U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-30-2007, 12:07 AM
 
Location: St. Louis, MO
3,742 posts, read 6,927,372 times
Reputation: 660

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by metroplex2003 View Post
I agree, lots of these statistics are skewed. If you include the MSA statistics, all of a sudden St. Louis MSA is a very safe area. I lived in STL for 4 years. It's very safe except in certain areas, it's just those certain areas that are outliers and make St. Louis proper look horrible on paper.

Dallas also gets a bad rap for its crime, but once again you throw in its surrounding 5 million people worth of suburbs, and all of a sudden you get a nice city on paper.

There are lies, lies, and statistics as one has said in the past.
That's pretty much the story for any city in the U.S. these days. Even Detroit as a whole MSA is much less dangerous than people make it out to be as Detroit city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-30-2007, 07:10 AM
 
Location: St. Louis, MO
3,742 posts, read 6,927,372 times
Reputation: 660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plains10 View Post
Why do so many people include the plains states as part of the midwest? The people, climate, culture, and landscape is different in the plains than areas further to the east. Also, in the Midwest states trees are far more common and abundant compared with the plains
I also think that Kansas City is in between three different regions. They are located at the eastern edge of the plains, the far southwest margin of the midwest, and the northern extent of the south.
Here is my list:
Plains States:
North Dakota
South Dakota
Nebraska
Kansas
Midwest States:
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Iowa
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Ohio
extreme northern Missouri
Extreme Northern Missouri? Kansas City and St. Louis are solidly Midwestern cities. I think you oughta rethink extreme Northern Missouri as the lower limit of the Midwest because it actually is the extreme southern portion of Missouri where the Midwest ends. The Mason Dixon line is the 36 degree latitude line extending across Missouri. Most of Missouri is well above it. And with my entire family being from Missouri, I think it's pretty safe to call it Midwestern. To them they're not Midwestern and they'll raise more than an eyebrow at you.

Last edited by ajf131; 04-30-2007 at 08:11 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2007, 09:48 AM
 
Location: St. Louis, MO
3,742 posts, read 6,927,372 times
Reputation: 660
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajf131 View Post
Extreme Northern Missouri? Kansas City and St. Louis are solidly Midwestern cities. I think you oughta rethink extreme Northern Missouri as the lower limit of the Midwest because it actually is the extreme southern portion of Missouri where the Midwest ends. The Mason Dixon line is the 36 degree latitude line extending across Missouri. Most of Missouri is well above it. And with my entire family being from Missouri, I think it's pretty safe to call it Midwestern. To them they're not Midwestern and they'll raise more than an eyebrow at you.
Correction. I meant "Tell them they're not Midwestern." Missouri by modern standards meets the majority of the definitions of a Midwestern state. It is absolutely ridiculous to say a state that is practically bordered completely on the west by Kansas and practically completely on the east by Illinois, as well as pretty much completely above the Mason-Dixon line is the South. Ridiculous. Missouri has over three times as much in common with the Iowa and Illinois then it does with Arkansas. Saying Missouri is not Midwestern is like saying Kentucky is not Southern. For the most part the statement isn't true. If I had to give statistics to Missouri being Midwestern or Southern...I'd say missouri these days is 80% Midwestern and only 20% Southern. Those who say we are a Southern state obviously have never been to the South or just don't want to believe we are any different from the antebellum times (VERY UNTRUE).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2007, 10:51 AM
 
5,861 posts, read 14,080,701 times
Reputation: 3492
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajf131 View Post
It is absolutely ridiculous to say a state that is practically bordered completely on the west by Kansas and practically completely on the east by Illinois, as well as pretty much completely above the Mason-Dixon line is the South. .
The Mason-Dixon Line only extends as far west as PA's western boundary. If you project it westward from there, virtually all of MO is BELOW it, not above it. The M-D Line runs at approximately 39 degrees Latitude. Missouri's northern boundary is 40 degrees Latitude. So maybe MO's northernmost tier of counties would lie above it, but the rest of the state would be below it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2007, 11:24 AM
 
