"j*" constructed that allows us to calculate an expected value for the 1960-1970 change 
rJrfn?, A city residenu. allowing for city job losses (gains)-holding income constant. See 

Oardner and Payne. An Economic Analysis of Central City Decline, Appendix A. 



29 



There were two findings. First, within every income bracket for both blacks and 
whites, fewer people live in St. Louis City than would be expected, given the spatial 
distribution of jobs. Second, at only the lowest and highest income levels did whites 
leave the city at faster rates than their black cohorts. That is, for most of the income 
distribution, blacks and whites were leaving the city at the same rate during the 
1960s. 

m 

Reasons for Residential Change 

A survey conducted by the City Plan Commission in 1967" offers clues about 
why these moves took place. Interviews suggest that people's desire to own a home 
or enlarge living space is as important as their desire to escape repellent neighbor- 
hood conditions in motivating movement within and away from the city. Of respond- 
ents who intended to move, both blacks and whites who gave priority to becoming 
homeowners tended to favor St. Louis County as their destination. For prospective 
homeowners, then, St. Louis's housing stock is less competitive than housing in the 
suburbs.^® On the other hand, respondents who intended to move and who gave 
priority to enlarged living space tended to designate locations within the city. 

Thus, St. Louis's housing stock is competitive mostly as it offers space for rent. 
Blacks and whites who expected to move, however, were found to designate mutually 
separate areas of the city. While we hesitate to accept these expressions of intent 
without question, we note that they are borne out by the actual patterns of white 
and black movement, to which we now turn our attention. 

Analysis of Census Tract Population Changes 

During the 1960s, rates of population change varied widely among different 
sections of St. Louis. Census tracts— small and relatively homogeneous areas into 
which cities are subdivided— are a useful scale at which to examine these variations. 
Regression analyses of population changes in St. Louis census tracts from 1960 to 
1970 reveal consistent patterns beneath this variability and offer clear indications 
of the contrary racial trends just noted. 

Not surprisingly, the population changes at this small-area scale fit well with 
the somewhat larger health district scale analysis reported above, showing continu- 
ing differentiation of the black and white populations within the city. Blacks exhibit 
a strong tendency to move into tracts where blacks already reside, rather than 
disperse evenly throughout the city. (As noted earlier in this section, under the 
heading "Comparative Trends in the City and Metropolitan Ring," four-fifths of the 
black population's citywide increase was concentrated in 5 of the city's 26 health 
districts.) Predominantly white tracts tend to retain white residents if most white 
households own their homes. White population declines more severely where most 
whites rent, or where blacks— particularly new arrivals— make up a significant 

" A reanalysis of selected parts of that survey is reported in Morrison, San Jose and St. Louis in the 

1960s. 

" A more detailed analysis of the reasons for residential choices will be available when C. Leven and 
J. Little publish their model of residential preference. See Sec. II, footnote 15. above. 

" A full discussion of the data and regression coefficients on which the analysis in this subsection is 
based is reported in Morrison, San Jose and St. Louis in the 1960^. , , 



90 



fraction of residents. Although our regression analysis cannot shed light on causa- 
tion or underlying motives, it documents the powerful continuities in racial separa- 
tion in St. Louis. These tendencies reflect a long history of overt racial segregation 
in housing. Today, however, the behavioral mechanisms at work may also involve 
income differences that affect the filtering of housing. To investigate this possibility, 
we examined the dynamics of the housing market. 

Neighborhood Level Analysis of the Housing Market" 

An arbitrage model of household locational decisions can often be used to pre- 
dict and explain the response of the housing market to changes of race and income 
in neighborhood household composition. This model assumes that the housing mar- 
ket is segregated by race and income, reflecting people's preference to cluster in 
homogeneous groups. High-income families who can afford new housing receive 
discounts if they live in neighborhoods adjacent to low-income families. Low-income 
families pay premiums to live in neighborhoods adjacent to high-income families 
and capture their amenities. Equilibrium in the market occurs when the price of 
housing along the boundary between these two groups is the same for each. 

Under these conditions, increased housing demand by poor families can provide 
an incentive for houses to change from use by high-income families to use by low- 
income families; as the price of housing goes up for low-income families, the contrac- 
tion of housing supply for high-income families increases the cost of their housing 
and provides an incentive to new construction. Racial prejudice would affect the 
housing market similarly, although two boundaries should develop: one between 
high-income and middle-income black families, and one between black families and 
low-income families. In this case, as black families demand more housing and drive 
the price up, there is an incentive to shift some housing from use by high-income 
whites to use by middle-income blacks. 

Initial evidence based on rental market data for selected city neighborhoods 
shows the following pattern: vacancies rise as black and low-income family occupan- 
cy approaches a particular block. Near the peak of the vacancies, rents begin to 
declme. Then, once the boundary is passed, vacancies decline and rents rise briefly 
to their previous level. Finally, rents decline continuously until they reach a floor, 
at which time the units are removed from the market. 

This same pattern has since been found to prevail in suburban neighborhoods. 
Additional data on the housing market (i.e., data on the owner-occupied as well as 
the rental housing market) suggest that middle-income blacks— themselves moving 
from lower-income black areas— have been the leading edge of suburban neighbor- 
hood transition even where their incomes are somewhat higher than those of their 

" ™f analysis has been developed from several different sources. The "arbitrage model" of 
househo d locational decisions was first used in Urban Decay in St. Louis (Institute for Urban and 
KegionaJ btudies, Washington University) to describe and explain events irt the city's housing market 
U)mprehensive housing market data to test the model are being developed by Hugh Nourse and James 
UtUe under HUD grant MOPEM. In this latter study, the arbitrage model will be tested in nine neighbor- 
hoods located in the city and m suburbs surrounding the city: University City, Wellston, Jennings. 
Normandy, River View Gardens, Bayden. Walnut Park. The Hill, Lafayette^ulard. An application of 
the model to additional data developed for University City in response to Rand's request is reported in 
James Little, Housing Market Behavior and Mobility Patterns in a Transitional Neighborhood, Institute 
for Urban and Regional Studies, Washington University, St. Louis, June 1973. 



31 



new white neighbors. Vacancy rates increase in such neighborhoods, and housing 
prices deflate ovtT time to the point where less affluent black families can enter the 
area. White neighborhoods in the path of such movement anticipate transition, 
showing higher vacancy rates even before black entry — and the process continues. 

These latter data support the hypothesis that precipitous neighborhood change 
is stimulated by racial transition. Even so, it can be argued that white response at 
the neighborhood level is less a direct flight from the first middle-income black 
families than a response to expectations that lower-income blacks will follow. 

Policy Implications 

To repeat, racial aversions do not appear to be strongly associated with St. Louis 
City's population decline; in fact, at most income levels, blacks and whites have been 
leaving the city at about the same rate. On the other hand, there is some evidence 
that racial transition causes precipitous neighborhood change u;i7/im jurisdictions. 
But whether race, income, or some combination of differences causes people to flee 
certain neighborhoods and certain jurisdictions, communities of high transition are 
typically left with lowered income distributions. Local policymakers are then less 
able to intervene in the transition process, to the extent that public services depend 
on tax revenues collected from residents. 



