Kansas City vs Saint Louis

[UrbaniDesDev]

I have not been to either but am planning a trip through both. My impression of them seems to be that of a competition between a city with many of the problems of the older cities of the east and midwest and one of a city of sprawl like some of the cities of the SW. St Louis, I imagine, has many old institutions and gritty older neighborhoods. KC, I imagine has vast expanses of space and some interesting new construction but tends to be quite generic at times. I imagine St Louis having more in common with Chicago or Atlanta and KC having more in common with Houston or even Columbus. St Louis, I imagine, will have many opportunities for charming inner city restorations and a tight center city repopuIation, including downtown living and a better urban experience. KC I see as having more sprawl and some quirky urban developments and "entertainment enclaves". I have seen some interesting, major center city projects coming from both of these cities which has me intrigued and has prompted me to check them out for myself. I will have to find out for myself and I'll let you know if my expectations are on target.

[BKM]

I have not been to either but am planning a trip through both. My impression of them seems to be that of a competition between a city with many of the problems of the older cities of the east and midwest and one of a city of sprawl like some of the cities of the SW. St Louis, I imagine, has many old institutions and gritty older neighborhoods. KC, I imagine has vast expanses of space and some interesting new construction but tends to be quite generic at times. I imagine St Louis having more in common with Chicago or Atlanta and KC having more in common with Houston or even Columbus. St Louis, I imagine, will have many opportunities for charming inner city restorations and a tight center city repopuIation, including downtown living and a better urban experience. KC I see as having more sprawl and some quirky urban developments and "entertainment enclaves". I have seen some interesting, major center city projects coming from both of these cities which has me intrigued and has prompted me to check them out for myself. I will have to find out for myself and I'll let you know if my expectations are on target.

This sums it up pretty well. From my admittedly brief acquaintence with each city.

[SuburbanNation]

You are right about one thing. Kansas City can never compare to Saint Louis-- you can't compare a great place like Kansas City to some shithole like Saint Louis

theres no need for this in my opinion, this isnt skyscraper page/world/ whatever.

[SuburbanNation]

KC's transit is pathetic. They can't pass a light rail measure there because the voters there think small. It's like a big town rather than a major city.

ive had about the same experience with kc transit as i have had with stl transit, minus the metrolink. i doubt i'd use the metrolink much if i lived in stl, anyway, due to where i'd live...at least until a north south alignment...

the light rail issue is much more complicated than you imply, and minds in the STL metro are no more progressive than they are here, as ive learned after living here for a year.

"see, this is how you p*** in the meramec river" overheard/ witnessed in the trophy room in south city NOT in the bathroom. really, settle down guys. personally, i dont know why you get so worked up over kansas city, jive.

I have not been to either but am planning a trip through both. My impression of them seems to be that of a competition between a city with many of the problems of the older cities of the east and midwest and one of a city of sprawl like some of the cities of the SW. St Louis, I imagine, has many old institutions and gritty older neighborhoods. KC, I imagine has vast expanses of space and some interesting new construction but tends to be quite generic at times. I imagine St Louis having more in common with Chicago or Atlanta and KC having more in common with Houston or even Columbus. St Louis, I imagine, will have many opportunities for charming inner city restorations and a tight center city repopuIation, including downtown living and a better urban experience. KC I see as having more sprawl and some quirky urban developments and "entertainment enclaves". I have seen some interesting, major center city projects coming from both of these cities which has me intrigued and has prompted me to check them out for myself. I will have to find out for myself and I'll let you know if my expectations are on target.

kc and stl really don't compete the way you would think. i also hear the argument that the kansas city metro is much more suburban and sprawly than stl all of the time, and this isnt accurate from my experiences with the two metros. the urban core and inner burbs of stl are nice and dense, but the mega-sprawl usurps anything ive seen here due to lopsided westerly suburban development. there is nothing like wentzville, etc really yet in kc. johnson county, ks, is, and i hate to say this, better planned (on a municipal grid, and not along interstates as much) than st. charles county, but it's still atrocious.

when i moved here, i didnt expect a city that would overall compare favorably with larger and more urbane st. louis, yet the fact that it somehow does defy convention and my preconcieved notions has endeared me to the place.

