Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are you sure the last link isn't in the city? Google earth showed it as in the city.
Secondly, exactly. Each city has them, so saying Baltimore has areas that are much more suburban than anywhere in St. Louis is false.
What happens is every zipcode that starts with 631=St. Louis even though some of the places aren't withing the city boundaries. If you look back at the link North of Jennings Station/Chain of Rocks that is County and West of Riverview Drive is County.
The arguements about who has less suburban neighborhoods is ridiculous. Balitmore is urban, St. Louis is urban do they resemble each other...sort of and thats the end of it. Hell the first time I went to NYC I was shocked to even see front yards.
Last edited by masterwood89; 02-25-2011 at 03:11 PM..
But i still believe that this address is within the city. I edited my post to include the neighborhood. It's Riverview. Their zip code is 63138. If It is not in the city, then where do the 220 some people reside who live in Riverview?
Also, that address is within the city limits based on the St. Louis boundry map here (http://www.city-data.com/city/St.-Louis-Missouri.html you'll have to scroll down a bit to see it - its under the User submitted facts and corrections section)
the last link you posted was a suburb of st. louis (bellefontaine neighbors), not st. louis city.
this whole conversation is really splitting hairs. my only point from the beginning is that baltimore is not 100% pure east coast urban within its city limits. neither, of course, is st. louis. however both cities are overall quite dense with historic fabric, and have a lot more in common with one another than not. i don't know how anyone can possibly argue otherwise. the two cities are extremely similar in nearly every way: politics, economy, social dynamics, etc.
But i still believe that this address is within the city. I edited my post to include the neighborhood. It's Riverview. Their zip code is 63138. If It is not in the city, then where do the 220 some people reside who live in Riverview?
Also, that address is within the city limits based on the St. Louis boundry map here (http://www.city-data.com/city/St.-Louis-Missouri.html you'll have to scroll down a bit to see it - its under the User submitted facts and corrections section)
Yeah I know the Riverview neighborhood, but the address on the link is right on the boundary between Riverview Village that's why I wasn't thinking it was in the city.
Everything east of the pale green line is St. Louis City, Yellow marks Riverview Village census factfinder
Last edited by masterwood89; 02-25-2011 at 03:10 PM..
I think the poster was saying that Baltimore should demolish its northern half, which is its suburban part in order to become more like St. Louis with less suburban neighborhoods. Not so much anything to do with the north St. Louis ghetto...
I'm sorry I was misunderstood. I was sarcastically saying that Baltimore should demolish it's northern half, both suburban and not suburban, to create the delightful vacant quality that almost half of St. Louis has.
Remember, the point of this thread - which seems to have been lost - is what Baltimore could do to make itself more like St. Louis. So, yes, it would have a lot to do with what was once a "ghetto" in the city of St. Louis, but now looks more like a prairie. You wouldn't seriously suggest that Baltimore get rid of Johns Hopkins and its environs, would you? Whether Baltimore and St. Louis have problems is beside the point (both have major ones). It's about how best to deal with them.
Sorry the irony was lost on you. In any event, Baltimore - or any other old, historical, major city, for that matter - would be insane to mimic St. Louis' failed pattern. I love old US cities, and nothing p$%sses me off more than what a once great city like St. Louis has done to itself. I hope that leaves little room for confusion.
it sounds like you are making some broad generalizations about st. louis. there are many neighborhoods on the north side that have remained largely intact and inhabited. there are other parts, of course, that have been cleared or abandoned. but it is absolutely false to say that "half of st. louis is gone." that is not true. moreover, the central corridor and the south side have remained quite dense. on paper, st. louis looks like the poster child of a failed urban condition, but a visit to the city would reveal a charming and vibrant city for the most part, with a complete and interesting built environment in the vast majority of neighborhoods. it's a shame people draw conclusions based on numbers alone. it would also be naive to think that all older cities don't have certain pockets of complete destruction and decay. chicago most certainly does. baltimore most certainly does. philadelphia most certainly does. a relevant article appears in today's st. louis post-dispatch explaining why numbers don't tell the whole story.
it sounds like you are making some broad generalizations about st. louis. there are many neighborhoods on the north side that have remained largely intact and inhabited. there are other parts, of course, that have been cleared or abandoned. but it is absolutely false to say that "half of st. louis is gone." that is not true. moreover, the central corridor and the south side have remained quite dense. on paper, st. louis looks like the poster child of a failed urban condition, but a visit to the city would reveal a charming and vibrant city for the most part, with a complete and interesting built environment in the vast majority of neighborhoods. it's a shame people draw conclusions based on numbers alone. it would also be naive to think that all older cities don't have certain pockets of complete destruction and decay. chicago most certainly does. baltimore most certainly does. philadelphia most certainly does. a relevant article appears in today's st. louis post-dispatch explaining why numbers don't tell the whole story.
Sounds like you missed the point. This is a typical St. Louis response, and the reason the city is in the shape it's in. 63% - keep that number in mind when you make these microscopic assessments about how objective people like me are "wrong" or "misinformed".
It's a more a shame that St. Louis and its powers that be continue to point to token redevelopment (Washington Ave. corridor comes to mind) that has been on-going for almost 20 years (with little progress beyond that) as major achievements, all while buildings in the north end of the city have continued to be dismantled and sold for their bricks at an accelerating pace.
I'm not going to continue this pointless banter, BTW, because it has predictably ended with a St. Louis advocate (or series of them) proclaiming how the facts are subject to interpretation, and how "misunderstood" the city is by outsiders. Trust me on this; I understand all too well what St. Louis' history has been and what continues to be the case. I don't need education; St. Louisians need a reality check.
i'm not a st. louisan. i am a philadelphian living in st. louis. i do not think calling people like you out on your broad generalizations and exaggerations means that i ignore the city's serious problems. you said the entire north side is gone. that is a lie.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