POLICY ACCELERATORS TO CENTRAL CTTY DECLINE 

The decline of St. Louis remains most strongly associated with the demographic 
and economic factors discussed above, factors that local policy can do little to control. 
Nor can St. Louis easily control federal policies that contribute to decline. However, 
certain federal and local policies not only contribute to decline; they accelerate it. 
Some of these policies are discussed in this section. 

Federal Highway Policy** 

During the 1960s the federal government supported the construction of five 
major interstate highways in metropolitan St. Louis (Fig. 6).^° Total capital expendi- 
tures of the interstate system during this period exceeded $250 million dollars, of 
which the state paid 10 percent.'* 

" Calculations in this section are reported ir. J. Enns and P. deLeon, The Effect of Highways upon 
Metropolitan Dispersion: St. Louis, The Rand Corporation, P-5061, September 1973. 

Three of the links in this system (1-70, 1-44, and 1-55) are radial routes extending west from the 
Central Business District; the other two links (1-270 and 1-244) make up the outer beltway that connects 
the northern and southern portions of St. Louis County. These routes were completed on the following 
dates: 1-70 (July 1961), 1-270 (June 1964), 1-55 (July 1967), 1-244 (November 1968), and 1-44 (December 
1972). Two other major arteries also were developed during the 1960s. SUite Highway 40 (the Daniel 
Boone Expressways was substantially improved, while St. Louis <:k)unty completed a portion of the inner 
beltway that connects Highway 40 with 1-70. 

The expenditure data were obUined from U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway 
Administration, Highway Statistics, Table SF-15, annual volumes 1965-1970. The data cover JelTerson, 
St. Charles, and St. Louis Counties and St. Louis City. 



32 




Source: Holland and Wendel, Development of Industrial Parka 



Fig. 6 — Location of major highways and industrial parks 
in the St. Louis SMSA 



33 



Industrial park locations (the dots in Fig. 6) show that this form of industrial 
development is sensitive to the location of the interstate beltway, a fact borne out 
by the survey of industrial developers discussed above. To gain a rough numerical 
picture of how beltways influence land use patterns, we examined residential and 
employment density changes that occurred between 1965 and 1970 for three rings 
of the SMSA,'^ designated by the letters A, B, and C in Fig. 6. Ring A is bounded 
by city limits on the west and includes all traffic zones within the city. Ring B 
contains all zones in St. Louis County within the outer beltway (1-270, 1-244). Ring 
C includes the remaining zones west of the outer beltway and portions of St. Charies 
and Jefferson Counties (represented by dashed lines in Fig. 6). 

Land use densities in 1965 and 1970, shown in Table 10, reveal several interest- 
ing trends. First, population density is roughly three times higher in St. Louis City 
(Ring A) than in inner St. Louis County (Ring B); but in both areas population 
density declined from 1965 to 1970. In outer St. Louis County and portions of 
Jefferson and St. Charles Counties (Ring C), population density increased about a 
third, but the absolute density of this ring is still far lower than that of the inner 
two rings. Second, industrial employment density (persons employed per industrial 
acre) declined in Ring A and increased in both Rings B and C, supporting other 
observations about the direction of industrial expansion. By contrast, commercial 
employment density increased slightly in Ring A while falling in Ring B; it rose 
sharply in Ring C, although from a small initial base. These trends suggest that the 
urbanization process is continuing well beyond the previous county suburban bound- 
ary (represented by the inner beltway). 

We also explored the influence of radial highway routes on changing land use 
for industrial purposes in one portion of the metropolitan area. Our expectation was 
that areas experiencing large decreases in travel time to St. Louis's Central Business 
District would display the greatest relative increases in land use density." Our 
results were mixed. For that portion of the SMS A lying north of State Highway 40, 
density changes tended to be greatest where travel time changes were smallest- 
opposite to our expectations. This finding may reflect important time lags in the 
adjustment of urban activities to transportation change. We note that the major 
northern radial route, 1-70, was completed in 1961; thus its impact on changing 
travel time is not captured by our 1965-1970 data. The changing densities we do 
capture may reflect continuing response to those earlier time changes.'* 

In the southern portion of metropolitan St. Louis, the data confirmed our an- 
ticipated effect of travel time change on density. Industrial employment density 
changes were directly influenced by improved access to the CBD. The estimated 

" This was the only time span for which appropriate data were available. 
• "u^u ^^^^ °^ decreasing travel time to the CBD, a simple regression model was used 

in which absolute changes m industrial employment density formed the dependent variable; the model's 
explanatory variables consist of absolute change in travel time to the CBD plus some initial density 
variables to allow for differing levels of land use between regions at the start of the time period. Traffic 
zone data on population, employment, and CBD travel time for the Missouri portion of the SMSA were 
obtained for two years (1965 and 1970) from the Mi.csouri State Highway Commission; the observations 
used to estimate the regression equations were then formed by calculating the changes in density and 
Ln^au'sis""* observations (traffic zones) available for the regression 

" y*^** conclusion is partially supported with regard to industrial employment by an inspection of 
the pattern of industrial park development that occurred during the 1960-1970 period. Of the 25 parks 
developed during the decade in North St. Louis County, 13 were opened aRer 1965. Data on opening dates 
ot industrial parks were obtained from Holland and Wendel, Development of Industrial Parks 



34 



Table 10 

POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT DENSITIES IN 
THE ST. LOUIS SMSA, 1965-1970 



Ring 


Population 
Density 


Indus trial 
Employment 
Density 


Cnmmp vr 1 1 

Employment 
Density 


Ring A 
1965 
1970 


33.5 
31. A 


12.7 
12.0 


10.5 
10.8 


Ring B 
1965 
1970 


11.7 
10.5 


3.1 
3.4 


4.7 
4.2 


Ring C 
1965 
1970 


2.3 
3.2 


0.75 
1.0 


1.3 
2.4 



SOURCE: Traffic zone data obtained from 
Missouri State Highway Commission. 



NOTE: Population density figures refer' 
to persons per residential acre. Employ- 
ment densities refer to persons employed per 
industrial or commercial acre. 



coefficient for travel time change (the major explanatory variable) was near unity, 
indicating that for the typical zone, a one-minute decline in CBD travel time is 
associated with an increase of one industrial job per industrial acre.^'^ 

No doubt, the size of this coefficient is inflated because our model excludes other 
important explanatory variables, such as land value. Nevertheless, it is clear that 
the response of industrial firms to declining transportation costs, as measured by 
CBD travel-time changes, is significant. 

To summarize, both radial highways and beltways have stimulated industrial 
and population dispersion from St. Louis. If these patterns continue during the 
remainder of the 1970s, the interstate beltway may be a catalyst for further west- 
ward movement of population and employment. Indeed, our survey of industrial 
developers indicates that this beltway has already sparked a substantial increase of 
industrial activity in the outer western ring of metropolitan St. Louis. 

Federal Real Estate Tax Incentives^' 

Federal real estate tax incentives do not determine the jurisdictional locations 
(e.g., city versus suburb) in which money is invested. But they accelerate dispersion 
by ofiering advantages to types of investment that are simply more available in 

" The jiata used represented actual employment between 1965 and 1970 (not jobs available). This 
result IS thus affected to some unknown degree by the level of unemployment prevailinjr in 1965 and 1970. 

