U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Which would you live in if you HAD to choose.
East St Louis 25 20.33%
Camden 98 79.67%
Voters: 123. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-30-2014, 09:51 AM
 
Location: Mishawaka, Indiana
6,215 posts, read 8,367,038 times
Reputation: 4644

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
I'd take East St. Louis, for at least a hundred reasons, the main one being that St. Louis is a hell of a lot nicer city then Philadelphia. And the climate. St. Louis doesn't have the inferiority complex of cities in the shadow of New York, and the false-pride overcompensation for it.

I can't see how they would be any worse than any other suburb of any other city, except they probably have better public transportation than most suburbs. But the cost of living would be high, since supermarket prices are always highly inflated in low-income suburbs (and, for a different reason, high-income suburbs).. And car insurance rates.
Have you even looked at the pictures of East St. Louis?

At least in Camden there are a few nice areas, in East St. Louis there ARE no nice areas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-30-2014, 10:11 AM
 
52,669 posts, read 75,524,827 times
Reputation: 11628
There are probably some changes since then, but here is some info on East St Louis with some pictures of neighborhoods: Built St. Louis | East St. Louis and Metro East
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2014, 11:38 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,590,043 times
Reputation: 35874
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdAilment View Post
Have you even looked at the pictures of East St. Louis?
I've been in East St. Louis many times. Quite a bit of the city looks like any other suburb.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2014, 12:06 PM
 
Location: Milwaukee
3,451 posts, read 3,164,631 times
Reputation: 2854
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdAilment View Post
Have you even looked at the pictures of East St. Louis?

At least in Camden there are a few nice areas, in East St. Louis there ARE no nice areas.
That was from a self-styled ESL "expert" who believes it's safer there than Oshkosh, WI. You can pretty much ignore him on this subject, if you haven't done so already.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2014, 12:07 PM
 
Location: Milwaukee
3,451 posts, read 3,164,631 times
Reputation: 2854
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
I've been in East St. Louis many times. Quite a bit of the city looks like any other suburb.
In this case and many others, looks are often deceiving.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2014, 12:15 PM
 
Location: alexandria, VA
6,914 posts, read 3,621,187 times
Reputation: 4070
Man, both these towns look beat. But E. St. Louis looks like a ghost town. Just desolate. Worse than Detroit. At least with Camden there are still some remnants of what was once a solid little working class city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2014, 12:20 PM
 
Location: Chicago
2,357 posts, read 2,013,241 times
Reputation: 2181
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdAilment View Post
Not really the best comparison.

Camden is in New Jersey, very close to New York City and some other very large metropolitan areas, also very close to a lot of destination spots. East St. Louis is not, the only thing it has going for it is St. Louis, other than that it's in a very rural area of the country.

A better comparison might have been Gary and East St. Louis. The whole proximity to New York City is what killed this poll.
I'm not a particular fan of East St. Louis by any means, but this post just seems off to me.

1. It's across the river from Philadelphia. This would be like going on about Chicago when you're talking about a ghetto in metro Milwaukee. NYC may be "close," but it's still nearly 100 miles away.

2. That argument can be applied to anywhere in the Midwest then, including Chicago. St. Louis is still within 300 miles of Chicago, Kansas City, Memphis, Nashville, Louisville, and Indianapolis. There is nothing like the distances from Philly to NYC or Chicago to Milwaukee, but it's not isolated in rural nothingness either. EStL's location in the St. Louis metro isn't "very rural" either, or at least it didn't used to be. It's boxed in by downtown St. Louis and some fairly sizable Illinois suburbs St. Louis.

3. All three cities are ghettos located immediately across state lines from major cities. Camden actually works better than Gary because both are separated by rivers and both are across from much nicer areas of their anchoring cities. Gary doesn't share that same relationship with Chicago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2014, 02:43 PM
 
Location: The City
21,948 posts, read 30,822,191 times
Reputation: 7489
Quote:
Originally Posted by PerseusVeil View Post
I'm not a particular fan of East St. Louis by any means, but this post just seems off to me.

1. It's across the river from Philadelphia. This would be like going on about Chicago when you're talking about a ghetto in metro Milwaukee. NYC may be "close," but it's still nearly 100 miles away.

2. That argument can be applied to anywhere in the Midwest then, including Chicago. St. Louis is still within 300 miles of Chicago, Kansas City, Memphis, Nashville, Louisville, and Indianapolis. There is nothing like the distances from Philly to NYC or Chicago to Milwaukee, but it's not isolated in rural nothingness either. EStL's location in the St. Louis metro isn't "very rural" either, or at least it didn't used to be. It's boxed in by downtown St. Louis and some fairly sizable Illinois suburbs St. Louis.

3. All three cities are ghettos located immediately across state lines from major cities. Camden actually works better than Gary because both are separated by rivers and both are across from much nicer areas of their anchoring cities. Gary doesn't share that same relationship with Chicago.
some decent points

But to me a couple of aspects. Camden (for as bad as it is) has some decent aspects and some areas where you can ride a 5-10 minute subway and be in DT Philly (or Haddonfield or Collingswood NJ both very nice actually). Professionals actually live there. The bones are in better shape. It has a sizable college and very good Hospital. Many bad aspects of Camden to

Also I am pretty sure Camden is much closer to both NYC and Baltimore than Milwaukee is to Chicago. I think Camden is like 50 from the closest NYC border (.5 from Center city Philadelphia), maybe like 70 from Baltimore.

Manhattan may be closer to 80 miles. DC may actually be closer to the Milwaukee to Chicago distance not totally sure

either way the Camden location to me is likely better, not because of NYC though
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2014, 03:06 PM
 
Location: The Midwest U.S.A. for now
523 posts, read 580,330 times
Reputation: 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly View Post
some decent points

But to me a couple of aspects. Camden (for as bad as it is) has some decent aspects and some areas where you can ride a 5-10 minute subway and be in DT Philly (or Haddonfield or Collingswood NJ both very nice actually). Professionals actually live there. The bones are in better shape. It has a sizable college and very good Hospital. Many bad aspects of Camden to

Also I am pretty sure Camden is much closer to both NYC and Baltimore than Milwaukee is to Chicago. I think Camden is like 50 from the closest NYC border (.5 from Center city Philadelphia), maybe like 70 from Baltimore.

Manhattan may be closer to 80 miles. DC may actually be closer to the Milwaukee to Chicago distance not totally sure

either way the Camden location to me is likely better, not because of NYC though
Actually, not at all. Both cities are roughly 90 miles away in distance from each other. In fact, The far south part of Milwaukee is very near to the end of the Chicago metropolitan area.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2014, 03:20 PM
 
Location: Chicago
38,691 posts, read 86,838,061 times
Reputation: 29355
FWIW, the southern border of Milwaukee and the northern border of Chicago are about 65 miles apart. Downtown to downtown is 80 miles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top