Location: Katy-zuela
4,857 posts, read 9,018,189 times
Reputation: 2369
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajf131 View Post
Yea well we don't have skyscrapers like Chicago's because there is a rule that no downtown building can surpass the Arch in height. We have three that are almost as tall or nearly as tall and they look shorter because they are several miles behind it. LMAO you're there is no downtown? We are as big as downtown Cleveland minimum. And there is more to ST. Louis than just the downtown area. I never compared it to Chicago ok? You have to look beyond just Downtown St. Louis to get a real idea of what the city is like. And how is it ugly? *********. How dare you put down the great St. Louis! East Saint Louis is not St. Louis!!! OK!!! WE DON'T ASSOCIATE WITH ANYTHING IN ILLINOIS!!! Also, our skyline extends beyond downtown...it extends all the way to Clayton. You could technically argue that the St. Louis Skyline continues 8 miles west from the Mississippi to Clayton. Drive west on I-64 from the Poplar Street Bridge and you will know what I'm talking about. You honestly expect every city to be just like Chicago or measure up to it?
I saw nothing but cornfields for 3-4 hours and when I saw St. Louis, I was shocked that it didn't meet my mental picture of a New Orleans of the Midwest sans poverty. I really missed urban areas and the cornfields of Illinois were very scary. Don't get me wrong, I'm NOT bashing St. Louis, but it has historical significance; Louis and Clark, Gateway of the West, the airplane. I thought it would be this bustling city, a cultural center, and great historic architecture to go along with the history.

I accidentally didn't stay on I-55 because of that ramp. I ended up going on I-64 all the way before I realized my mistake. For a historic city, the historic architecture looked a little run down. It is very sprawled out with most activity in the suburbs. The museum/park looked okay and I saw the Lutheran church headquarters on the highway. Kingshighway is a weird name for a street though!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2007, 12:13 PM
 
Location: St. Louis, MO
3,742 posts, read 6,927,372 times
Reputation: 660
Quote:
Originally Posted by KerrTown View Post
I saw nothing but cornfields for 3-4 hours and when I saw St. Louis, I was shocked that it didn't meet my mental picture of a New Orleans of the Midwest sans poverty. I really missed urban areas and the cornfields of Illinois were very scary. Don't get me wrong, I'm NOT bashing St. Louis, but it has historical significance; Louis and Clark, Gateway of the West, the airplane. I thought it would be this bustling city, a cultural center, and great historic architecture to go along with the history.

I accidentally didn't stay on I-55 because of that ramp. I ended up going on I-64 all the way before I realized my mistake. For a historic city, the historic architecture looked a little run down. It is very sprawled out with most activity in the suburbs. The museum/park looked okay and I saw the Lutheran church headquarters on the highway. Kingshighway is a weird name for a street though!
There is a Kingshighway in Illinois too and the ironic thing it is also on I-64 LOL. It's in east St. Louis so it can get confusing hehehehe. Even weirder there are two O'Fallons in the STL metro area, one in Missouri along I-70, the other along I-64 in Illinois. Even stranger, Missouri and Illinois share the names of many cities. Both have cities named Springfield, St. Charles, Mount Vernon, Columbia, O'Fallon, Lebanon, and many more. And because Missouri makes up the majority of the western border of Illinois and Illinois the eastern border of Missouri, it can get very confusing at times. I've heard many stories of people thinking they were in Missouri when they were actually in Illinois because the two states have so many towns/cities with the same names LOL. You have to question why these two neighbors would give their towns the same names....strategically it's just insane!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2007, 12:16 PM
 
Location: St. Louis, MO
3,742 posts, read 6,927,372 times
Reputation: 660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Around View Post
The Mason-Dixon Line only extends as far west as PA's western boundary. If you project it westward from there, virtually all of MO is BELOW it, not above it. The M-D Line runs at approximately 39 degrees Latitude. Missouri's northern boundary is 40 degrees Latitude. So maybe MO's northernmost tier of counties would lie above it, but the rest of the state would be below it.
I thought we had already established, ben around, that the Mason-Dixon line starts as the MAryland-Pennsylvania border and becomes the Ohio River? By the time the MAson-Dixon line reaches Missouri it is defined as the 36 degree latitude line established by the Missouri Compromise. This definition places Missouri almost completely north of the Mason-Dixon, and it's cultural patterns far more reflect a state above the line than one below it.