" Material in this section is taken from R. Slitor, "Tax Effects on Urban Growth in Three Cities: San 
Jose, St. Louis, and Seattle" (unpublished Rand document). 



36 



suburbs than in central cities. For example, the benefits to home ownership encour- 
age middle- and upperrincome families to purchase new housing which appears 
mostly in the suburbs. At the same time, laws that do not allow deductibility of 
capital losses on owner-occupied homes, but that do tax capital gains, hasten disin- 
vestment in central city housing that is comparatively older and more likely to 
decline in value, and discourage improvements likely to be reflected in capital gains. 

In combination, these laws encourage panic selling to avoid loss, and worsen the 
instability of neighborhoods undergoing racial or income transition; they deter 
capital improvements, thereby hastening the deterioration of housing stock; and 
they encourage conversion of homes to rental property for a period before sale, thus 
accelerating neighborhood change. For metropolitan St. Louis, Richard Slitor has 
estimated that there is a $67 million annual tax break for home ownership, a $22 
million capital gains incentive for real estate speculation, and $13 million in capital 
gains unrealized at death. These figures represent different sorts of incentives for 
private actions, not estimates of the market effects of such actions. Thus, they are 
not additive. Nonetheless, they represent an impressive set of incentives for invest- 
ment in suburban housing and disinvestment in central city housing. 

Other Federal Policies 

A number of other contributory federal policies warrant mention in an overall 
assessment of St. Louis's decline. While we have not carried out specific analyses 
here, we can oflTer the following observations based on research by others. 

The housing policies of the 1960s had important eflTects in St. Louis. The Pruitt- 
Igoe public housing development, built in the 1950s, abandoned during the 1960s, 
and partially demolished in the 1970s, is well known— a classic example of how 
federal high-rise, low-amenity, problem-concentrating public housing fails. 

Less dramatic but more important than public housing has been the effect of 
mortgage reinsurance by the FHA and VA, far and away the most powerful federal 
policy affecting housing in the post-World War II era. To be sure, decentralization 
of population has stemmed from an overwhelming popular desire for suburban 
housing; but FHA and VA reinsurance had two important contributory effects. First, 
it enabled people to buy suburban housing with no down payment and at low interest 
rates. Second, it created a national mortgage market. Both of these eflfects accelerat- 
ed the outward movement of families. Moreover, in the case of St. Louis, the FHA 
has oflen refused insurance on inner-city mortgages, making it even less likely that 
private owners would maintain the existing housing stock. More recently, the De- 
partment of Housing and Urban Development has sharply curtailed urban renewal 
funds, thereby removing the land write-down feature — the only remaining factor 
that could make city land development nearly competitive with suburban land 
development. 

Housing is by no means the only realm in which the powerful side effects of 
federal policy have hastened St. Louis's decline. Earlier we pointed out that one 
reason for differential decline is the ample availability of cheap agricultural land 
that can readily be developed for industrial or residential uses. Although partly a 
result of St. Louis's natural geography, suburbanization may be substantially ac- 
celerated by federal flood control policy under the Corps of Engineers, which contin- 
ues to create more land. 



36 



A number of federal policies, then , have contributed to St. Louis's decline. Other 
possible policies, such as revenue-sharing and income maintenance, might have 
helped to slow this decline or soften its effects on people, but such policies have not 
been in force. 



Local Policies 

Jurisdictional Boundaries. St. Louis is one of the five geographically small- 
est cities in the United States with over half a million population. " At the peak of 
Its twentieth-century population, more than 880,000 residents lived within its 61 
square miles. Although there are fewer than 600,000 residents today, St. Louis 
retains a high density of land use.'» Indeed, our survey of industrial developers 
shows them in unanimous agreement that the desire for additional space has been 
an overwhelming (though not exclusive) motivation for business departures from 
the city. 

Some local analysts contend that sharp decline registered in St. Louis's popula- 
tion is, to a degree, a statistical artifact arising out of the political decisions that have 
kept city boundaries fixed for so long. According to this view, the corporate entity 
called "St. Louis" is more artificially defined than most other central cities, the 
result being to render it an exaggerated example of the typical older U.S. city.^"' 

To measure the eflfect of this size restriction more exactly, we calculated how 
far St. Louis boundaries would have to extend for its decline in 1960-1970 population 
to equal the a yero^e population decline for comparable U.S. cities.*" We found that 
city boundaries would have to extend about six miles farther west, taking in two- 
thirds of St. Louis County's population and about one-third of the county's land area 
(see Fig. 7). Of course, it is possible to extend city boundaries far enough to create 
a jurisdiction that shows no population or job loss between 1960 and 1970. In that 
case, what we call the city would become a larger jurisdiction's concentration of 
low-income population. It is not clear, however, that the jurisdiction we might create 
this way would have developed in the same way had such annexation actually 
occurred. 

Though we cannot argue that restricted boundaries have accelerated St. Louis's 
decline, they have distributed the consequences of decline to the city's disadvantage. 
Reduced revenues, coupled with the necessity of maintaining an older physical stock 
and the necessity of providing services to a growing proportion of aged and poor, 
engender problems that are less and less capable of solution from within those 
political boundaries. 

Conservative Banking Community. People we spoke with often mentioned 
the conservatism of the city's banking community as a barrier to new growth in St. 
Louis. Using recently developed techniques of portfolio analysis, we tested this 

K.Z.'^!' f ^'■*"<='^">' Pittsburgh, and Washington (we exclude the individual 

boroughs of New York from this comparison). 

" See Table 10. 

»• Dempster Holland's unpublished paper illustrates, for several older cities, the strong relationship 
between the proportion of the city urbanized before 1900 and the proportion of the city with the highest 
ratw of abandonment. Of the cities compared (Cincinnati. Chicago. Pittsburgh, Columbus. Detroit. Cleve- 
lana. M. U)ms\ bt. Louis had the largest portion of its land area urbanized before 1900. 

" The calculation appears in Morrison. San Jose and St. Louis in the 1960s. 



37 




Area hypothetical ly annexed 



Fig. 7— Hypothetically different St. Louis City boundaries 



belief.** The approach used was suggested by the method of the Capital Asset Pricing 
Model, developed by William Sharpe*^ and others. 

Applying this model to the four largest banks in St. Louis City— The First 
National Bank, Bank of St. Louis, Boatmen's National Bank, Mercantile Trust— we 
found conventional wisdom to be true. These banks are conservative when compared 
with the rest of the nation's big-city banks. And between 1940 and 1970, the banks 
showed increasing conservativeness. But what is the import of this for urban 
growth? 

It can be argued theoretically that in cities where banks finance higher-risk, 
higher-payoff investments, the wealth of the population will grow faster than in 
cities where banks maintain lower-risk preferences. The regulation of entry into 
banking reduces the probability that the full spectrum of risk preferences will 
develop among banks, a phenomenon that can be expected to develop in an open 
competitive market. Unit-rule banking, a very strict Ibrjn of entry regulation, may 
tend over time to reinforce any disequilibrium of risk preferences (e.g., where all 

A discussion of this test appears in Cyrus J. Gardner, Bankinfi Rcffulation and Urban Growth, The 
Rand Corporation, P-5057, August 1973. 

William Sharpe, "Capital Asset Prices: A Theory of Market Equilibrium under Conditions of Risk," 
Journal of Finance, Vol. 19, No. 3, September 1964, p. 425. 