[JivecitySTL]

Yes, the light rail issue is complicated, but it's complicated in St. Louis too. The difference is, St. Louis not only made it happen, it's also expanding it. It's no more complicated for KC than it is for STL. St. Louis did it. KC didn't and has no plans to. Like it or not, that does make the St. Louis metropolitan area more progressive and more urban-minded. And I take the Metro on a daily basis, just as tens of thousands of others do. That's why it's being expanded, because it's such a great system that maintains very high ridership.

"see, this is how you p*** in the meramec river" overheard/ witnessed in the trophy room in south city NOT in the bathroom. really, settle down guys. personally, i dont know why you get so worked up over kansas city, jive.

Worked up? I don't see how I'm any more worked up than anyone else participating in this discussion. Because I posted facts? btw, there are hoosiers everywhere, not just in KC and STL. One of my college roommates was born and raised in the City of Chicago and he was the biggest redneck white trashball I've ever met in my life.

[SuburbanNation]

Yes, the light rail issue is complicated, but it's complicated in St. Louis too. The difference is, St. Louis not only made it happen, it's also expanding it. It's no more complicated for KC than it is for STL. St. Louis did it. KC didn't and has no plans to. Like it or not, that does make the St. Louis metropolitan area more progressive and more urban-minded. And I take the Metro on a daily basis, just as tens of thousands of others do. That's why it's being expanded, because it's such a great system that maintains very high ridership.


Worked up? I don't see how I'm any more worked up than anyone else participating in this discussion. Because I posted facts? btw, there are hoosiers everywhere, not just in KC and STL. One of my college roommates was born and raised in the City of Chicago and he was the biggest redneck white trashball I've ever met in my life.

jive, you know as well as i the political situation in missouri regarding transit. next, there have been plans for light rail in kc since the 70s, and we almost had it in the early 90s when the then kc mayor made a horrible decision. next, well, i don't want to really discuss the more recent proposal bungles. next, KC has freakin' kansas and their state government to deal with, who just rejected legislation to fund transit in the KC metro, and we are for some reason waiting for them to change their minds, and in kansas is 40% of the metro population,

st. louis has illinois...

i don't think even st. louis would have the metrolink if 40% of its metro population, and much of the wealth, was in kansas. you've got stl county in the state with a million people.

so, i am arguing that you are wrong in suggesting that transit is not more complicated for kansas city.

[JivecitySTL]

^Excuses, excuses. I don't think it's so far-fetched to think that metropolitan St. Louis is more progressive with regard to infrastructure improvements and large-scale urban projects than metro KC. It's a bigger place with more resources and more people to support such projects. And even if you play the whole KS vs. IL proximity card, isn't that valid evidence that STL is more progressive by default? There are a lot of "ifs" but that's just the way it is. KC borders Kansas which makes that metropolitan area inherently more conservative than its easter counterpart, which borders Illinois.

Every city/metro faces complicated issues. But some places don't let that stop major projects that would have far-reaching positives, both in practical applications and the intangible image factor. Rapid transit adds a whole new dimension to a city.

I don't think we should get into a petty argument about which metro is more or less progressive than the other, but it is a little odd that the answer isn't obvious to some people, simply based on infrastructure and academic culture.

[SuburbanNation]

^Excuses, excuses. I don't think it's so far-fetched to think that metropolitan St. Louis is more progressive with regard to infrastructure improvements and large-scale urban projects than metro KC. It's a bigger place with more resources and more people to support such projects. And even if you play the whole KS vs. IL proximity card, isn't that valid evidence that STL is more progressive by default? There are a lot of "ifs" but that's just the way it is. KC borders Kansas which makes that metropolitan area inherently more conservative than its easter counterpart, which borders Illinois.

Every city/metro faces complicated issues. But some places don't let that stop major projects that would have far-reaching positives, both in practical applications and the intangible image factor. Rapid transit adds a whole new dimension to a city.

