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 think the argument is that Camden would suck less because of its given location. At least with Camden you've got NYC, Philly, etc. only a couple of hours away, and will have a better opportunity to move elsewhere better if given the chance.
With East St. Louis, you've got STL from one end and nothing but farmland the other direction (that and Chi, KC and Memphis are more like day trips). But yeah, hell naw to both...Either you can live in a dilapidated project or row home with the odds of being a victim increased 20 fold, or end up being stranded in some random country ghetto. pick your poison. I don't think either choice is a real winner.
If you're gonna go out like that, might as well do it in the more vibrant and seemingly bustling city...East St. Louis would depress the hell out of me after a couple of days.
Camden does seem more lively looking at the pics (never been). One thing about ESTL is that if you drive through during the day, you don't really see anyone. Kinda eerie.
ESTL, Madison, Sauget etc. are all crappy. I'm not a huge fan of the metro east minus a few cities.
Actually the one thing I found weird about Camden was how empty its downtown seemed even during afternoon rush hour when you'd think it would be teeming with people leaving work and heading home. You expect to see few people in places where the infrastructure has crumbled into disrepair, but to see so few people in this intact-looking downtown just didn't compute. I remember thinking what a waste of resources to have a rather new looking (at the time anyway) light rail station that was almost completely unused at rush hour.
I think the argument is that Camden would suck less because of its given location. At least with Camden you've got NYC, Philly, etc. only a couple of hours away, and will have a better opportunity to move elsewhere better if given the chance.
With East St. Louis, you've got STL from one end and nothing but farmland the other direction (that and Chi, KC and Memphis are more like day trips). But yeah, hell naw to both...Either you can live in a dilapidated project or row home with the odds of being a victim increased 20 fold, or end up being stranded in some random country ghetto. pick your poison. I don't think either choice is a real winner.
If you're gonna go out like that, might as well do it in the more vibrant and seemingly bustling city...East St. Louis would depress the hell out of me after a couple of days.
Not true, there are actually about 700,000 people in the metro east, ESTL is just a tiny sliver. (not that I'm advocating for either ESTL or Camden)
Actually the one thing I found weird about Camden was how empty its downtown seemed even during afternoon rush hour when you'd think it would be teeming with people leaving work and heading home. You expect to see few people in places where the infrastructure has crumbled into disrepair, but to see so few people in this intact-looking downtown just didn't compute. I remember thinking what a waste of resources to have a rather new looking (at the time anyway) light rail station that was almost completely unused at rush hour.
East St Louis' downtown is much worse and there are even less people there than in Camden's.
I think the argument is that Camden would suck less because of its given location. At least with Camden you've got NYC, Philly, etc. only a couple of hours away, and will have a better opportunity to move elsewhere better if given the chance.
With East St. Louis, you've got STL from one end and nothing but farmland the other direction (that and Chi, KC and Memphis are more like day trips). But yeah, hell naw to both...Either you can live in a dilapidated project or row home with the odds of being a victim increased 20 fold, or end up being stranded in some random country ghetto. pick your poison. I don't think either choice is a real winner.
If you're gonna go out like that, might as well do it in the more vibrant and seemingly bustling city...East St. Louis would depress the hell out of me after a couple of days.
Yeah, I understand the location argument, I just don't think proximity to NYC (and even less to Philly) lends enough justification for ever wanting to or choosing to live in Camden. The people stuck in those project row homes aren't spending their weekends taking in cultural institutions in either city.
Also there is plenty of hope for Camden going on to the future. As long as gentrification in philly picks up it's pace (not a huge gentrification fan but it is what it is). As for east saint Louis the only option would be to increase the police force and have it go through redevelopment rather than gentrification. If the redevelopment is a success than we can talk gentrification.
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.
I think I'm going to have to write him off as mentally deranged. I would have expected better from such a prolific poster.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88
I've been in East St. Louis many times. Quite a bit of the city looks like any other suburb.
Really?
Here is what comes up when I search East St. Louis in Google.
Do you now understand how East St. Louis is not like most suburbs? Gary Indiana is a suburb of Chicago, it looks nothing like Aurora Illinois another suburb of Chicago.
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.