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.
Number of years San Francisco ranked as a top 10 American city: 30 (1870-1900)
Number of years St. Louis ranked as a top 10 American city: 110 (1850-1960)
Anyone who dismisses St. Louis as some amateur backwater is only demonstrating his own ignorance. Yeah, things have shifted in the past 50 years, but historically St. Louis has been a much more prominent and influential city than San Francisco overall.
So by that rationale, Baltimore is more prominent and influential(historically) than San Francisco and St. Louis and Chicago and Los Angeles and Boston(Top 10 in population all the way from 1790 to 1980).
The history of St. Louis is a interesting attribute, but overall it's not where you're from, but where you're at. There's nice neighborhoods in St. Louis, but there's other areas that might have historic buildings but most of them are boarded up--or the rest have been torn down and just left to turn into an urban prairie. And yes, I know that whenever cities like St. Louis are brought up, we have to recognize the "unique circumstances" both social and economic that made them the way they are today(white flight, economic changes, etc...)
At the same time as much as parts of these cities are interesting to me--especially for the historic architecture and old neighborhoods, there's a part of some Rust Belt cities in the vacant lots and boarded up buildings that just feels really melancholy(a lot of them just seem like they saw better days way in the past and now are just fading away). And then you go to outside the main city and there's suburbs that seem to be doing just fine. So, I want places like St. Louis and Cincinnati and Detroit to sort of revitalize and find some of their past glory, but as an outsider as it stands now, I have little stake in it, nor do I know what the solution is.
Nice try at making it seem like I was"reading into" what you wrote. I think it was the "go ahead and flatter yourself" comment where you went off the rails.
Please also resume making St. Louis points with historic population figures. Population is completely irrelevant to this conversation anyway, as is the geography at play in drawing the political boundaries between the two cities. Are you honestly crowing about St. Louis being "bigger"? You do realize that San Francisco is the central city to a CSA comprised of over 8,000,000 people, right?
Yes, the point of posting historic population figures was directed toward whatever ignorant poster called St. Louis "bland." The city may be a lot of things, but it isn't bland. It's a mature, historic and undeniably urban center that oozes more character than 95% of the rest of the United States. Obviously, SF has a flavor all its own and is an American original. The point is St. Louis is no slouch when it comes to urban culture. And yes, I realize that metropolitan population matters much more NOW, although for most of the span of American history, cities were highly centralized and extremely dense (I know SF has remained much moreso than most American cities). It was during that era that St. Louis really came into its own, which does count for something. How many cities can ever say they were the 4th biggest in the country at any time in their history? St. Louis can, and that's a hell of a legacy for any city. Yeah, yeah, that's all in the distant past, I get it. But I hate when people act like St. Louis is amateur hour when it comes to urban life. Come on people, go pick up a book or two about American history.
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
3,530 posts, read 5,134,833 times
Reputation: 3145
Quote:
Originally Posted by STLgasm
Yes, the point of posting historic population figures was directed toward whatever ignorant poster called St. Louis "bland." The city may be a lot of things, but it isn't bland. It's a mature, historic and undeniably urban center that oozes more character than 95% of the rest of the United States. Obviously, SF has a flavor all its own and is an American original. The point is St. Louis is no slouch when it comes to urban culture. And yes, I realize that metropolitan population matters much more NOW, although for most of the span of American history, cities were highly centralized and extremely dense (I know SF has remained much moreso than most American cities). It was during that era that St. Louis really came into its own, which does count for something. How many cities can ever say they were the 4th biggest in the country at any time in their history? St. Louis can, and that's a hell of a legacy for any city. Yeah, yeah, that's all in the distant past, I get it. But I hate when people act like St. Louis is amateur hour when it comes to urban life. Come on people, go pick up a book or two about American history.
Dude, you're spinning off the planet. I don't know anyone who thinks of St. Louis at all. This idea that people have this misconception of its insignificance is all in your head.
I have been there a couple of times and really enjoyed it. I never thought anything of it before business took me there however, except when the Cards were in town to play the Astros (I used to live in Houston). You guys are some great baseball fans and your park is fantastic. The Lumiere is really nice too. The Hill is awesome. There was a lot more to like, too. But, I haven't really thought about it again since I was there.
No, but you missed the point that SF does have neighborhoods that compare to New York and Chicago and St. Louis does not... Within the context of a San Francisco/St. Louis comparison.
I understand what you are saying and agree that most cities don't compare. The fact that St. Louis belongs with "most cities" and not with cities like SF, NYC, Chicago, etc. only furthers the point that the premise of this thread is absurd.
No, I didn't, it just so happens to be irrelevant to my point. When I quote someone's post and go even further to highlight something in it I am referring just to this thing, not the entire thread. He said that St. Louis's top tier neighbourhoods compete with most cities 2nd tier neighbourhoods. This is incorrect (they clearly compete with most cities top tier neighbourhoods) and the flaw is being illustrated by picking New York and San Francisco to represent "most" US cities; frankly, it's dumb. I personally, for my tastes, consider SF to be one of the top US cities (ridiculous ego aside), so I don't consider it an accurate test of "most" US cities. I already asked for NY, but...do you think San Francisco is just like most US cities??? Obviously people in this thread don't as SF is apparently untouchable... and your own post here now says you don't and I agree with the rest of it as well, I don't think they're the same, but the ignorant bashing of St. Louis in this thread is even more absurd than the OP's seemingly light-hearted comparison. Did people actually read his "thoughts"? Not exactly a reason to start a flame war.
