^hahaha. Nice try.
Cultural Institutions: ST. LOUIS
History: ST. LOUIS
Educational Institutions: ST. LOUIS
Housing Stock: ST. LOUIS
Population: ST. LOUIS
Media: ST. LOUIS
Sports: ST. LOUIS
Public Transit: ST. LOUIS
Parks: ST. LOUIS
Corporate Presence: ST. LOUIS
Nightlife: ST. LOUIS
Ethnic Enclaves: ST. LOUIS
Dining Options: ST. LOUIS
Medical Institutions: ST. LOUIS
Friendliness: KANSAS CITY
Cleanliness: KANSAS CITY
This is a tough one.
ST. LOUIS: The City is Back. Back the City.
Achem, you all have the Cardinals, but the Rams aren't better than the Chiefs. So St. Louis doesn't get sports, we are split pretty much evenly.
City Boy where is your Hockey Team? St Louis has the Blues?
We hope for better things; it will arise from the ashes - Fr Gabriel Richard 1805
Not that I think you are anywhere close to objective, but lets examine each one of those, and add a few more...Originally posted by JivecitySTL
This is a tough one.
Cultural Institutions: ST. LOUIS - I'll give you that one, but by a narrow margin, mostly because as a larger and older area, St Louis SHOULD have more culture
History: ST. LOUIS - Sure, its an older city, therefore it has more history.
Educational Institutions: ST. LOUIS - if you are talking about higher education, then sure. If you are talking about accessibility to good public schools, I'll go with KC. Its easier to live in a good area with good public schools in the KC area than it is in the St Louis area
Housing Stock: ST. LOUIS - Why? St Louis has a lot of beautiful old brick buildings, but most of them are obsolete, particular the 2 and 4 family flats and the apartment buildings. Mostly undesireables live in them now. Kansas City is newer and there are block after block of beautiful houses down by the Plaza and going south from there, not to mention newer housing north of the river.
Population: ST. LOUIS - St Louis is larger, but Kansas City's metro area is growing almost twice as fast as St Louis. So I'll go with KC, since it is going to pass St Louis in the next 20-30 years
Media: ST. LOUIS - Dont know enough about the media of either city to make a ruling on this one. Why do you say St Louis?
Sports: ST. LOUIS - I'll give you that, for now. St Louis is a larger metro area and should have more pro sports, and definitely should have an NBA team.
Public Transit: ST. LOUIS - If you count the 1% or so of people from St Louis metro area that bother to ride the metrolink, then sure. Kansas City is easier to get around in, whether it has anything comparable to the metrolink or not.
Parks: ST. LOUIS - St Louis has three good parks - Forest, Tower Grove, and Carondelet. Kansas City seems to have more parkland, to me, and more open green space, so I'll go with KC on this one
Corporate Presence: ST. LOUIS - How so? Did you do a comparison of how many Fortune 500 companies each city has?
Nightlife: ST. LOUIS - Yes, St Louis wins this one, hands down. More places to go than in KC
Ethnic Enclaves: ST. LOUIS - Yes, if you care about a segregated population with segregated neighborhoods, then St Louis wins
Dining Options: ST. LOUIS - I like barbeque, so I'll go with KC
Medical Institutions: ST. LOUIS - Dont know enough to comment. What is your reasoning?
Friendliness: KANSAS CITY - Definitely
Cleanliness: KANSAS CITY - Absolutely
As far as sprawl goes, well, St Louis has Wentzville, 50 miles from downtown. KC has no equivalent.
Shopping - everyone in St Louis goes to malls. KC has the Plaza and that other new development in northland that I cant think of right now. I'll go with KC on that one.
I gotta run for now, I'll comment more later
More thoughts...