I don't think we should get into a petty argument about which metro is more or less progressive than the other, but it is a little odd that the answer isn't obvious to some people, simply based on infrastructure and academic culture.

at first i want to agree with you, but sadly, as i put on my "st. louis shoes," i realize that both metros are fairly conservative in many respects, especially regional planning, relative to PDX, Minneapolis, etc, and so counterproductive to progress that it's futile to have this argument.

i think you are making your broken record argument that st. louis is better than kansas city argument though..so be it jive.

[ICT/316]

I think the new “Inland Port” in Kansas City signifies the overall importance the Kansas City metro area really play’s in American transportation and commerce. I-70 and I-35 can arguably be considered the cross road of America. The fact that trucking and freight rail are the most efficient means of transporting goods in America, Kansas City is certainly in it’s right to calm it’s self as an “Inland Port”.

This is very important in the over all scheme of NAFTA and other “International” trading agreements the United States has with our neighbors, both to the south and north. The new “Inland Port’ will help streamline American and other’s products more efficiently and economically through out North America, freeing up physical border grid lock.

Could St. Louis have supported this too? Yes and no. The dependency on waterway transportation is far less important today than it was 100-150 years ago. I-35 and I-70 are the new “Mississippi”. Kansas City has far more distributing and ware housing facilities than STL. More freight rail and even navigable waterways than STL. Cargo is more likely to come up the Mississippi, bypass STL and go to KCMO for truck distribution. Also, air cargo is becoming to play an even bigger part in transporting goods across the land and Kansas City is becoming a leader and point of interest in this field too.

Economics and transportation isn’t every thing. STL holds that more gritty urban feel. It’s a feeling that has to be understood and appreciated. One most live, work and play there to know it. Kansas City and STL only have one thing in common, people, more or less. The same things happen day in and day out in both places. Kansas City is a large “Mid Western” city and is practically a cow town with a lot of affluent (Johnson county) suburbs. STL, like someone else kind of mention, is more “East Coast” in a since. It would not be called the “Gate Way City” for nothing. It was the starting point to the “West”, that great unknown west of the Mississippi and it help bridge our country for our great-great-great-great-grandfathers and their families. STL in a since helped build KCMO and Denver and Phoenix, etc. After leaving STL our settlers founded those cities and others. STL was just a natural point for this to happen. It was an economical pin point in America, still is, but today KCMO moves more of our economy.

Both cities have their highs and lows. But, there are great difference.

Bill

[SuburbanNation]

KC got a much higher dose of chicago influence and flavor than st. louis flavor, whether it was cultural (jazz, not blues), economic (rail, not river), or criminal (strong mob spinoff from chi's 'outfit,' verses several smaller gangs which stl had), which might explain why st. louis and kc arent more similar. (obviously st. louis is a hundred years older, anyway, so it was going to be unlikely that kc would resemble anything of st. louis in the first place...although kc should have been in stls economic sphere and not chicagos.)

[JivecitySTL]

KC got a much higher dose of chicago influence and flavor than st. louis flavor, whether it was cultural (jazz, not blues), economic (rail, not river), or criminal (strong mob spinoff from chi's 'outfit,' verses several smaller gangs which stl had), which might explain why st. louis and kc arent more similar. (obviously st. louis is a hundred years older, anyway, so it was going to be unlikely that kc would resemble anything of st. louis in the first place...although kc should have been in stls economic sphere and not chicagos.)

Chicago has always been a much, much bigger blues city than jazz, so I'm not sure what you meant by that. New York is the jazz capital, and KC had a great scene too. But Chicago is and always was all blues. It traveled up the Dixie Highway, from New Orleans to Memphis to St. Louis, terminating Chicago.

[SuburbanNation]

Chicago has always been a much, much bigger blues city than jazz, so I'm not sure what you meant by that. New York is the jazz capital, and KC had a great scene too. But Chicago is and always was all blues. It traveled up the Dixie Highway, from New Orleans to Memphis to St. Louis, terminating Chicago.

Man, I love Jazz and Blues...I havent heard live blues since i was in New Orleans two summers ago. I'll have to get my fix in STL and CHI soon.