Last edited by ajf131; 04-30-2007 at 12:30 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2007, 12:25 PM
 
Location: St. Louis, MO
3,742 posts, read 6,927,372 times
Reputation: 660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Around View Post
The Mason-Dixon Line only extends as far west as PA's western boundary. If you project it westward from there, virtually all of MO is BELOW it, not above it. The M-D Line runs at approximately 39 degrees Latitude. Missouri's northern boundary is 40 degrees Latitude. So maybe MO's northernmost tier of counties would lie above it, but the rest of the state would be below it.
The Mason-Dixon line has again been defined the way I just defined it since the Missouri Compromise almost 200 years ago now! THe Mason-Dixon line was only the Maryland-Pennsylvania border when there were no states lying west of them! That is an ancient and obsolete definition of it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2007, 12:31 PM
 
Location: IN
20,881 posts, read 36,058,500 times
Reputation: 13329
Post northern parts of Kentucky are at 38N Latitude!

It is interesting you consider all of Kentucky as being part of the south when the large metro areas of Lexington and Louisville are all located along and north of 38N latitude. These towns might have more in common with southern states, but are actually located furthern north than Springfield, Missouri Branson, Missouri and Rolla Missouri! I would like to get a consensus concerning the EXACT latitude of the Mason/Dixon line.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2007, 12:59 PM
 
Location: St. Louis, MO
3,742 posts, read 6,927,372 times
Reputation: 660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plains10 View Post
It is interesting you consider all of Kentucky as being part of the south when the large metro areas of Lexington and Louisville are all located along and north of 38N latitude. These towns might have more in common with southern states, but are actually located furthern north than Springfield, Missouri Branson, Missouri and Rolla Missouri! I would like to get a consensus concerning the EXACT latitude of the Mason/Dixon line.
I don't consider it completely south, but the U.S. Census Bureau does! I think once you get below Louisville and LExington it becomes predominantly Southern, but even Louisville and Lexington as well as most of Kentucky seem to me to be far more Southern than most of Southern Missouri. you really cannot compare Kentucky to Missouri at all...the states are very different from one another and I have to been to both many times. They are different in almost every way you can describe. The climate is different, the culture is different, the speech is different, the political attitudes are far more conservative in Kentucky than missouri, and the landscape is entirely different altogether. Surprisingly you actually hear predominantly Southern speech patterns in areas of Kentucky further north in latitude than those of Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, or Ohio which do not show Southern speech patterns. Cultural division is not in a straight line of latitude at all. The Southern half of Missouri and the Southern half of Kentucky are very different culturally and speech-pattern wise from each other. Most of Southern Missouri feels to me at least very Midwestern compared to all of Kentucky. And most ofi it doesn't really compare to Arkansas I think either. But I'm just one person. Also, from what I've gathered most Kentuckians group themselves in with the South from all parts of the state and I've seen many Southerners back that up. The opposite applies to Missouri. Generally, Missourians do not consider themselves Southern nor do Southerners want to include us with them. Kentucky has bourbon, horse-racing, tobacco, sweet tea in basically all of the state. the industry is very Southern. Missouri's industry is much more like the Midwest. There are many, many ways to define Southern. But Missouri I consider Midwestern mainly because no matter how you define the South,unless you don't believe that the Mason-Dixon line can change in latitude, Missouri is never predominantly Southern in anything and far more Midwestern generally.

Last edited by ajf131; 04-30-2007 at 01:10 PM..
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.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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