Des Moines or St Louis?

[capitalcityguy]

Originally Posted by Pipermackie

Low cost of living, much better food, professional sports of the major league variety, more diversity (although Stl is very very very segregated and racist), and way more to do than Des Moines.

Way more to do than Des Moines? Beyond major league sports, I'd be interested to hear what we're missing in DSM that would make "way more to do" a legitimate part of the decision making process between the two locations?

I'm not saying that given the population differences St Louis doesn't offer more, but I can't imagine anyone living in DSM being bored or not finding several events to choose from on any given weekend (or even weekday for that matter ) to keep themselves entertained.

[stlsmoore]

Originally Posted by DSMGuy

St Louis will give you more extremes. More wealth and more poverty/crime. Bigger things to see and do at a "major league" level.

Des Moines has a lot of things to do for its size. Being the state capital and center of most activities in the state helps that. Most areas of the metro are safe. It is more of a AAA level city, to use a baseball analogy.

St Louis city has the dubious distinction to be one of few cities to have lost half their population in the last few decades, like a another dying city, Detroit. East St Louis is crime ridden. So, you'll want to be very selective where you live there.

LOL St. Louis is actually gaining population right now, STL is unique in the fact that the city and county is divided so it really skews up stats. Especially when you compare crime between other cities, it's actually rated WAY lower in crime when you look at the metropolitan area as a whole. You'll never have a reason to be in East St. Louis so that's pretty irrelevent to add in there. I've lived in Des Moines for a little while and kinda just felt like one big suburb, which can be good and bad for various reasons. It's an exciting time to live in STL now because we have new high rises and rennovations being built all over the place, it's pretty neat to see!

[blueatari]

St. Louis a dying city?....um, I think not.....there are as many people in the STL metro as the entire state of Iowa.... East Saint Louis, IL has a population of 35,000...ok, so ESTL may be 'dying'....to say Saint Louis City, MO is dying is another thing entirely. Saint Louis the City and Saint Louis the County parted ways in 1876. Combined they are 1.4 million strong....They comprise one 'county' in an 18-county metro which crosses two states.....now....your comparison between the two is what???

[DSMGuy]

I was referring to the city, read the post again. Would you call losing well over half your population thriving?

1950 856,796 5.0%
1960 750,026 −12.5%
1970 622,236 −17.0%
1980 452,801 −27.2%
1990 396,685 −12.4%
2000 348,189 −12.2%
Est. 2007 355,663 2.1%

[zz4guy]

White flight, urban blight. Almost every core city over 200,000 people has experienced this. It doesn't mean the city as a whole is dying.

[SharpHawkeye]

Originally Posted by DSMGuy

I was referring to the city, read the post again. Would you call losing well over half your population thriving?

1950 856,796 5.0%
1960 750,026 −12.5%
1970 622,236 −17.0%
1980 452,801 −27.2%
1990 396,685 −12.4%
2000 348,189 −12.2%
Est. 2007 355,663 2.1%

Turning that -12.2% figure into a 2.1% growth must mean they're doing something right. I think there is a point to be made that St. Louis was dying but is not dying anymore...not that our friend expressed it very well.

[QuadCityImages]

The actual city of DSM hasn't exactly had an exploding population either. If we're suddenly leaving the metro area out of this discussion it would be an entirely different debate on both sides.

[DSMGuy]

Every city over 200,000 lost over half their population in the last 60 years??

If your cities were once 95,000 or 120,000 population and are now 30 or 40K, would you be going around refuting that your city was on the way down?

Even if they grew to a whopping 31K or 41K in the last few years, that still wouldn't erase the fact that you lost over 50% of your population. Maybe that gives you a little better perspective???

Besides, I think the St Louis metro would be a great place to live, there is far more to do there than in DM. I never said anything about the metro being undesirable, but obviously, I was not clear enough. I will type slower.

But, the fact is 500,000 people found compelling reasons to leave the city, so you'll want take that into consideration if you decide to live in within the St Louis city limits.

So maybe dying is too strong a word.... okay, let's be politically correct "the city has been involved in "operation population adjustment" in the last 50 years."

[Central Illinois 1]

Originally Posted by DSMGuy

Every city over 200,000 lost over half their population in the last 60 years??

If your cities were once 95,000 or 120,000 population and are now 30 or 40K, would you be going around refuting that your city was on the way down?

Even if they grew to a whopping 31K or 41K in the last few years, that still wouldn't erase the fact that you lost over 50% of your population. Maybe that gives you a little better perspective???

Besides, I think the St Louis metro would be a great place to live, there is far more to do there than in DM. I never said anything about the metro being undesirable, but obviously, I was not clear enough. I will type slower.

But, the fact is 500,000 people found compelling reasons to leave the city, so you'll want take that into consideration if you decide to live in within the St Louis city limits.

So maybe dying is too strong a word.... okay, let's be politically correct "the city has been involved in "operation population adjustment" in the last 50 years."

North St. Louis city once had a very large population base. In fact, it had more people than any other area of STL. It is much larger area-wise than South City or the West End. However, that is the area that has lost the lion's share of the population due to factories closing, crime, high taxes, bad schools, and an aging and often neglected housing stock. North City also had its share of "white flight" back in the 60s and 70s. That accounts for most of the STL city population loss. However, South City and the West End did not experience huge population losses and, in fact, continue to be places that are in high demand to live in. They are far from being dying areas. If you don't believe what I am saying, you can go onto realtor.com and check out housing prices in these areas (generally in the range of $200K in most of South City and from $300K to well over $1M in the Central West End).