38 



banks in a community are conservative or all have high-risk preferences) by retard- 
ing the entry of new banks into a community/^ 

While we cannot estimate the quantitative effect of a conservative banking 
community on economic growth in St. Louis City, we can argue with confidence that 
it has not helped the city's economic viability. 

« Unit-rule banking involves a state regulation that forbids the formation of branch banks. Both 
Missouri and Illinois have unit-rule banking. For an empirical study showing that creation of new banks 
isretarded "^o^e under unit-rule banking regulations than under regulations that allow branch banking, 
aeeR Pakonen. The Differential Effect of Branch Uw Regulation on Commercial Bank Entry." Ph.D. 
dissertation. Washington State University. Pullman, Washington. 1971 



IV. ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES FOR THE FUTURE 



ALTERNATIVE FUTURES FOR ST. LOUIS CITY 

Because St. Louis has already undergone major economic and population de- 
cline, it is possible that the attendant accumulating inventory may initiate new 
conditions in the city that will gradually mitigate or even reverse the downward 
trends of the past. Theoretically, any urban jurisdiction can "bottom out," as large 
blocks of inexpensive empty land stimulate new forms of investment. 

Today, of course, St. Louis is far from emptied out. It still contains some 600,000 
residents and 40 percent of the SMSA's business activity. However, its population 
is on a course that cannot easily change: the white population will not cease declin- 
ing without net in-migration, and the black population will not continue growing 
unless out-migration ceases. If industrial location trends during the latter half of the 
1960s continue for another five years, the city will be only one other center of 
business activity, as opposed to the chief center. St. Louis County will contain more 
economic activity than the city. Public revenues have become progressively more 
difficult to generate locally: receipts from the earnings tax are falling in real terms; 
the statutory limit on the property tax rate has been reached; and assessed valuation 
is not increasing faster than inflation. In both 1971 and 1972, sales tax receipts were 
disappointingly less than had been expected.* 

Current and Future Inventory 

Nevertheless, the city now has approximately 1300 acres available for develop- 
ment. This figure could rise to 2200 by the year 1990, if current trends in land 
clearance continue (through continuing population and business dispersion, along 
with the present rate of building demolition). We can arrive at a rough estimate of 
what new investment in these areas might mean for the city as follows:* 

If almost 60 percent of the available land is allocated to industrial-commercial 
use and the remainder to streets, alleys, and residential uses, then about 1300 acres 
will be available for industrial-commercial development by 1990. Translating this 
acreage into jobs— 67 percent allotted to industrial and 33 percent to commercial 

' Annual Report of Comptroller, City of St. Louis. 1971, and conversation with Mayor John Poelker, 
June 22. 1972. 

' These estimates were made by Dempster Holland of St. Louis University and appear in Holland and 
Wendel, Development of Industrial Parks. 



39 



40 



jobs, as is now the case— and then allocating 26 employees to each industrial acre 
and 85 employees to each commercial acre (using 1971 statistics), some 56,000 jobs 
could be developed by 1990. Next, since the earnings tax is one of the most significant 
sources of current city revenues,^' we estimate average salaries for the jobs to be 
developed* and the consequent earnings tax: by 1980, approximately $3 million, and 
by 1990 an additional $4.5 million, might be generated in city earnings tax. 

These obviously crude estimates indicate possibilities, not probabilities; they do 
not represent net increases; they assume short temporal lags between abandonment 
and remvestment; nor are they consistent with the results of our survey of industrial 
developers. If those results are indicative of a solid frame of mind on the part of the 
private interests making the relevant decisions, the simple availability of land in the 
city will not suffice. 

Federal Decisions 

Before we turn to specific local policy efforts to induce redevelopment, it is 
important to mention three pending decisions. Each will be made primarily at the 
federal level, and any one of them could reduce the effectiveness of local attempts 
to brmg economic activity and residences back to the city. They are: 

(1) The development of bottomland. About 5000 additional acres could become 
available for industrial development in St. Louis County alone with construction of 
the Meramec Basin Dam by the Army Corps of Engineers. 

(2) A projected interstate highway link from Kansas City to Chicago. This high- 
way will cut two hours and over 100 miles from the present route through St. Louis. 
Many argue that the new highway will hurt both the trucking and tourism indus- 
tries in the St. Louis metropolitan area, and particularly in the city. 

(3) A new airport site. The development of a new airport to the southwest of 
the city, in addition to Lambert Field on the northwest, would further act to draw 
new mdustrial development away from the city limits. (This is not to imply the 
converse— that an airport located to the east in Illinois would draw business back 
mto the city.) However, any new attraction for development west of the city is likely 
to hurt, with more western development reinforcing a strong existing tendency.* 

Local Policies: Redevelopment Possibilities 

Meanwhile, the St. Louis City Plan Commission has just published a new 15- 
year development program" intended to reestablish the city as a viable working and 

thPv S! * l-pcrcent tax on salaries of residents wherever they work and employees wherever 

they live, which accounte for approximately one-third of city revenues. 

r^rLi°^S""^ broken down by industrial classification and average salary for 1970 (according to current 
n^,^? '" categories). Average salaries for 1980 and 1990 were then computed, assuming 

a 5-percent increase compounded annually, using current wage guidelines. 

current dispute about airport location, involving expansion of Lambert Field versus construc- 
TLl^ fl'^^l'" '""'f' clear^ut. Lambert exists, and much ot what mav be attracted to 

AfThi . . ' ^ ^'"■^"'^y attracted. However. Missouri locations to the wes't and southwest 

01 the city were suggested several years ago. and could be revived as candidates for new airport location 
St. Louis Development Program (A Summary). St. Louis City Plan Commission, January 1973 



41 



residential community. Although emphasizing physical development, particularly 
of residential neighborhoods, the program also focuses on controlling crime, improv- 
ing educational opportunity, and restructuring some parts of city government. The 
plan envisions differential treatment of neighborhoods aimed at retaining the stabil- 
ity of neighborhoods that are presently sound, rehabilitating other neighborhoods, 
and continuing demolition in still others. 

For the short-range phase of the development program that stresses residential 
betterment, estimated financial requirements are $154 million. The program recom- 
mends, in addition, a four-year public improvement effort involving: $6 million for 
demolition; $7.2 million for waste disposal and pollution abatement; $29 million for 
facilities to encourage economic development; $68 million for transportation im- 
provements; $16 million for major recreational facilities; and $40 million for educa- 
tional facilities. Accomplishment of the long-range (15-year) plan is estimated to 
require close to $1.5 billion.^ 

In addition to urban redevelopment carried out by the St. Louis Land Clearance 
for Redevelopment Agency (both federally assisted and nonfederally assisted), three 
policies are being used in concert to enhance the prospects for private investment 
in the city: 

(1) The Missouri Urban Redevelopment Corporation Law, which provides the 
power of eminent domain to corporations planning expansion or redevelopment. 
This allows more efficient accumulation of land and is accompanied by a 25-year 
schedule of tax abatement. 

(2) Planned Industrial Expansion, which allows industrial revenue bonds to be 
used for industrial development. 

(3) The Land Reutilization Act, which permits the city to foreclose on tax- 
delinquent property, thereby enabling the city to accumulate property for purposes 
of restoration or rezoning for new uses. 