I'm going to be applying for a job back in St. Louis this fall, should be interesting...I'm sick of seeing all of my potential jobs popping up in JoCo, Kansas. I have a better chance of a job in the core in STL, it seems. I would like to completely get rid of a car for a while, we will see...

[Howard Roark]

Man, I love Jazz and Blues...I havent heard live blues since i was in New Orleans two summers ago. I'll have to get my fix in STL and CHI soon.

I'm going to be applying for a job back in St. Louis this fall, should be interesting...I'm sick of seeing all of my potential jobs popping up in JoCo, Kansas. I have a better chance of a job in the core in STL, it seems. I would like to completely get rid of a car for a while, we will see...

It is an exciting time here, the rehab (particularly in the neighborhoods) is amazing. I think you find a city that you didn’t know existed; I certainly did when I returned after undergrad and again after grad school and working abroad. Remember, (I tell this to everyone) St. Louis is a city you have to meet “half way” it actually contains people, places, and subgroups that you normally find in places larger or with a hipper reputation. But these things will not be readily accessible or even visible at first glance. It’s layered like a onion and full of surprises good and bad.

[Jaxspra]

It is an exciting time here, the rehab (particularly in the neighborhoods) is amazing. I think you find a city that you didn’t know existed; I certainly did when I returned after undergrad and again after grad school and working abroad. Remember, (I tell this to everyone) St. Louis is a city you have to meet “half way” it actually contains people, places, and subgroups that you normally find in places larger or with a hipper reputation. But these things will not be readily accessible or even visible at first glance. It’s layered like a onion and full of surprises good and bad.

Best analysis of STL I think I have heard. It takes some time to really see whats here, there is so much more than just the core downtown area. I think the many vibrant neighborhoods and recent redevelopment that make STL such a great place.

[SuburbanNation]

It is an exciting time here, the rehab (particularly in the neighborhoods) is amazing. I think you find a city that you didn’t know existed; I certainly did when I returned after undergrad and again after grad school and working abroad. Remember, (I tell this to everyone) St. Louis is a city you have to meet “half way” it actually contains people, places, and subgroups that you normally find in places larger or with a hipper reputation. But these things will not be readily accessible or even visible at first glance. It’s layered like a onion and full of surprises good and bad.

i noticed a big change, from the way it was before 2001 and the way it was in late 2005...the in between time i spent little time visiting the city, no more than twice a year, and was at school, but have since returned for very extensive walking and biking tours every couple of months. its the kind of change that occurs at a fine grain but that you cant just point a finger at a megaproject and say, look at this one thing that proves the city is coming back! thats the best kind of positive change, i think.

[jenniplans]

Slightly off topic, but as a Missourian, I'm torn between Kansas City and St. Louis. I love KC for the Chiefs and BBQ, but love St. Louis for the Cardinals and the modern feel of the city. We live halfway between the 2 and for aesthetics and entertainment, we go to St. Louis way more than we do Kansas City.

I can't complain though - both are better than Springfield on any day of the week...

[SuburbanNation]

Slightly off topic, but as a Missourian, I'm torn between Kansas City and St. Louis. I love KC for the Chiefs and BBQ, but love St. Louis for the Cardinals and the modern feel of the city. We live halfway between the 2 and for aesthetics and entertainment, we go to St. Louis way more than we do Kansas City.

I can't complain though - both are better than Springfield on any day of the week...

Northeast, Mid, Southern, and Southwestern Missourians to a large extent seem to definitely feel much more of an attachment to St. Louis than Kansas City. Kansas Citys hinterland stretches much further west up across the plains than east but does seem to reach over a bit north of I-70 across the northern agricultural flatlands of missouri a little bit to the east. It also seems like many Kansas Citians have familial ties to the mid plains of KS and NE, and not as much to the east.

[the north omaha star]

As a person who spent a considerable amount of time in KC and its suburbs during my KU days, I still prefer the urbanity of St. Louis over KC. In my opinion, the KC metro area is no different than my hometown of Omaha. However, when you visit St. Louis, it seems that you are actually in some place different. My 2 cents, take it for what it's worth.

