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 city is better?
St. Louis, MO 79 67.52%
Indianapolis, IN 38 32.48%
Voters: 117. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-10-2009, 12:11 AM
 
1,973 posts, read 2,579,674 times
Reputation: 1602

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Answers View Post
Oh....I've met plenty of St. Louisans who aren't terribly crazy about their hometown. But the proof is in the pudding and nobody seems to leave. So, whether they like it or not, people there are pretty passionate about St. Louis.

And the mass transit is terrible.
Really? I'd say St. Louis' mass transit is very good, by American standards; esp compared to Midwest cities not named Chicago... And compared to Indy's IndyGo (a measly bus system), St. Louis is like the NYC subway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-10-2009, 07:34 AM
 
Location: Fishers, IN
6,495 posts, read 10,481,760 times
Reputation: 4036
Quote:
Originally Posted by WiseOwlSaysHoot View Post
I'd go with STL.

I've never been to Indy, so I'm just going from photos and what I've heard (from knowledgeable people).

Indy's downtown seems to be very "nice" and "clean" - but outside of the DT, there doesn't seem to be much else in the city that would appeal to me. In a downtown competition, Indy would probably be beter than STL - but when it comes to great urban neighborhoods, STL has a clear advantage.

STL also has a clear advantage in historic architecture.

I'm sure Indy is a fine city, it just seems a bit bland to me.
You make these definitive statements, yet you say you've never been to Indy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2009, 08:20 AM
 
3,008 posts, read 4,172,818 times
Reputation: 1524
I've been to both cities and currently live in Indianapolis and I guess it all depends on what you're looking for. Indianapolis does have the nicer downtown which I think it's been stated overwhelmingly here. St. Louis does have a better history but Indianapolis is catching up. The food is WAY better in the Lou though. I think what's appealing for a lot of people about Indy outside of downtown, is the open space. You have room to grow, room to build and have a comfortable setting for your family instead of being cramped. Indy does have the 500 which is the worlds largest single day event and the brickyard which is like up to 5th or 6th. The Children's Museum is the worlds largest and Indy is known for it's amateur sports and above all else, it's a convention city so downtown is catered to that business. St. Louis while not as attractive has a richer professional sports history, the arch, killer restaurants and that old style charm and hard work ethic about it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2009, 12:53 PM
 
Location: St Louis County, MO
711 posts, read 1,824,596 times
Reputation: 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by msamhunter View Post
St. Louis does have a better history but Indianapolis is catching up.
I know this thread is dead and gone, but how exactly does a city "catch up" with history?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2009, 08:25 PM
 
1,013 posts, read 2,190,190 times
Reputation: 451
Why does Indy get so few votes? I grew up there and liked it. It has really come around in the last dozen or so years. Its a greatv city to visit and live. I dont get it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2009, 11:56 AM
 
Location: MO Ozarkian in NE Hoosierana
4,679 posts, read 10,649,546 times
Reputation: 6878
Quote:
Originally Posted by krock1dk View Post
Why does Indy get so few votes? I grew up there and liked it. It has really come around in the last dozen or so years. Its a greatv city to visit and live. I dont get it.
Indy is a good city, I like it too,, just that its up against a better & stronger competition

Quote:
Originally Posted by AJohnston_STL View Post
I know this thread is dead and gone, but how exactly does a city "catch up" with history?
Maybe cause one doesn't really think of Indy as being a historic town/city? To me, while there are some places/buildings here and there, and they are quite - overall impression and feel is that Indy is more modern, while StL has historic older and grander [in that aspect, for this discussion] aura. So, with that said, maybe Indy is starting to do more w/ its historic buildings and areas?

Historic Structures of Indianapolis, Indiana - Apartment Buildings
Quote:
In the 1960s and '70s major programs of urban redevelopment were undertaken by the city. Indianapolis does not have the most progressive attitude toward historic preservation in the state, but a growing awareness of the city's architectural assets has resulted in a thriving preservationist community.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2010, 04:44 AM
 
1 posts, read 2,154 times
Reputation: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by STLCardsBlues1989 View Post
I'm sure Indy is beautiful. I remember a nice children's museum there.

But I love STL. I'm a big Cardinal fan as well. And the Blues! Not as much of a football fan.
But St. Louis has a lot of stuff to do, and a lot of good food. And it's bigger than Indy.

I would post some pics, but I don't want to step on anybody's toes as far as copyrights.


Actually, Indy is by far a larger city than St. Louis. Indy's population is 807,000 while St. Louis is 356,000.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2010, 05:05 AM
 
3,645 posts, read 8,666,464 times
Reputation: 1787
Quote:
Originally Posted by BUDawgs View Post
Actually, Indy is by far a larger city than St. Louis. Indy's population is 807,000 while St. Louis is 356,000.
That's because St. Louis City (355,000) and St. Louis County (995,000) are totally separate. If they were combined, then St. Louis would have a population of 1,350,000 with a population density of 2,368 people per square mile. Compared to Indianapolis with 2,234 people per square mile.

So yes, on paper Indy is the bigger city, but in reality, St. Louis is bigger.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2010, 06:36 AM
 
976 posts, read 1,810,998 times
Reputation: 599
yeah, indianapolis is a bigger city, but el paso, tx is a bigger city than boston. city population means absolutely nothing in today's world. if st. louis annexed all its suburbs like indianapolis did, it would be more than twice the size. metro area is what counts, and st. louis is not only substantially larger, it's also much, much, much, much more urban.

indianapolis is a nice place, but it doesn't feel like a real city. its downtown may be vibrant, but it is dominated by chain restaurants and lacks depth. st. louis is a city of rich history and distinctive urban neighborhoods. there is also a sense of place in st. louis that is absent from indianapolis.

st. louis is a lot bigger and more urban than indianapolis. they are in two different leagues.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2010, 09:56 AM
 
Location: Fishers, IN
6,495 posts, read 10,481,760 times
Reputation: 4036
Quote:
Originally Posted by slengel View Post
yeah, indianapolis is a bigger city, but el paso, tx is a bigger city than boston. city population means absolutely nothing in today's world. if st. louis annexed all its suburbs like indianapolis did, it would be more than twice the size. metro area is what counts, and st. louis is not only substantially larger, it's also much, much, much, much more urban.

indianapolis is a nice place, but it doesn't feel like a real city. its downtown may be vibrant, but it is dominated by chain restaurants and lacks depth. st. louis is a city of rich history and distinctive urban neighborhoods. there is also a sense of place in st. louis that is absent from indianapolis.

st. louis is a lot bigger and more urban than indianapolis. they are in two different leagues.
Clearly St. Louis is a bigger metro. But once you get outside of St. Louis city, I have a hard time buying the notion that St. Louis is more urban. I would even point to the post above yours. Assuming those density figures are correct, there's not much difference in the population densities of each area.

I would appreciate your definitions of "depth" and "sense of place."
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
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