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 have family in both Arkansas and Oklahoma and am having the same dilema. I currently live in Chicago and its just getting to be too expensive to live here. I'm looking at Tulsa, Fort Smith, or Hot Springs. All the info given so far is really making me lean toward Tulsa! :-).
Cool thread, this is the first time I came across it, but these are 4 states that I am pretty damn familiar with. As I was born in Kansas, lived in both Missouri and Oklahoma, and have spent a good amount of time in Arkansas. There are certain aspects that I like about every state! My favorite metro areas in order of these 4 states are St. Louis, OKC, Little Rock, then Kansas City. I find Arkansas and Missouri to be fairly similar states along the border and both very beautiful esp. the Ozarks! The people are very kind and welcoming in both Oklahoma and Arkansas, but I find them to be a bit more stand-offish in Missouri and Kansas. I prefer the Eastern side of Kansas to the Western Side of Missouri. I know this is a pretty random post LOL. My favorite areas of these states are Eastern Missouri and Northwestern Arkansas. There are some really cool little towns along the Kansas Border...ie Fort Scott, Pittsburgh, and Joplin MO. Fort Smith, Arkansas and Fayetteville are cool small cities as well as Springfield, MO and Branson, MO.
KC, pretty far south? Its latitude is geographically central. As far as being in the Bible Belt, I don't remember seeing a bunch of evangelical preachers the last time I was there. KC has a very high percentage of Catholics. It struck as being identical to Omaha the last time I was there. The Bible Belt is much farther north than most people claim it to be. I would agree for it covering the Southern half of Missouri but not the Northern half. St. Louis definitely is not in the Bible Belt, neither is KC.
Most major cities have a lot of Catholics. So does New Orlans, Houston, Mobile ect.
KC is little more conservative than St. Louis and more western, southern atmosphere. That area of the state was also alot more pro confederate that St. Louis ever was.
Say what? Am from STL and live in KC. KC is more western than STL but hardly more Southern. Confederate, huh? KC is more of a new economy town than STL, is growing faster in raw numbers with people that come from everywhere (and stay). STL is more inbred and doesn't have much net in-migration. KC also attracts educated young people, STL is losing young educated.
There are more people from STL moving to KC than KC people moving to STL.
as an east coast migrant to st. louis and having visited kansas city a number of times, st. louis is a much more sophisticated city with a lot more to offer. i like kansas city, but it's more of an overgrown small town than an established major city. st. louis is much larger and its great universities (esp. washingon u.) give the city a more academic and cosmopolitan atmosphere. this should not become a city vs. city thread, but since you were on the topic...
Yeah, didn't want to get into city vs city, just making corrections. STL isn't really THAT much bigger than KC though... KC metro is approaching 2.1 million and the 60 mile radius region is approaching 2.6m, growing well with a lot of in-migration (see link above). STL metro is at about 2.8m growing at the rate of birth/death increase. When I moved to KC, I ran into more people not from KC and the Midwest. In STL, I pretty much only ran into other STL people. The stats above support it.
STL is an old city but would hardly call it cosmo as it doesn't have a lot of new blood coming in (unless you count Bosnians). STL has the light rail thing if you consider that cosmo. KC edges out STL quite a bit in pedestrian activity. Wonder what you mean by 'more to offer' in STL. I'm not seeing much difference. The fact that more STL people are moving to KC than vice versa says something about what STL has to offer.
I like both cities for very different reasons, but I would call KC a new economy city and STL an older one. Prefer KC in the end, which is why I'm here. KC does have a more western laid back edge to it, but is also very midwest, not south.
st. louis is much older and much more urban than kansas city. to say that kansas city has more pedestrian activity than st. louis is utterly false. on paper kc may have just over 2 million (as opposed to stl's nearly 3 million), st. louis most definitely feels a lot bigger. as i said, i have been to kansas city several times and it struck me as being more like indianapolis. the crossroads district was ridiculously overrated and the city as a whole lacked concentration. st. louis is a much more densely populated place and its neighborhoods resemble those of an eastern city. washington university is one of the country's greatest, and its presence alone puts st. louis in another class entirely.
kansas city and st. louis are apples and oranges. two different types of cities.
Yeah, granted STL does have more urban density but Plaza does have more activity than say Clayton or CWE. Downtown's P&L has significantly outpaced downtown STL in evening ped activity, unless STL has events. Granted, Xroads is only active when there are events.
In the end, more people from STL are moving to KC than vice versa for some reason. STL is even losing people to Jeff City and Souther MO, ouch.
more people are moving to kc than are moving to philadelphia as well. is kc a superior city? st. louis is actually gaining people, in both city and metro. in-migration is lower than kc because kc has more of a sunbelt city dynamic, but st. louis is still much larger.
the power and light district is a playground for douchebag meatheads and i could live very happily without that kind of "activity." the plaza is nice but not much more than a suburban shopping mall occupying some pretty buildings. it looked to be very popular with soccer moms with very little diversity in clientele or retail offerings. there is nothing there that one can't find in a typical mall except the more attractive architecture.
fyi, clayton- a suburb of st. louis- is not really considered a hub of activity. the loop, the cwe, south grand, cherokee street, etc are all much more urban and vibrant than clayton.
No, and KC isn't superior to STL either. And STL isn't superior to KC.
Now you are just making generalized insults so I'm done with the discussion.
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.