Recent private investment has been substantial, according to the Plan Commis- 
sion. For example, they point out that the Mercantile Trust Company announced 
plans this year for a $150-million Mercantile Center. The Boatmen's National Bank 
has announced plans for a $23-million project. Design of a $25-million public Con- 
vention Center is nearing completion. Official approval is near for a $75-million 
Convention Center Plaza private redevelopment effort. Construction has begun on 
an $8-million addition to Stouffers Inn. Breckenridge Hotels Corporation has re- 
quested approval for a $10-million hotel development over the vacant Spanish Pavil- 
ion. General American Life Insurance Corporation has announced plans to build a 
new headquarters at an estimated cost of $10 million. A Florida developer has 
announced plans to renovate the city's old Post Office building, and other plans are 
in progress. 

Further, local officials see great promise in a new consciousness of neighborhood 
identity among many of its residents, and a renewed interest in city dwelling among 
young families. In the last five years, neighborhood corporations have burgeoned, 
and neighborhood festivals — drawing from 10,000 to 50,000 people — have been tak- 



' Ibid., pp. 3a-36. 



42 



ing place in increasing number. These festivals consciously promote the amenities 
of in-city living, and encourage potential homebuyers to sign up to be contacted 
when housing comes on the market. According to some estimates, between 2000 and 
4000 young families have been attracted to city residence since 1970, either recruit- 
ed by conscious neighborhood effort or drawn by their own tastes for city residence. 

The Probabilities 

No one can deny that local policy has taken an active and vigorous posture 
toward reviving city life. But there are major uncertainties as to whether the under- 
lying causes of the urban crisis in St. Louis can be effectively changed or reversed 
by measures envisioned in the new plan: 

Will the current revival of private investment in the city continue? 

Will middle-income families and businesses be attracted back to the city in 
significant numbers by these measures alone? 

Will they manage to generate sufficient revenues to support municipal goods 
and services, despite having to share these revenues with the city's disadvantaged 
population? 

Our analysis makes us doubt that the present policies alone can sufficiently 
attract new investment to the central city. The city is capturing a dwindling fraction 
of the new industrial and commercial development occurring in metropolitan St. 
Louis. In 1968, approximately 56 percent of new investment in projects involving 
$100,000 or more was in the city. In 1970, the figure was only 23 percent; and in 1972, 
11 percent.® Although investors are betting that the scheduled new ofiice space will 
be filled, their bets are cautiously hedged. Thus, the Mercantile Center development 
is staged over a decade. It will begin with a $25-million building to house existing 
bank facilities, requiring that only 50 percent of the space be leased on the open 
market. Subsequent buildings— a luxury hotel and three more office buildings— will 
be developed sequentially. As first steps are justified by new demand, next steps can 
be taken. And caution is not unwarranted: in the city, utilization of general ofiice 
space remained at 9 million square feet from 1955 to 1971, in spite of net additions 
to supply of office space of over 2 million square feet.® 

The city's power to hold current private economic investment and to attract still 
further investment is somewhat compromised by the frequent requirement of feder- 
al resources to force down the price of land. This necessity makes the city's future 
economic development quite vulnerable to changing federal decisions (freezing HUD 
funds, changing urban renewal policies). Indeed, one major company in the city has 
been working with local and federal resources for five years to develop 44 acres of 
surrounding land; they estimate that achievement of the development will take at 
least another seven years. Thus, while city locations can be made attractive for 
certain types of private investment, the encumbrances of so doing assure that subur- 
ban locations will remain strongly competitive in the foreseeable future. 

• Figures as listed in various issues of St. Louis Commerce. These figures do not include construction 
by churches, schools, housing developments, and government. Also, they exclude listed investments 
where no dollar value was shown or where locations were not specifically designated as being in or not 
in the city of St. Louis (e.g., "ten restaurants, various locations," or "Mississippi River Transmission 
Corporation — pipeline expansion"). 

• Institute for Urban and Regional Studies. Urban Decay in St. Louis, p. 35. 



43 



Another argument sometimes made is that fuel shortages will reduce the rate 
of metropolitan decentralization, inducing higher densities of population and busi- 
ness which will be more acceptable to the smaller families anticipated in the next 
two decades. But transportation research in progress at Rand indicates that the 
price of gasoline will have to triple to induce a 9-percent decline in vehicle miles 
traveled. In addition, income elasticities are shown to be high for both automobiles 
and gasoline, suggesting that as. incomes rise, the purchase and use of automobiles 
will increase as well. 

Even if decentralization is slowed, the city cannot expect to be sole beneficiary 
of these trends. Under conditions that reduce decentralization, ei^ery jurisdiction in 
a metropolitan area might expect to house a larger proportion of its labor force, as 
some communities attract more employers of their residents, while others attract 
as residents those who also work within their boundaries. Already, in the fifteen 
largest U.S. metropolitan areas, an average of 72 percent of workers both live and 
work in the suburbs. (St. Louis is close to the average with 70 percent.) And in nine 
of those fifteen metropolitan areas, suburbs have equaled or far exceeded their 
central cities as the principal location of jobs.* 

Our conclusion is that no current policy available to the city can induce the rate 
of private investment that would return the city to a position of economic dominance 
in the metropolitan area. Nor does St. Louis appear to be moving in the direction of 
becoming a predominantly black, self-supporting suburb. 

Rather, what is happening now is that the major causes of the urban crisis are 
stimulated and accelerated by conditions and policies beyond the reach of local 
policy; local policy is left mainly to ameliorate their consequences— and left with 
reduced sources of revenue to do even that. This position forces local policymakers 
to devise short-term solutions, because they simply cannot finance long-term solu- 
tions. Yet, paradoxically, the short-term solutions can worsen the longer-term prob- 
lems. 

St. Louis City's earnings tax is a case in point. In the short term, it captures as 
much revenue as possible in an equitable way. The city cannot afford to eliminate 
this revenue source until a very different municipal financing system is in place. 
Nevertheless, in the longer view, the earnings tax falls most heavily on the use of 
land in business districts and can be escaped by removing the activity. It falls most 
heavily on residents who work outside the community and can escape the tax by 
leaving the city. It creates a systematic incentive to live and work outside the city. 
Tobe sure, the lower property values that may induce new residential and industrial 
investment in the city can be traded off against the earnings tax. But as property 
values rise with stimulated investment, the trade-off becomes less advantageous for 
later investors, enhancing once again the competitiveness of suburban locations. 



UVING WITH THE FUTURE 

St. Louis does appear to have the opportunity to reduce the rate of its decline, 
hut eiH^n this reduction requires new sources of revenue outside its own jurisdiction. 

TTie New York Times, October 15, 1972. 



44 



Since the legislation to achieve that is clearly long-term, the city remains locked in 
short-term strategies as described above. In our opinion, these strategies must con- 
tmue to be developed in the understanding that for the most part the historical 
functions of central cities are technologically obsolete today." Clustering of people 
and of economic activity is no longer paramount to the degree it once was. St. Louis's 
age and location within an outwardly sprawling urban region render it increasingly 
just "another part of town." Making the best of what it has to offer means catering 
more deliberately to the diversity of interests that lie within its boundaries. How 
might this be done? 

