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.
I mean let's be serious for a moment. I know CD is very PC about every city being amazing in their own right but I've been to both numerous times for work, and neither are places I or most people I know would use their PTO or money on to visit unless they had to.
Outside of only a handful of US cities, I or most people I know would not use PTO or money to visit unless they had to.
Baltimore I think is more walkable and transit friendly on paper. I had a very good experience back in 05 when I visited Baltimore Harbor. It seemed like a really nice city.
You cant beat Forest Park in St. Louis with its free world class attractions. Without looking at the nightly news or urban stats, St. Louis is very livable. Cost of living to income ratio is good. Easy to get around in. Very easy going middle American small big city.
What city is better is subjective to the persons experience and what they are considering a good city. I don't have the experience in Baltimore to give a good comparison.
St Louis seems more livable. Both of these cities are crime ridden dilapidated, rust belt disasters, but at least St Louis doesn't have the bad traffic and inexplicably high cost of living that Baltimore does.
If only looking at metro areas and not what is within an hours drive let alone a 4 hour drive, then I would chose St Louis. It just has more to offer as a stand alone metro.
But you can't ignore the the fact that Baltimore has a much better overall location and that plays into it's quality of life.
I think both cities have a lot of problems, but at the same time neither is near as bad as people think, especially St Louis. I love all the comments. "I have never been to Baltimore or St Louis but...." Or I drove through once.
If you actually know both cities, they both have plenty to offer, are both relatively safe for people that don't partake in gangs and drugs and both have a lot to do and see. St Louis just has more to do within its metro.
Baltimore does not offer the cultural assets of a typical metro of nearly 3 million. More like a metro of about 1.5 million culturally. It's just too close to DC and even Philly I guess.
If only looking at metro areas and not what is within an hours drive let alone a 4 hour drive, then I would chose St Louis. It just has more to offer as a stand alone metro.
But you can't ignore the the fact that Baltimore has a much better overall location and that plays into it's quality of life.
I think both cities have a lot of problems, but at the same time neither is near as bad as people think, especially St Louis. I love all the comments. "I have never been to Baltimore or St Louis but...." Or I drove through once.
If you actually know both cities, they both have plenty to offer, are both relatively safe for people that don't partake in gangs and drugs and both have a lot to do and see. St Louis just has more to do within its metro.
Baltimore does not offer the cultural assets of a typical metro of nearly 3 million. More like a metro of about 1.5 million culturally. It's just too close to DC and even Philly I guess.
In one sentence you say that Baltimore has the better location, then you say that it too close to DC and Philly. Having a better location, in Baltimore's instance, isn't a quality. Camden and Newark are better than Baltimore due to their locations.
If only looking at metro areas and not what is within an hours drive let alone a 4 hour drive, then I would chose St Louis. It just has more to offer as a stand alone metro.
But you can't ignore the the fact that Baltimore has a much better overall location and that plays into it's quality of life.
I think both cities have a lot of problems, but at the same time neither is near as bad as people think, especially St Louis. I love all the comments. "I have never been to Baltimore or St Louis but...." Or I drove through once.
If you actually know both cities, they both have plenty to offer, are both relatively safe for people that don't partake in gangs and drugs and both have a lot to do and see. St Louis just has more to do within its metro.
Baltimore does not offer the cultural assets of a typical metro of nearly 3 million. More like a metro of about 1.5 million culturally. It's just too close to DC and even Philly I guess.
What cultural assets does St. Louis have that Baltimore doesn't????
The only reason why these two are even considered is because the St. Louis area encompasses like twice as many counties in order to equal the Baltimore metro area in population.
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.
