By Kelly Martin (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-2.5 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5)], via Wikimedia Commons
So, just about 24 hours ago, Yael T. Abouhalkah of the Kansas City Star posted an article tited "KC is rising while St. Louis keeps falling." Being a media type myself who's always having to appease the Google Analytics gods, it's hard for me to read that title and not suspect (though I don't know for sure) that it was written partly as clickbait. If that was the goal—to upset people from St. Louis so much that they clicked and commented—it worked splendidly.
Mr. Abouhalkah's springboard for the piece was apparently our mayoral primary this past Tuesday; he gives Slay a backhanded congratulations, noting that our new-yet-old mayor will be governing one of America's "fastest fading cities, a community wracked by a steady, alarming loss of residents."
He then trots out some numbers, which, as many of the commenters pointed out, only hold water if you run them a certain way. "A St. Louisan here checking in to remind you that St. Louis is 61 square miles and Kansas City clocks in at 315—larger than New York City in terms of land area," wrote Matt Mourning, formerly of the STL Dotage blog. "If St. Louis were able to annex an extra 254 square miles of St. Louis County, we could grab the entire inner ring of our suburban expanse and our population would be closer to 1 million."
So that means St. Louis and K.C. are in about the same spot, if you want to run the numbers a different way. However, this is an arts blog, which means I'm not really interested in running numbers. Instead, I'll first direct you to the RFT's highly entertaining response to this Op/Ed, and then move on to my more earnest, straight-man take on it.
First point: Abouhalkah writes that K.C.'s "increased funding of the arts—coupled with fantastic new venues—are boosting our attraction as a Midwestern cultural hub." Yet he offers no concrete examples, or even a link to other stories that might clue us in here. (I guess Kansas Citians know what these fantastic new venues are, but if this was indeed St. Louis clickbait, we would have loved some specific examples.) In any case, I'd counter that with the fact that just last week, the Regional Arts Commission announced the results of its "Artists Count," survey, and announced that they will offer ten $20,000 fellowships to St. Louis artists. This in addition to the huge financial support they already provide. The Saint Louis Art Museum's new addition, designed by Sir David Chipperfield, opens in late June; we have The Pulitzer, CAM, White Flag—I could go on and on. And honestly, our art scene thrives even without official funding (see Cherokee Street). Actually, the Luminary Center for the Arts' new building is a brilliant example of how St. Louis' artists manage to keep pushing onward and upward without having to rely completely on traditional granting organizations. All this to say, well, K.C. and St. Louis are in about the same spot in this regard.
Second point: look at the comments, and you will see why all of Abouhalkah's numbers are kind of meaningless, aside from how they're run. St. Louis is not my home city; I've lived elsewhere. And I've never lived in a city that is so fiercely loved by its residents. Maybe that's because the non-committal people have hemorrhaged away? Who knows? In any case, I'd say it's better to have a city that's less densely populated, but populated with smart, engaged people who are absolutely committed to its future. As Mallory Nezam comments: "The swarm of St. Louis supporters here shows that the city is NOT falling fast. Clearly. People make a city, people bring it back, and people make it exciting. Mr. Abouhalkah’s article has been a platform to display just how much support and positive energy is literally swelling in the city of St. Louis, and that the city is and will continue to be moving forward because its citizens are devoted." (Ms. Nezam is one of those innovative, interesting arts people I was thinking of in the paragraph above; she is one of the founders of Improv Anywhere.)
So, it boils down to this, at least in terms of culture: what's better, Saarinen's arch, or the Oldenburg Shuttlecock? The Kansas City Art Institute, or the Sam Fox School of Design and Visual Arts? The Crossroads, or Cherokee Street? The Nelson-Atkins, or SLAM? There are no simple answers to these questions. A better question is, what's going to happen to both cities' built environments if rural legislators in Jefferson City succeed in destroying the historic tax credit program? Why is it that you can now sell an older car without a title? Because in Jeff City, legislators thought more about ridding farm properties of rusty midcentury Chevrolets than car theft in urban areas. Kansas City and St. Louis should not be engaged in a rhubarb. We should be collaborating with each other, sharing best practices, doing artists' exchanges.
Finally, where this article falls down—and where those Fattest/Most-Crime-Ridden/Angriest/Sleepiest/Most Asthmatic Cities lists fall down—is that both rely only on predictable, Chamber of Commerce type metrics. Who really looks at that stuff when they decide to stay, or move to, a city? It's not about bar graphs; it is about the poetics of the place, its smells and weather, the character of its streets and buidlings, its food, its quirky local customs. Yes, it is about jobs (always with the damn jobs!), and amenities, and world-class this and that. It is about crime, and schools. Both St. Louis and K.C. struggle there. And, I'd counter that there are cities offering jobs, decent schools and low crime that are completely sterile, soul-destroying places in which to live. We each need to decide where we are going to plant ourselves based on data pulled from our own souls, which is far less faulty than the voodoo numbers and apples-and-oranges comparisons used for city-ranking lists.
Frankly, I'm tired of having these arguments. I'm sure other people are, too. The main beneficiaries are the publications who get readers' dander up, then have an awesome spike in pageviews as a result. Myself, I'd rather see the media ditch the clickbait and talk particulars. Fewer lists, fewer numbers, more narrative. More Wendell Berry, less tabloid. Maybe that's bad for pageviews. But it would be better for cities—and the people who live in them.