[Howard Roark]

Slightly off topic, but as a Missourian, I'm torn between Kansas City and St. Louis. I love KC for the Chiefs and BBQ, but love St. Louis for the Cardinals and the modern feel of the city. We live halfway between the 2 and for aesthetics and entertainment, we go to St. Louis way more than we do Kansas City.

I can't complain though - both are better than Springfield on any day of the week...

Springtown has actually really improved since the days when I graced the Twilight Inn, and dined at Mexican Villa In fact if taken as a ratio of most improved city per capita Springfield might trump St. Louis and KC.

I mean it was a dead little town in the late 80's early 90's.

[South City]

What people fail to realize is that not only does StL have 2.8 million people in the metro area, but the metro area thrives. Take into consideration that all of StL's tall buildings are NOT in downtown. The Chase Park Plaza and the brand new high rise condos in the central west end, the Barnes-Jewish complex, the SLU complex, etc.

The city breaks ground on "BallPark Village" in a month, which when completed in 2008, will add to an already recognizable skyline. Revitalization of the bottle neck district, gas light square, hell, even old North City is gettin' new housing.

And don't forget that StL has Clayton, which is essentially a second downtown, whose skyline damn near trumps that of KC.

Oh, and lets not forget that StL's metro population has jumped 200,000 in the past 5 years.

Include the metro link expansion that opens up next week that connects the two downtowns and there should be no question about which city is better,

[SuburbanNation]

And don't forget that StL has Clayton, which is essentially a second downtown, whose skyline damn near trumps that of KC.

Oh, and lets not forget that StL's metro population has jumped 200,000 in the past 5 years.

i guess you havent spent much time in both urban centers, i have. (native st. louisan)

in my opinion: not arguable.

the second thing; again, no.

2000 to 2005 change.

37 79,831 St. Louis, MO-IL
27 111,656 Kansas City, MO-KS

http://www.census.gov/population/www...bsa-01-fmt.xls

the city of st. louis has been doing quite well for itself, lately. its a shame that more metro dwellers havent heard and seen the good news. i hope to move back, soon.

[tulsa]

To me St. Louis is a deep City. In that I mean that no matter how many times I visit I stumble on to a pleasant corner that I hadn't seen before. There are many great nook and crannies to StL. While some parts of StL seem under-kept they still appear to have character and soul. Although I have to admit that I found myself a little depressed after running North of Delmar on Euclid into this lovely neighborhood surrounding a wonderful park, only to find these amazing homes left to rot. That gets me pissed with our society. There seems to be many areas of StL that are wonderful and would be even more so with a little paint. The neighborhoods are exciting! The neighborhood around the Soulard Market (No public market in KC compared). The Italian neighborhood (The Hill?). The areas around both StLU and Wash. are teaming with life (the Loop near WU). The neighborhoods are far more interesting and distinguishable. I don't feel threatened there; even with small children. Forest Park may be one of the best urban parks in our Country. The free Zoo is great as is the Art Museum.

StL, to me, is very accessible. The Metro connecting to Lambert is a huge benefit to the City.

As a side note, just recently my family (9 yr. old and 1 yr. old) and I went to visit Wife's sister in Nashville and had to connect in StL. Our flight from StL was cancelled so we had a 4 hr. layover. We hopped on the Metro and in 25 min. were in the middle of the vibrant Central West End enjoying a nice lunch. Finished lunch got an ice cream cone from the Coffee Cartel and headed back to the airport just in time to catch my connection. Impressive accessibility!

KC is a nice City. Westport, 39th St. (the Bronx makes great pizza), and the Plaza are all nice but I don't see the same urban cohesion that I do in StL. I don't see the soul. The Union Station area kills me. That might as well be out in the burbs. We've tried to cross at the street and at some times it is darn near impossible. Can that stretch of 'urban' street be any wider? Yes, I know that is why they built the skybridges but I'd much rather be outside on nice days. Although I have to admit that I haven't been to any children's museum as enjoyable and adventerous as Science Center in KC and I enjoyed the architecture of Union Sta. I just didn't like the context. Main St. in KC between dwntwn and the Plaza has all the potential in the world but for too many stretches it's grossly under-utilized. Downtown KC just flat out bombed. I found it lifeless and sterile. Some better things going on but all in all it left me numb.