RACISM: I've never seen racism, white flight, and segregation like I've seen in St Louis. I lived in Spanish Lake in 1994-95, when it was still about 75% white. According to people that lived up there that I talked to and went to Hazelwood East, the high school out there, it was about 50-50 white and black. Now 10 years later the high school is 93% black. Just saw the stats yesterday. And according to the census data, Spanish Lake went from 17% black in 1990 to 55% black in 2000, and I'm sure its probably at least 70% black now. And racism also exists concerning your beloveth Metrolink. The rednecks in St Charles didnt want Metrolink extended into their city. You can guess why. And Metrolink is being blamed (rightly or wrongly) for an increase in crime and unruly youths at the Galleria, since they expanded it and it runs near there. The Galleria recently announced that they were going to implement a curfew for kids 17 and under due to this. So good luck in getting people in St Louis to open their minds up about Metrolink and to want it expanded their way. White Flight exists in KC, too, but not nearly to the extent that it does in St Louis. Its the #1 reason why St Charles is the sprawling wasteland that it is, and building more bridges over the Missouri River is St Louis's way to say "just keeping moving out there and hasten the decline of the urban core and the inner suburbs"
CRIME: St Louis ranks #1 in the nation in violent crime, according to a recent report. Yes, I understand all the reasons why, its a landlocked inner city, etc. But still, that doesnt go very far to attracting people to live there or to visit there, and its bad for the city's perception. KC has crime, too, but most of KC is safe, whereas maybe 50% of the city of St Louis is.
POPULATION DRAIN: St Louis, on a percentage basis, has lost more people than any other city in the last 50 years. It now has close to 1/3rd of the amount of people that it had in 1950. KC is slowly gaining population now, after losing many people from 1960-1990.
WATER RECREATION: Kansas City has several lakes surrounding the city in which one can swim, boat, sail, fish, etc in. St Louis has Creve Couer Lake, which you cant even swim in or operate a motorized watercraft in, and Lake St Louis, which is surrounded by private houses. So St Louisans have to make the 3-hour drive to overcrowded Lake Ozark if they want water recreation, whereas KC has it right in their own backyard.
EARTHQUAKE THREAT: St Louis lies close enough to the New Madrid fault that should a major earthquake occur, it would suffer catastropic damage and human suffering. I wouldnt want to be on the lower deck of Highway 40 in downtown St Louis when/if this occurs... KC has no such seismic threat.
AESTHETICS: Another thing that makes KC better than St Louis are the numerous parkways and boulevards that flow through the city. Nowhere in St Louis can you drive and see wide open spaces and parkland along the road that you are driving on, and that includes anywhere in St Louis county, unless you count the flood plains. The main thoroughfares are in much better shape in KC than they are in St Louis.
LOCATION/PROXIMITY TO OTHER CITIES: St Louis is better here, being 4-5 hours from Chicago and close to other midwestern/upper south cities. KC is kind of out in the middle of nowhere, and God help you if you head west into the boring state of Kansas.
NEGATIVE PERCEPTIONS: There are positive perceptions about both cities, but here we'll focus on the negative... If the glass is half empty, St Louis is considered to be a crime-ridden and decaying city in decline. Kansas City is considered to be a cow-town with not much to do. Which negative perception is better than the other? I'll take KC's, because I feel that people that think of it as a cow-town are genuinely surprised when they visit there and see what it has to offer. I've read about quite a few people who have said that. On the other hand, the perception about St Louis is true: it IS a crime-ridden, decaying city in decline, and when one visits there, they can see this.
FRAGMENTED GOVERNMENT: St Louis is a landlocked city that seceded from the county about a 100 years ago, when the county needed the city more than vice-versa. Now the city needs the county more, and the county is saying "no thanks". Then you have close to 100 suburbs in St Louis country, all with duplicated government and city services, and all with their own agendas. This fragmentation makes it tough for the area to come together on issues affecting them and getting things done. Kansas City, OTOH, has almost 5 times the land area that St Louis has, extends into three counties, is covered by at least 4 or 5school districts, and the suburbs are fewer and larger and for the most part self-sustained, making it easier for the area as a whole to come together on issues.
Last edited by Razzy; 15 Mar 2007 at 3:26 PM.
^Oh my god, your warped perceptions are out of control.