No, I didn't, it just so happens to be irrelevant to my point. When I quote someone's post and go even further to highlight something in it I am referring just to this thing, not the entire thread. He said that St. Louis's top tier neighbourhoods compete with most cities 2nd tier neighbourhoods. This is incorrect (they clearly compete with most cities top tier neighbourhoods) and the flaw is being illustrated by picking New York and San Francisco to represent "most" US cities; frankly, it's dumb. I personally, for my tastes, consider SF to be one of the top US cities (ridiculous ego aside), so I don't consider it an accurate test of "most" US cities. I already asked for NY, but...do you think San Francisco is just like most US cities??? Obviously people in this thread don't as SF is apparently untouchable... and your own post here now says you don't and I agree with the rest of it as well, I don't think they're the same, but the ignorant bashing of St. Louis in this thread is even more absurd than the OP's seemingly light-hearted comparison. Did people actually read his "thoughts"? Not exactly a reason to start a flame war.
Ceasarstl,
I'm not fighting with you but you didn't understand my response. I said most big cities (NYC LA San Francisco Chicago) not most cities!!! Don't misquote me! I gave the example of Gold Coast in Chicago and NYC Tribecca. St. Louis will never have those types of neighborhoods. It shouldn't be expected to. I also wrote about the outstanding progress within St Louis Central corridor that will be pushing neighborhood options on par with Chicagos Lincoln Park and Bostons Back Bay within the next 5 years or so. Outside of the well established urban big cities, St Louis can go toe to toe in the neighborhood category with most.
Last edited by mjtinmemphis; 01-20-2014 at 07:30 AM..
I'm not fighting with you but you didn't understand my response. I said most big cities (NYC LA San Francisco Chicago) not most cities!!! Don't misquote me! I gave the example of Gold Coast in Chicago and NYC Tribecca. St. Louis will never have those types of neighborhoods. It shouldn't be expected to. I also wrote about the outstanding progress within St Louis Central corridor that will be pushing neighborhood options on par with Chicagos Lincoln Park and Bostons Back Bay within the next 5 years or so. Outside of the well established urban big cities, St Louis can go toe to toe in the neighborhood category with most.
I was hoping you'd chime back in and clarify. I don't think you're fighting with me at all, you've added informed and level-headed posts like you always seem to do which is why the comment stood out to me so much as opposed to the just blatant trolling going on in much of the thread. I apologize for getting stuck on the wrong word when I asked you clarify what you meant by "most." I saw that you said big but I thought you meant it in the typical way of major metros in the US (as opposed to putting them in tiers thus pushing St. Louis and its peers to Mid-sized).
I also wrote about the outstanding progress within St Louis Central corridor that will be pushing neighborhood options on par with Chicagos Lincoln Park and Bostons Back Bay within the next 5 years or so. Outside of the well established urban big cities, St Louis can go toe to toe in the neighborhood category with most.
Yup! Most of our premiere neighborhoods are already very very nice and major construction/gentrification is underway throughout the central corridor. Already, our central mall downtown is probably matched only by the mall in Washington DC.
Major plans are churning for turning parts of the blighted northside around downtown into developments. Northside regeneration is expected to be a $8 billion dollar real estate development, which would make it among the largest in the US:
The bones of a great city are here and have always been here. We just need about 100k-200k more people in the city and it will be like a boom town once again. I think we will get there in a few decades.
Dude, you're spinning off the planet. I don't know anyone who thinks of St. Louis at all. This idea that people have this misconception of its insignificance is all in your head.
I have been there a couple of times and really enjoyed it. I never thought anything of it before business took me there however, except when the Cards were in town to play the Astros (I used to live in Houston). You guys are some great baseball fans and your park is fantastic. The Lumiere is really nice too. The Hill is awesome. There was a lot more to like, too. But, I haven't really thought about it again since I was there.
I know you aren't talking to me, but to be fair it's definitely not just in his head. Have you been following the other posts in this thread at all? The mountain of attacks by some very ignorant posters (some posters seem to have not been to either city...) is pretty ridiculous considering the framing done by the OP. This kind of thing is pretty common on these boards, bashing cities (or entire regions) seems to be a very popular method of attempting to prop up one's own city on here and the Midwest in general seems to get hit with some pretty wild/bizarre negative trolling.
That being said, you haven't been one of those posters and of course real life is way different than these boards. Most people don't know very much about other cities at all. For St. Louis people might name things like the Arch, a sports team or so and maybe beer, but they wouldn't really have too much of an opinion through lack of experience, which is why when people post things like how St. Louis makes everyone cringe it's people just trying to troll (but in certain groups this can have damaging effects). Going back to the US on a trip with friends in May-June to SF, Vegas, LA, St. Louis and Chicago and I am 100% confident they will have a great time in all of them.
The bones of a great city are here and have always been here. We just need about 100k-200k more people in the city and it will be like a boom town once again. I think we will get there in a few decades.
500k would make a nice size city considering its density and such.
I've been reading some are pushing for a city/county merger, but I don't think that is necessary from the looks of things my last visit.
The only things that come to mind when you think of St. Louis is the part in National Lampoons Vacation when they stop their for directions and get robbed and the rapper Nelly.
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.
and your own post here now says you don't and I agree with the rest of it as well, I don't think they're the same, but the ignorant bashing of St. Louis in this thread is even more absurd than the OP's seemingly light-hearted comparison. Did people actually read his "thoughts"? Not exactly a reason to start a flame war.