Our proposal is to engage in jurisdictional or administrative changes designed 
to enable groups of common interests, tastes, and needs (e.g., neighborhoods) to 
define and receive public goods and services tailored to those needs. Certain plans 
of local policymakers are already aimed in this direction: the current city develop- 
ment program proposes different strategies of intervention, depending primarily on 
housing conditions in different neighborhoods. The full development of this strategy, 
however, is dependent on a mechanism for generating revenues that will allow low- 
income residents to live where they want to, without requiring the jurisdictions they 
choose to depend predominantly on internal sources of financing 

We have already noted in Sec. Ill that with rising incomes and diminishing 
transportation costs, people disperse and regroup into homogeneous jurisdictions 
where public services tailored to their particular desires and needs are provided. The 
larger and more heterogeneous a taxing and service-delivering jurisdiction, the 
more likely it will be that current forms of municipal financing and allocation of 
public goods'* will return a lower proportion of the tax dollar to relatively affluent 
citizens than to the less affluent in the form of goods especially tailored to their own 
needs and tastes. To be sure, less affluent citizens might choose municipal expendi- 
ture patterns quite different from those selected by wealthier citizens, and in that 
sense public goods directed to the needs of disadvantaged groups provide less accept- 
able returns on their tax dollars as well. However, since the total revenue available 
from wealthier citizens is greater than that available from poorer citizens, the latter 
receive greater benefits from the affluent than they could support out of their own 
resources. 

Thus, the more affluent have strong incentives to support their desired services 
in separate smaller jurisdictions— much stronger than the incentives of the poor to 
isolate themselves from more affluent neighbors. And rising incomes and diminish- 
mg transportation costs increase the ability of more affluent city residents to form 
new, more homogeneous jurisdictions— i.e., to suburbanize. 

According to this argument, St. Louis City would not be the only municipality 
tin the metropolitan area subject to departures of the better-off. And indeed, the 
population of University City (a ring suburb) declined by 10 percent between 1960 
sand 1970;'' and median income fell, though in no sense is University City a low- 
#ncome community, even now. In this smaller community, where jurisdictional 

" J^. "nay not be true of all those functions in all cities. Finance and communications may continue 
to cluster in New York to a substantial degree. But our point is illustrated by the very different type of 
sprawling central city represented by San Jose. rentiypeoi 

" Including public services such as police, fire, sanitation, library facilities, and schools, as well as 
public streets, parks, hospitals, auditoriums, etc. 

" Brentwood is down 12 percent; Wellston is down 11 percent. 



45 



boundaries can be escaped by even shorter moves, there is some evidence to suggest 
that racial as well as income transition accelerates movement from jurisdiction to 
jurisdiction. On the basis of this understanding of urban processes, we would argue 
that until some form of revenue-sharing— federal state, or metropolitan— makes the 
poor a smaller financial burden for any single jurisdiction, rising incomes will contin- 
ue to encourage the more affluent to flee and their amenities will encourage the less 
affluent to pursue them. And if whites cannot tolerate sharing the same bundle of 
public services with blacks, movement from jurisdiction to jurisdiction within the 
metropolitan area will be further accelerated. 

We suggest widening the jurisdictional boundaries at which revenues are collect' 
ed. Federal revenue-sharing is an example of what we mean, though presently it is 
neither substantial enough nor is it perceived as permanent enough to represent a 
tenable solution to municipal financing problems. True, other levels of revenue- 
sharing are feasible for some areas— metropolitan or state revenue-sharing. How- 
ever, for the St. Louis metropolitan area, past voting records suggest that metropoli- 
tan revenue-sharing has little likelihood of acceptance. Perhaps changes in suburbs 
like University City will make possible a metropolitan coalition; perhaps the federal 
government will come up with an effective incentive program for metropolitaniza- 
tion (but we would not recommend such a program on the basis of this single study). 
In any case, most metropolitan solutions for greater St. Louis seem out of current 
reach. 

If, however, ways were presented to make municipal financing less dependent on 
the ability of current residents to pay, municipal governments would be more free to 
experiment with different modes of service provision. At least some goods and services 
might best be ordered and provided at very narrow jurisdictional levels, e.g., neigh- 
borhoods. In this way, cities with heterogeneous populations might capture some of 
the benefits of small homogeneous (and affluent) suburban municipalities where 
residents can purchase and control the public goods and services they want. 



STRATEGIES FOR LOCAL POUCY 

Our analysis of St. Louis has discouraged us from emphasizing local policy 
changes. In many ways, the city is already handling its inventory in ways our 
analysis would suggest: subjecting hung-up inventory to demolition; accumulating 
contiguous parcels of land in a land bank; discouraging small scattered develop- 
ments where empty land has promise of accumulating; attempting to reduce the 
price of city land. We have opinions about the consequences of certain local policy 
issues that have been informed by our research: 

• Branch banking would appear to promise more beneficial than negative 
consequences for growth throughout the metropolitan area. 

• Proposed Missouri sites for a new airport will reinforce the already strong 
westward development in the area. 

This initial evidence comes from early findings by Charles Leven and James Little, as reported in 
Little, Housing Market Behavior and Mobility Patterns in a Transitional Neighborhood. 



46 



. Continuing development of bottom land in the metropolitan area will pro- 
vide substantial new suburban inventory with which city sites must compete. 

• The proposed interstate highway connecting Kansas City to Chicago may 
hurt such industries as tourism and trucking in the metropolitan area and especially 
in the city. 

Local policies may have beneficial effects, but the most significant steps for 
ameliorating the city's decline rest on policies that must be developed outside its 
jurisdiction at either the state or federal level. Yet recommendations to state or 
federal officials for major changes in urban policy must necessarily be tentative 
when derived from the analysis of one city. Thus, rather than make recommenda- 
tions, we present examples of policies that could make the poor a smaller financial 
burden for any single jurisdiction: 

• At the federal level, this calls for a much more substantial revenue-sharing 
program that takes into account the large proportion of public goods (streets, hospi- 
tals, parks), as well as services that cities currently support. Formulas for distribut- 
ing revenues should provide higher than current returns for proportions of low- 
income citizens. 

• At the state level, a more limited form of state revenue-sharing could sup- 
port selected public goods in cities— for example, public hospitals. 

• At the metropolitan level, even limited revenue-sharing would help. For 
example, revenue generated by industry in the metropolitan area might be appor- 
tioned to municipalities in the area by a formula that would grant higher returns 
to jurisdictions with high proportions of residents in poverty." This would reduce 
the competition for industry between metropolitan jurisdictions and would promote 
industrial location more suited to the environmental concerns of the whole met- 
ropolitan area. We recognize that revenue-sharing of this type would be extremely 
complex to accomplish across states; for that reason decisionmakers might consider 
limiting such a plan to the Missouri portion of the SMSA. 

• Alternatively, a metropolitan earnings tax would be possible. Once again, 
revenues would be apportioned to area municipalities by a formula that would grant 
higher returns to jurisdictions with high proportions of residents in poverty. '« 

But what might the city do under current forms of generating revenue to lessen 
the incentives that encourage affluent citizens to move to other jurisdictions? 
(Though we address this strategy to the city, it would apply to any municipality.) 
Our analysis suggests that the most helpful strategy toward this end would be to 
gear the administration of municipal services and regulations to varying neighbor- 
hood needs." 