Segregation/Racism? Yeah, America is unfortunately a very segregated country and its older cities tend to be the most segregated. Think St. Louis is bad? Go to Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Newark, Baltimore, DC, etc. and you'll see that old cities such as these are also EXTREMELY segregated, perhaps moreso than St. Louis. But don't even tell me KC is somehow more "open minded" when it comes to race relations. Please. This entire country is backwards in that regard. KC is no bastion of tolerance.
Crime? Okay, if you want to buy into that flawed, inconsistent methodology, St. Louis is the "most dangerous" city in America. Any visit to the city and you'll see that's pure bull$hit. I can go on and on about how stats like these are completely misleading, but I'll save you a Razzy-like rant. Just know that crime in STL isn't NEARLY as bad as the media makes it out to be. Sorry we only have 61 square miles of straight-up urban demographics, which one cannot say for KC, which actually has countless miles upon miles of SUBURBAN and even RURAL areas within its ridiculously large city limits. Extend St. Louis's city limits to include the 300+ square miles that KC includes and you'll see a vastly different picture.
Population drain? While STL has long been plagued with a decreasing population, those days are over. The city actually posted GAINS in the 2005 census estimates for the first time in 50 years. Come visit and you will not see a dying, decaying city. Instead you will find hundreds of once-delapidated buildings in neighborhoods throughout the city being renovated for new uses. Believe it or not, people are coming back.
Housing stock? To say that our housing stock is "obsolete" is a farce. Are YOU KIDDING ME? Is the housing stock in Boston obsolete? How about any historic city in Europe? Old does not automatically translate to obsolete. My god, have you taken notice of the amazing rehab/reuse boom taking place in St. Louis? It's one of the city's greatest assets!
Medical institutions? Wash. U Medical Center is consistently ranked among the nation's Top 10. SLU Med Center is pretty highly ranked as well. There's simply a much bigger academic/medical community here.
Earthquake threat? Okay, who cares. KC ranks better than San Francisco in that department too. Where would most people rather live?
Media? St. Louis is a much bigger media market than KC.
Shopping? There are more stores worth visiting for a person under 50 years old in the Delmar Loop than there are in the Plaza, and what's better-- you don't have to worry about being overwhelmed by soccer moms from Kansas!
And while you say KC may surpass STL in population, it certainly won't be in the next 20-30 years as you suggest, if ever. Growth and decline rates are never consistent, they always fluctuate. St. Louis will always be considered the most prominent, established urban city of Missouri as long as any of us are alive, plain and simple.
Sounds like you haven't been here in a while. You should do yourself a favor and come back before you write St. Louis off as a dying, decrepit, "obsolete" city. What bull$hit. What the majority of people have posted on this topic sounds about right to me.
ST. LOUIS: The City is Back. Back the City.
Jive, quit taking such an ego trip, you always have had an ego problem, especially with St. Louis.
Yes, St. Louis is a great city, but it isn't heaven. Neither is KC. We both have different things going for us.
However what really matters is which city focuses on it's urban area next. If KC improves it's urban area before St. Louis, and lowers the crime, as well as improves the schools (heck, your schools are being taken over by the state), then we are going to be ahead of St. Louis. It will also take metro wide cooperation by both sides. Both STL and KC will have to eliminate the sprawl that is occurring.
KC's growth is horrendous simply because it's sprawl. However, if KC can get Overland Park, Olathe, Liberty, Lees Summit, Independence, etc... to stop sprawling and start infilling and developing their neighborhoods rather than poorly planning them, then KC will be ahead of St. Louis.
However the same could be said for St. Louis, it just depends on which city urbanizes first.
Also, you can't really compare KC to St. Louis... St. Louis' 60 square miles has over 300,000 people in it, whereas if you draw 60 square miles in KCMO's urban center, it'd have 180,000 people. However, we have enough buildings to hold about 400,000 people in that area, and enough open space to accomodate even more.
Not to mention that we have 2 million in our metro compared to St. Louis' 3 million.
