Missouri’s Incredible Shrinking Cities

Show-Me the People: Why Missouri is Still Growing Despite a Worrisome Decline in Metro Cores

If you’ve noticed a few more out-of-state license plates on I-70 lately, it’s not just your imagination. Missouri’s history has always been defined by people on the move—from the Gateway Arch welcoming pioneers to the bustling river commerce of the 19th century. Today, a new chapter is being written: Missouri is officially a destination state.

Recent data from the University of Missouri Extension’s Exceed program shows that as of 2024, the Show-Me State is home to 6.25 million people, maintaining our spot as the 19th-most-populous state in the nation.

Perhaps the most concerning trend is that our major cities are shrinking. As you can see from the map below, the city of St. Louis had a precipitous decline, now falling below 300,000 residents. The same can be seen in Kansas City where the the suburbs are seeing healthy growth, but the city itself is lagging. In fact, nearly every one of our larger metro areas saw sluggish growth.

TV Market Sizes Over the Past Three Decades

The lack of growth in our larger cities is most evident in the sizes of our TV Market Rankings. Every single market in the state is either the same size or getting smaller. This sort of ranking shows that others cities around the country are seeing more rapid growth and Missouri is experiencing.

Market	1996 (Rank/HH)	2006 (Rank/HH)	2016 (Rank/HH)	2026 (Rank/HH)
St. Louis	#21 / 1.12M	#21 / 1.22M	#21 / 1.21M	#24 / 1.27M
Kansas City	#33 / 820K	#31 / 919K	#33 / 931K	#33 / 1.03M
Springfield	#74 / 340K	#77 / 395K	#75 / 404K	#74 / 439K
Cape Girardeau	#80 / 335K	#80 / 383K	#82 / 370K	#90 / 378K
Col-Jeff City	#146 / 150K	#135 / 169K	#138 / 175K	#133 / 176K
Joplin	#147 / 147K	#147 / 151K	#153 / 129K	#151 / 155K
Hannibal	#160 / 98K	#164 / 103K	#171 / 99K	#175 / 99K
St. Joseph	#193 / 53K	#200 / 46K	#201 / 47K	#201 / 45K

The Great Migration Shift

While Missouri’s population grew by 1.5% (about 90,000 residents) between 2020 and 2024, the way we are growing has shifted dramatically. Historically, population growth is a mix of “natural change” (births minus deaths) and migration. However, Missouri is currently experiencing a natural decline.

During this four-year window, the state saw 11,000 more deaths than births. In a previous era, this would have signaled a shrinking state. Instead, Missouri’s population is climbing because migration is doing all the heavy lifting.

Who’s Moving to the Show-Me State?

Since 2020, over 101,000 people have packed their bags and moved to Missouri. Here is the breakdown of our newest neighbors:

International Appeal: Roughly three out of five new residents arrived from outside the United States.
Domestic Draw: The remaining 40% are Americans moving in from other states, attracted by our cost of living and central location.
Urban vs. Rural: While our metro areas are leading the pack with a 1.6% growth rate, our non-metropolitan counties aren’t far behind at 1.1%.

A “Slow and Steady” Legacy

Missouri currently ranks 19th in the nation for population growth, matching our overall size rank. As MU Extension specialist Luke Dietterle puts it, we are seeing “slow but steady” progress.

In the 1800s, people came to Missouri to find a starting point for the Oregon Trail. In 2024, they are coming here to stay. Whether it’s the lure of the Ozarks, the tech hubs in our cities, or the quiet of our farmland, Missouri remains a vital piece of the American story.

Why Does Healthy Growth Matter?

When major metropolitan areas—the traditional engines of a state’s economy—stop growing, it creates a “slow-burn” economic challenge rather than an immediate disaster. Because cities are typically where most innovation, business investment, and specialized services are concentrated, stagnant growth there acts as a drag on the entire state’s potential.

Here is why that lack of rapid growth matters:

1. The Shrinking “Economic Engine”

Major metro areas (like St. Louis and Kansas City) are hubs for high-value industries like healthcare, finance, and technology. These sectors rely on a constant influx of young, skilled talent to innovate and expand. When population growth stalls, companies may struggle to fill specialized roles, which can discourage them from expanding locally or cause them to look elsewhere for their next headquarters or satellite office.

2. Reduced “Volume” for Local Businesses

Economies thrive on scale. A growing population provides a larger pool of customers for restaurants, retailers, construction firms, and service providers. When growth is flat, businesses don’t see the natural increase in demand they need to invest in new locations or hire more staff. This often leads to a “volume shock,” where businesses—especially in housing and retail—find it harder to grow their revenue without significantly raising prices.

3. Strained Public Services & Infrastructure

It may seem counterintuitive, but stagnant growth can actually make it harder to pay for infrastructure. Cities need a growing tax base to fund long-term maintenance of roads, schools, and public safety. When a population ages in place rather than welcoming new, younger taxpayers, the cost of these services often falls on a smaller or static group of people. This can lead to deferred maintenance on public infrastructure, which eventually makes the city even less attractive to new businesses and families, creating a difficult cycle to break.

4. The Competition for “Peer” Status

There is an unspoken competition between U.S. cities for visibility. When a metro area falls out of the “top 25” or “top 50” lists used by national media, site-selection consultants, and major investors, it often drops off the map for new economic development opportunities entirely. Maintaining a competitive growth rate is essential just to stay in the conversation for major national investment.

5. Housing and Development Hurdles

When a metro area doesn’t grow quickly, it can sometimes lead to a “wait-and-see” approach for developers. If there isn’t a steady stream of new residents, builders are less likely to risk capital on new housing developments. This can lead to a lack of new housing stock, which paradoxically makes it even harder to attract the very people the city needs to help it grow.