And we shouldn't even think about comparing pro sports facilities. I don't know of a worse setting than the Arrowhead Sta. area. That complex may actually be worse than Giants Sta. in E. Rutherford.

[in2runningks]

I am not sure if anyone is still perusing this blog...but I thought I would leave my 5 cents worth. I am from KC and spent time in STL last October. To be honest, I was not thrilled with the notion. That last I spent any period of time in STL was 15 hours STRANDED at the old Trailways station downtown. Believe, that did NOT leave a good impression on a 12-year-old boy. That said, this trip was much different. Compared to KC, STL is a REAL city, complete with requisite brownstones and four-plexes one sees in Chicago, NYC, and other eastern cities. One even finds old neighborhood bars where people gather and watch Card games over $1.50 "draughts." I left with a very different impression and can't wait to go back. This Kansas Citian can't wait to return.

That said, Kansas City does have its "similar" areas: Volker and Midtown come to mind. But it's definitely a western city; a regional hub for the vast spaces that expand west and north of it. I don't get the impression that STL fulfills that role for its area of the country. In that way, KC has more in common with the Twin Cities, Denver...even DFW and Atlanta.

In reading these other blog entries, I was reminded of a paragraph from an article written by the late Karl Mennigner (of the world-renown Menninger Clinic) entitled "Bleeding Kansas" in 1939. In this article, he writes:

"....Poor Kansas City is an orphan town; it has no parent state. Missouri disowns it as a metropolis; St. Louis is the Missouri city, and Kansas City should be the Kansas city, but it isn't. Rather it is and it isn't. It is located largely in Missouri, populated largely with ex-Kansans, depends on Kansas for its economic existence, supplies Kansas with traveling salesmen, truckdrivers, and racketeers, instructs Kansans how to vote and considers Kansas its great backyard. Kansas, none the less, think it is a great metropolis and speak reverently as "the city."

Nearly 70 years later, I would say this observation remains essentially true.

[indieouting17]

I've never been to Kansas city, but I'm a big time St. Louis person. The following are the reasons I love St. Louis:

-The Hill
-Dogtown
-Tower Grove
-CWE
-Soulard
-The Metrolink (and the fact that they're expanding it)
-One of the nicest new baseball stadiums in the country (and the ballpark village they're constructing around it)
-The Landing
-The Loop
-Forest Park (and all of its history/amenities)
-Midtown
-The streetcar suburbs like Clayton, Webster Groves and Kirkwood
-The brick row houses and flats (MOST similar to those in Philly)
-The Anheuser Busch Brewery (only thing missing is a staff of oompa loompas)
-and the list goes on and on...

St. Louis is nowhere near perfect, but there's no toerh city like it. Can KC match that???

[Razzy]

I've never been to Kansas city, but I'm a big time St. Louis person. The following are the reasons I love St. Louis:

-The Hill
-Dogtown
-Tower Grove
-CWE
-Soulard
-The Metrolink (and the fact that they're expanding it)
-One of the nicest new baseball stadiums in the country (and the ballpark village they're constructing around it)
-The Landing
-The Loop
-Forest Park (and all of its history/amenities)
-Midtown
-The streetcar suburbs like Clayton, Webster Groves and Kirkwood
-The brick row houses and flats (MOST similar to those in Philly)
-The Anheuser Busch Brewery (only thing missing is a staff of oompa loompas)
-and the list goes on and on...

St. Louis is nowhere near perfect, but there's no toerh city like it. Can KC match that???

I'm a Missourian who grew up in the central part of the state, but who lived in St Louis for 7 years and have visited KC many times and know both cities pretty well. Probably St Louis more than KC since I have never lived in KC. So just to play devil's advocate, let me take a pro-KC stance in my response...

I dont know the names of all of KC's neighborhoods, but the area around Westport/Country Club Plaza seems to be a wonderful area to live in if you want an eclectic urban experience.