On the issue of crime, Kansas City definitely wins as an overall city. Comparing urban areas of 60 square miles, KC still wins at about 30-40 murders per 100,000 people. Plus our current crime is just from gang wars that have been going on for a few years. The police are beginning to gain the upper-hand and discovered one of the main people involved with it as well as narrowed down the neighborhoods. So hopefully that will decrease as well...
But either way, who really cares? I'm just here defending KC against the stupid, idiotic and bias comments being made here. I'm not here to bash St. Louis, as I think St. Louis can be looked to by KC in several ways as an example. (Though we should be looking at European cities rather than American ones)
However if both cities do well, like we all need to hope for, then our state can really benefit as a whole.
Really? I think most people, if they had to pick which one of us has the "warped perception", it would be you, since you obviously have your ego tied to your city, right down to having the name of your city in your name on here. I have lived in Missouri all of my life, and I like both cities and enjoy the differences between each of them. I've listed several advantages St Louis has over KC, to boot. But overall, I can objectively say, at this point, that I think KC has more advantages as a place for a family to live and as far as future growth/prosperity.
I'll address each of your rants one by one now...
When one does a google search of "most segregated cities in the US", St Louis shows up frequently, but KC is nowhere to be found. Hence, my point.Segregation/Racism? Yeah, America is unfortunately a very segregated country and its older cities tend to be the most segregated. Think St. Louis is bad? Go to Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Newark, Baltimore, DC, etc. and you'll see that old cities such as these are also EXTREMELY segregated, perhaps moreso than St. Louis. But don't even tell me KC is somehow more "open minded" when it comes to race relations. Please. This entire country is backwards in that regard. KC is no bastion of tolerance.
I've already acknowledged much of what you said - St Louis is 61 square miles, all urban, whereas KC is over 300 square miles and much of that is suburban and open space. Heartland covered this one pretty well, I'd say.Crime? Okay, if you want to buy into that flawed, inconsistent methodology, St. Louis is the "most dangerous" city in America. Any visit to the city and you'll see that's pure bull$hit. I can go on and on about how stats like these are completely misleading, but I'll save you a Razzy-like rant. Just know that crime in STL isn't NEARLY as bad as the media makes it out to be. Sorry we only have 61 square miles of straight-up urban demographics, which one cannot say for KC, which actually has countless miles upon miles of SUBURBAN and even RURAL areas within its ridiculously large city limits. Extend St. Louis's city limits to include the 300+ square miles that KC includes and you'll see a vastly different picture.
Thats great to hear, if the estimate is correct. I keep/kept wondering when the 'lou is going to bottom out in population. Lets hope it is the start of a sustainable pattern and not an anomaly.Population drain? While STL has long been plagued with a decreasing population, those days are over. The city actually posted GAINS in the 2005 census estimates for the first time in 50 years. Come visit and you will not see a dying, decaying city. Instead you will find hundreds of once-delapidated buildings in neighborhoods throughout the city being renovated for new uses. Believe it or not, people are coming back.
You didnt follow me at all. I was talking about the 2 and 4 family flats and the large old apartment buildings in certain neighborhoods. They are obsolete in all but the very best neighborhoods in the city. The people in the nice single family areas dont care to live by them in most cases because the rents cannot be raised high enough to keep pace with inflation (otherwise no one would live in them) and therefore, the quality of the people that live in them is going downhill. That brings a whole area down, eventually. I do agree that the older housing stock (single family) in St Louis is beautiful, but again, you completely missed the point I was making.Housing stock? To say that our housing stock is "obsolete" is a farce. Are YOU KIDDING ME? Is the housing stock in Boston obsolete? How about any historic city in Europe? Old does not automatically translate to obsolete. My god, have you taken notice of the amazing rehab/reuse boom taking place in St. Louis? It's one of the city's greatest assets!