This practice is not new to municipal policymakers, though most jurisdictions 
mamtain the principleoC providing the same set of public services and enforcing the 

metropSitM a^T ^""^ "^^^ ^^'^ revenues from new development in the Minneapolis^. Paul 

" CoMideration of the implications of this alternative should be aided by research in progress on the 
earmngs tax under the direction of Norton Long at the University of Missouri. St. Louis, 
-wfu- ^^"^"^■.^•l^'"* are several ways to accomplish this. One that considers jurisdictional changes 
w^thm the city is discussed in Gardner and Payne, An Economic Analysis of Central City Decline. Other 
T^TaT^ . ^ done appear in Center for Urban Programs. Recommendalions on 

Ugal-Admintstrative Policies for the City of St. Louis. St. Louis University, 1971 



47 



same regulations in all neighborhoods. However, since housing stock varies consid- 
erably as a municipality ages, it is not unreasonable to consider local policies that 
impose different housing codes on varying stock. In the past, makers of home loans 
(FHA, commercial and savings and loan banks), insurers of property, and owners of 
property have acted upon their individual expectations of the changing future of 
particular neighborhoods, escalating that change as they did so.*® 

However, if cities could show clearly how municipal services and codes will 
respond or ane responding to neighborhoods undergoing racial or income transition, 
the anxieties of present or potential residents, anxieties that now lead to precipitous 
neighborhood change, might well be reduced. Clear public prescriptions of this kind 
could also lend support to citizens who seek financing for homes in transitional 
neighborhoods. Research in progress at Washington University*® should be useful 
in determining the services that public policies should stress for transitional areas. 

*• See Institute for Urban and Regional Studies. Urban Decay in St Louis, 

Leven and Little's Grant GI-37861-NSF, A Study of Determinants of Inter-Neighborhood Mobility. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 
I. DOCUMENTATION 



The Center for Community Change and the National Urban League, The National 

Survey of Housing Abandonment, April 1971. 
Center for Urban Programs, Recommendations on Legal-Administrative Policies for 

the City of St, Louis, St. Louis University, St. Louis. Mo., 1971. 
City of St. Louis, Annual Report of Comptroller, 1971. 
City of St. Louis, Ordinance 55681, Section 2126.1, July 15, 1970. 
Enns, J., and P. deLeon, The Effect of Highways upon Metropolitan Dispersion: St. 

Louis, The Rand Corporation, P-5601, September 1973. 
Gardner, C, Banking Regulation and Urban Growth, The Rand Corporation. P- 

5057, August 1973. 

, and G. Payne, An Economic Analysis of Central City Decline, The Rand Corpo- 
ration, R-1350-NSF (forthcoming). 

Holland, Dempster, "Population Change in Seven Midwestern Qties," St. Louis 
University, unpublished paper, 1973. 

, and George Wendel, Development of Industrial Parks, The Rand Corporation, 

R-1358-NSF (forthcoming). 

Institute for Urban and Regional Studies, Urban Decay in St. Louis, Washington 
University, St. Louis, Mo., March 1972. 

Keeler, Emmett, and W. Rogers, A Classification of Large American Urban Areas, 
The Rand Corporation, R-1246-NSF, May 1973. 

Little, James, Housing Market Behavior and Mobility Patterns in a Transitional 
Neighborhood, Institute for Urban and Regional Studies, Washington Univer- 
sity, St. Louis, June 1973. 

Levine, Robert, San Jose, The Urban Crisis, and the Feds, The Rand Corporation, 
P-4839, May 1972. 

, and D. Alesch, Growth in San Jose: A Summary Policy Statement, The Rand 

Corporation, R-1235-NSF, May 1973. 

Morrison, Peter A.. The Impact and Significance of Rural- Urban Migration in the 
United States. The Rand Corporation, P-4752, March 1972. 

, Population Movements: Where the Public Interest and Private Interests Con- 
flict. The Rand Corporation, R-987-CPG, August 1972. 

, San Jose and St. Ixyuis in the 1960s: A Case Study of Changing Urban Popula- 
tions, R-1313-NSF (forthcoming). 



49 



50 



, Small-Area Population Estimates for the City of St, Louis, 1960-1972, with a 

Model for Updating Them, The Rand Corporation, R-1373-NSF (forthcoming). 
The New York Times, October 15, 1972. 

Nixon, Richard M., Economic Report of the President, transmitted to the Congress, 
February 1971. 

Pakonen, R., "The Differential Effect of Branch Law Regulation on Commercial 
Bank Entry," Ph.D. dissertation, Washington State University, Pullman, 
Washington, 1971. 

Rothenberg, J., F. Fisher, et al, "A Model of Metropolis," Papers and Proceedings 

of the American Economic Review, Vol. LXII, No. 2, March 1972. 
Sharpe, William, "Capital Asset Prices: A Theory of Market Equilibrium under 

Conditions of Risk," Journal of Finance, Vol. 19, No. 3, September 1964, p. 425. 
Slitor, Richard, "Tax Effects on Urban Growth in Three Cities: San Jose, St. Louis, 

and Seattle," The Rand Corporation, unpublished document. 
St. Louis City Plan Commission, St. Louis Development Program (A Summary), St. 

Louis, January 1973. 
SL Louis Commerce, various issues. 

U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population and Housing: 1970; General Demo- 
graphic Trends for Metropolitan Areas, 1960-1970, Final Report PHC(2)-1, 
PHC(2)-27, PHC(2)-15, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1971. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, County Business Patterns, Washington, D.C., 1959, 
1970. 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, A Study of the Problems of 

Abandoned Housing, Washington, D.C., November 1971. 
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Highway 

Statistics, Washington, D.C., annual volumes, 1965-1970. 
Voorhees, Alan M., and Associates, Inc., Technical Report on a Residential Blight 

Analysis for St, Louis, Missouri, Washington, D.C., March 1969. 



11. SELECTED BACKGROUND REFERENCES 



Articles 

Conforti, Joseph M., "Newark: Ghetto or City," Society, Vol. 9, No. 10, Special Issue, 
September/October 1972, pp. 19-32. 

Ganz, Alexander, and Thomas O'Brien, "The City: Sandbox, Reservation, or Dyna- 
mo?" Public Policy, Vol. 21, No. 1, Winter 1973, pp. 107-123. 

Von Furstenberg, George M., "Place of Residence and Employment Opportunities 
Within a Metropolitan Area," Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. 5, June 1971, 
pp. 101-116. 

Books 

Alonso, William, and John Friedmann, Jr. (eds.). Regional Development and Plan- 
ning, The M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1964. 

Banfield, Edward C, Big City Politics: A Comparative Guide to the Political Systems 
. of Atlanta, Boston, Detroit, El Paso, Los Angeles, Miami, Philadelphia, St 
Louis, Seattle, Studies in Political Science, Random House, New York, 1965. 

, The Unheavenly City, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1970. 

Beckman, Martin, Location Theory, Random House, New York, 1968. 

Bergsman, J., P. Greenson, and R. Healy, Explaining the Economic Structures of 
Metropolitan Areas, Urban Institute Working Paper 200-1, The Urban Insti- 
tute, Washington, D.C., 1971. 

Birch, David L., The Economic Future of City and Suburb, Urban Studies Series, 
Committee for Economic Development, New York, 1970. 