I didnt see anything special about the Hill and Dogtown areas of St Louis. The Hill is an Italian neighborhood with some nice Italian restaurants, but there wasnt much noteworthy about the aesthetics or the housing in the area. Dogtown is an Irish area that is centrally located and close to everything, but the housing stock is mostly ugly. Didnt see the charm to the area. Lots of rough people that dont keep up their properties in that part of town.

Tower Grove area has a lot of nice housing, but also some crummy, crime-ridden streets that I wouldnt care to live by. You can literally have $200-300,000 houses on one street, then have the street right behind it be filled with run-down 2 or 4 families with less than desireable tenants.

Soulard has wonderful housing that is unique, and not found in many cities, including KC. And many corner pubs too, and right next to downtown. But its a very high maintenance area to live in. Not convenient to shopping, noisy, parking can sometimes be a problem, not a good area for kids, etc. But as an urban neighborhood for younger carousing professionals, its a cool area.

CWE is about like the Westport/Country Club Plaza area of KC, but I'll take Westport/CC Plaza over CWE any day of the week as far as the beauty of the area and the selection of bars/restaurants/shopping/places to live.

Metrolink is a good start, but St Louis still has more traffic problems than KC does. St Louis keeps building more bridges over the Missouri River into St Charles county, which only increases white flight, leading to further sprawl and deterioration/neglect of the older urban core.

I'll give St Louis props over KC on their stadiums. KC picked a bad suburban location for their stadiums, and now they at least acknowledge that. A new baseball and/or football stadium in an urban setting (Like Baltimore's ballpark) would be a wonderful addition to KC.

Midtown St Louis is about like Midtown KC (Crown Center/Union Station area)

The Loop is very similar to Westport.

Forest Park is indeed a nice park, only thing comparable in KC is Swope Park, but I'll still take Forest Park. Though they need to keep it in better shape.

I'll also give the 'Lou props on suburbs like Clayton, Webster, and Kirkwood- and I'll add University City to those three. There are really no such areas in KC. The closest to those places, which all have their own downtown areas and a beautiful and charming older housing stock would be perhaps Parkville, and thats tiny compared to those places. The KC suburbs, for the most part, are mostly redundant and generic places built mainly in the 50's, 60's, and 70's and newer.

St Louis also has it over KC when it comes to brick row houses/flats. But so what? Brick row houses and flats are largely obsolete in St Louis. Most of them are filled with the type of tenants that you'll typically get when rent is only $300-400 a month tops, and it is far from the first choice to live for the majority of well-to-do people. Typically neighborhoods in St Louis get worse when undesireables start moving into two and four family flats and bring their baggage with them. It also increases density, which isnt good if you have a lot of undesireables in an area.

Yep St Louis has Anheuser Busch, where you can go on a free tour and drink free and fresh beer at the end of the tour. But that gets old after a while.

Kansas City is a faster growing area than St Louis, and it seems more modern with more high-tech jobs. The area isnt choked off by geographical features like rivers, flood plains, hills, etc, like St Louis is. The main roads are also much better kept up in KC than in St Louis. Try driving down any major street in the Midtown-CWE area of St Louis, or downtown. You'll hit many bumps and potholes, and oftentimes the lane configurations make no sense. KC is better laid out, with many boulevards with aesthetic appeal and that arent bumpy to drive on.

I also believe that the people in KC are nicer and have more of a sense of civic pride than St Louis people do. I also tend to believe that St Louis folks are more parochial and stick to their own kind, particularly since most of the people that live there happened to grow up there. Because KC has more people that moved there from elsewhere, it doesnt have the same parochialism. I think KC would tend to be more welcoming to outsiders and newcomers than St Louis would be.

KC is in general a nicer and cleaner city, easier to get around in with less traffic problems, and more of the city and surrounding area is desireable to live in than in St Louis, where you have to pick your area to live in very carefully

I'll end this, to be fair and balanced, by giving two more areas that St Louis is better in than KC - pro sports (combo of teams, following/attendance, and facilities) and higher institutions of learning.