[quoteMedical institutions? Wash. U Medical Center is consistently ranked among the nation's Top 10. SLU Med Center is pretty highly ranked as well. There's simply a much bigger academic/medical community here.[/quote]
I wont argue with that one. Advantage St Louis
Its not a huge deal, but it is an advantage that KC has over St Louis. When/if a major earthquake does hit St Louis, I predict that many people will move out of St Louis and not move back (see New Orleans), because St Louis doesnt have the same draw to it that San Francisco does. San Francisco is very unique, whereas St Louis isnt that much different culturally, economically and geographically than other midwest and upper south cities such as Cleveland, Cincinnati, Louisville, etc.Earthquake threat? Okay, who cares. KC ranks better than San Francisco in that department too. Where would most people rather live?
Okay.... but that doesnt explain how it makes it better. If the media outlets and figureheads suck, then it doesnt matter how much bigger the area is than another area with a better/more enlightened media.Media? St. Louis is a much bigger media market than KC.
The apt comparison to the Loop is Westport. They arguably have about the same amount of shopping, but I'll bet you anything that Westport has more nightclubs/bars than the Loop does.Shopping? There are more stores worth visiting for a person under 50 years old in the Delmar Loop than there are in the Plaza, and what's better-- you don't have to worry about being overwhelmed by soccer moms from Kansas!
Well, over the last 50 years or so, the population trends have been very consistent - KC is growing faster than (and catching up with) St Louis. I see little that is going to change that. KC is perceived as an area - while not a boomtown - that is on the rise, whereas St Louis is on the decline. In fact, more people move out of the St Louis area than move in pretty much any year. The only reason why your area grows is because births outnumber deaths.And while you say KC may surpass STL in population, it certainly won't be in the next 20-30 years as you suggest, if ever. Growth and decline rates are never consistent, they always fluctuate. St. Louis will always be considered the most prominent, established urban city of Missouri as long as any of us are alive, plain and simple.
I have been there, and have seen what they have done with the old Darst-Webb area and also in the near north side, along Page and MLK Blvd. Looks much better around there than it used to. Urban renewal is happening in every major old city in the nation, and its been happening in St Louis for about 60 years now. Doing it in a way that is sustainable and brings people back to the city is the challenge. The biggest hurdle to the city coming back is the state of the school system, which sounds like it is getting worse instead of better. Fix that, and things will pick up. Good luck.Sounds like you haven't been here in a while. You should do yourself a favor and come back before you write St. Louis off as a dying, decrepit, "obsolete" city. What bull$hit. What the majority of people have posted on this topic sounds about right to me.
Oh and on the issue of earthquakes: KC ranks better, STL is closest to the fault line, and has no buffers from it, however KC has the ozark hills/mountains which act somewhat as a buffer.
I just want to point out a misinformation that happened earlier. Someone said Houston has no great uni, but I suppose that person forgot about Rice.
To those defenders of KC (I'm from Texas and don't really care either way--both are fun to visit)-- for a university, I would've said KU, not UMKC. It's close, right? Something like 30 miles? Is that not part of the metro area, because technically Washington U isn't inside the City of St. Louis, either.
^Actually, Wash. U. is technically situated in 3 municipalities: U. City, Clayton, and St. Louis City. The easternmost portion of the campus, including the School of Architecture, is in St. Louis City.
ST. LOUIS: The City is Back. Back the City.
You learn something new every day.
Hey guys, I was born and raised in STL and just recently moved to KC to work. I've been here for four months. I love the downtown skyline of KC and IMO downtown KC just looks alot better than STL from afar. But honestly thats pretty much the only thing I like about KC other than Gates BBQ.
The number one thing that bothers me about KC is how spread out it is. I drive from North KC to Grandview every day. Its about a 35 minute drive and there is nothing in between Northland and Grandview worth seeing or stopping at on 435. It all looks the same. Its not even kept up as well as STL imo (I'm talking about grass along the highway etc). KC is just bland in comparison to STL.
The only things KC has going for itself is Johnson County, the Plaza, and Westport.