BoUens, John C. (ed.). Exploring the Metropolitan Community, University of Cali- 
fornia Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1961. 

Burgess, Ernest W., and Donald J. Bogue (eds.). Contributions in Urban Sociology, 
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1963. 

Dean, R., W. Leaky, and D. McKee, Spatial Economic Theory, The Free Press, 
Riverside, N.J., 1970. 

Downs, Anthony, Urban Problems and Prospects, Markham Publishing Company, 
Chicago, 111., 1970. 

Duncan, Otis D., et al.. Metropolis and Region, The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 
Md., 1960. 

Forrester, Jay W., Urban Dynamics, The M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1969. 

Ganz, Alexander, Our Large Cities, New Light on their Recent Transformations- 
Elements of a Development Strategy; a Prototype Program for Boston, The M.I.T. 
Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1969. 

51 



52 



Goldsmith. Harold R. and Elizabeth L. Unger. Differentiation of Urban Sub-Areas, 
Mental Health Study Center, National Institute of Mental Health. Bethesda, 
Md., 1970. 

Gordon. Mitchell. Sick Cities. The Macmillan Company and Collier-MacmiUan Ltd.. 
New York and London, 1963. 

Greer Scott, The Urbane View, Oxford University Press, New York 1972 

Grigsby. William G., Housing Markets and Public Policy. University of Pennsyl- 
vania Press, Philadelphia, Pa., 1963. 

Hughes, Janies W Urban Indicators. Metropolitan Evolution, and Public Policy. 
Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University. The State University 
of New Jersey, New Brunswick, N.J., 1963. 

Karsch. Robert F.. The Government of Missouri, 11th ed.. Lucas Brothers Publish- 
ers, Columbia, Mo., 1971. 

Nourse. Hugh, Regional Economics. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1968 

Perloff. Harvey and Lowdon Wingo. Jr. (eds.). Issues in Urban Economics. The 
Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, Md., 1968 

Rossi Peter H., and Robert H. Dentler, The Politics of Urban Renewal. The Free 

Press. New York, 1961. 
Schmandt. Hen^^ J Paul G. Steinbicker. and George D. Wendel, Metrr>politan 
Reform m St Louis: A Case Study. Holt. Rinehart. and Winston. New York, 

Schnore. Leo F.. The Urban Scene. The Free Press. New York. 1965 
Schuman. Howard, and Barry Gruenberg. Impact of Cities on Racial Attitudes, 
Survey Research Center. Institute for Social Research. The University of Mich- 
igan. Ann Arbor, Mich., 1970. 
Stemlieb, George, The Tenement Landlord. Center for Urban Policy Research, Rut- 
gere University, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick. N.J.. 

p'^eS^ Chtc^o^m2^^^^ C9/«<rucrto« of Communities. University of Chicago 

federal Activities Aff-ecting Location of Economic 

if. Offi w' ^'P*"^' ^' ^"'"'"^'^ P^"^ I-V. Government Print- 
ing Office, Washington, D.C., 1970. 

Yin, Rol^rt K. (ed.). The City in the Seventies. F. E. Peacock Publishers. Itasca. III.. 
Publications 

Alliance for Re^onal Community Health. Inc. (ARCH), The Final Report of the 
Health Facilities Planning Committee:Wo\. II, Profiles of the ARCH Planning 
^^e^n(Presented to the ARCH Board of Directors), St. Louis. Mo.. October 20. 

Bureau of the Census. Census of Population and Housing. 1970. PHC(3)-21. Employ 
^"l^^fil^^ of Selected Low-Income Areas. Government Printing Office. 
Washington, D.C., 1970. 

East-West Gateway Coordinating Council, Industry in the St. Louis Region: Indus- 
trial Expansion. 1966-69. St. Louis, Mo., 1971. 



53 



Eisenstadt, Karen, Factors Affecting Maintenance and Operating Costs in Private 
Rental Housing The Rand Corporation, R-1055-NYC, August 1972. 

Flax, Michael J., A Study in Comparative Urban Indicators: Conditions in 18 Large 
Metropolitan Areas, The Urban Institute, Washington, D.C., April 1972. 

Gladstone, Robert, and Associates (a series of Community Renewal Program techni- 
cal background reports prepared for the St. Louis City Plan Commission to 
provide a basis for a St. Louis Development Program), Washington, D.C., 1968- 
1969. 

, Analysis of Housing within St Louis, November 1968. 

, Basic Economic Indicators for SL Louis, 1968. 

, City-State Fiscal Relations, June 1969. 

, Commercial Development Potentials, 1968. 

, Housing Policy Guidelines for St. Louis, November 1968. 

, Housing Trends and Outlook for St, Louis, November 1968. 

, Industrial Development Potentials, 1968. 

Governor's Advisory Council on Local Government Law, Missouri Local Govern- 
ment at the Crossroads (Report presented to the Honorable Warren E. 
Hearnes), Jefferson City, Mo., November 1968. 

Heckman, Jan L., Housing Conditions, Needs, and Programs in the City of St, Louis 
(East- West Gateway (^rdinating Council Staff Technical Report), St. Louis, 
Mo., December 1970. 

Mendelson, Robert E., and David C. Ranney, East St Louis Fiscal Crisis— 1970, 
Regional and Urban Development Studies and Services, RUD Report No. 4, 
Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville, 111., October 1970. 

President's Committee on Urban Housing, A Decent Home, Government Printing 
Office, Washington, D.C., 1969. 

Rainwater, Lee, The Problem of Lower Class Culture (Prepared for Sociology De- 
partment Colloquium, University of Wisconsin), Washington University, St. 
Louis, Mo., 1966. 

Ranney, David C, Fiscal Crisis in East St Louis, Illinois, Public Administration 
and Metropolitan Affairs Program, Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville, 
111., February 1967. 

St. Louis City Plan Commission, A Housing Program for the City of St Louis 1970- 
1980, St. Louis, Mo., April 1971. 

, Model City Land Use Plan, St. Louis, Mo., June 19, 1972. 

St. Louis Commission on Crime and Law Enforcement, St Louis High Impact Anti- 
Crime Program Plan (Prepared for the Mayor of the City of St. Louis, Alfonso 
J. Cervantes), St. Louis, Mo., April 24, 1972. 

St. Louis Development Program (CRP) Staff, History of Renewal for St Louis, Mis- 
souri (one of a series of Community Renewal Program technical background 
reports to provide a basis for a St. Louis Development Program), St. Louis, Mo., 
February 1971. 

Tobin, Gary A., The St Louis School Crisis: Population Shifts and Voting Patterns 
(Published by Washington University for the Department of History through 
the Mayor Raymond R. Tucker St. Louis Award Fund), St. Louis, Mo., June 
1970. 

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Hearing Before the US, Commission on Civil 



64 



Rights. St. Louis, January 14-17, 1970, Government Printing Office, Washing- 
ton, D.C., 1971. 

Voorhees, Alan M., and Associates, Inc. (a series of Community Renewal Program 
technical background reports prepared for the St. Louis City Plan Commission 
to provide a basis for a St. Louis Development Program), McLean, Va., 1970. 

, Industrial Facilities Survey and Analysis, 1970. 

, Residential Quality Within the City of St. Louis, Missouri, March 1970.