Johnson County and other outer lying counties in KC
What a nice place Johnson County is! However I'll take North County, West County, Creve Coure, Kirwood, St. Peters, Ladue, etc. etc. over Johnson County, Lee's Summit, Overland Park, Grandview, Independence etc. ANY day of the week. People talk about how bad STL looks but the inner city of KC looks just as bad and the outerlying counties of St. Louis appear and are nicer than KC's outerlying counties and neighborhoods. There's also way more to do in these counties as far as shopping, places to eat, etc. IMO Overland Park and Johnson County are the best places to live in KC. But in STL we have Creve Coure, Kirkwood, Ladue, etc. Theres more to choose from in STL.
The Plaza
Not even going to argue this one. The Plaza is very nice and STL doesnt have ANYTHING that compares except for that place that I cant even remember the name of thats across from the Galleria. Like I said it doesnt compare. HOWEVER STL has better malls overall. The Galleria, The Mills, West County, and even Jametown are all collectively better than Oak Park Mall, Independence Mall, Zona Rosa, and the plaza IMO. PLUS they arent as far away from each other.
Westport
Central West end has way better bars and everything than Westport. Its also IMO, alot more safer. Since Ive been here one person has been murdered and several shootings have occured at Westport. If you went their earlier in the summer the place was overrun by thugs loitering in the parking lot across from America's Pub. CWE however is a nice place with upwardly mobile people and the establishments there reflect that. Westport is cool but I'll take CWE over it.
Nightlife
All KC has nightlife wise is the Plaza, Westport, and the area on 31st where the Empire Room is (I forget the name of that district). If you get tired of those spots well you're out of luck. STL has The Landing, The Loop, Washington Ave., Central West End, and tons of other nightlife spots sprinkled in between. Supposedly KC was voted #1 Best place for singles and I dont know who conducted that study because KC is far more a better family town than it is a place for singles. There just aint enough to do. Also in STL we have East Saint Louis if you ever want to go to the strip clubs after the clubs in STL close (had to throw that one in, its makes a big difference to us young guys
Inner City
There's nothing in KC that compares to the area around SLU, WASH U, Clayton, etc. Sure the inner city of Saint Louis has some rough spots but theres far more beautiful historic places such as these than in the city of Kansas City, which in my opinion is just one big HOOD which nothing worth of note surrounding in or within it.
Sports
In STL we have the Blues, Cardinals, and Rams. I think we are more hardcore about our sports than in KC. We were voted best sports city in 99 and another year after the new millenium I think. There are more sports bars etc in this town. Their are alot of hardcore chiefs fans but I think us Rams fans can keep up with them. Its not even a comparison between the Cards and Royals. Busch Stadium is a better ballbark (new one and old one). I went to a few Cards vs Royals games since I been here and BOTH times there were either the same amount or more cards fans at Royals Stadium than royals fans. Thats pathetic. KC has built the sprint arena but NO ONE wants to move there. Shows how great of a sports town this is.
Media
Post Dispatch is better than The Star. There's more of a variety of radio stations in STL. And the news stations are also better produced. No contest here.
Conclusion
IMO STL seems to have more history and has alot more things you can identify with. I've tried to give KC a chance but theres just more going on in STL. While KC would be a great place to raise a family STL is more fast paced and busier. I cant wait to get out of KC.
It isn't how hight that counts. It is the firm foundation that holds it up.
I'll grant you Forest Park. Envy of the nation. But, other than that? I moved from KC to SL and will regret it to my dying day. I'll not bore you. Just one. Nelson Art Gallery?
No thanks I'd prefer not to get shot.Also in STL we have East Saint Louis if you ever want to go to the strip clubs after the clubs in STL close (had to throw that one in, its makes a big difference to us young guys
A 6 year old thread back gets resurrected.
This thread is like arguing who is the tallest midget.
"If you don't like change, you're going to like irrelevance even less" General Eric Shinseki
Old thread redux!!!
I've visited both and enjoyed what they had - but I wouldn't live in either one.
"Whatever beer I'm drinking, is better than the one I'm not." DMLW
Quote
