St Louis vs Kansas City (St. Louis, Houston: suburbs, metro area, area)

[aragx6]

^FWIW, I do hear a fair number of people here dump on OKC and Omaha.

[MabelMeister]

Originally Posted by aragx6

^FWIW, I do hear a fair number of people here dump on OKC and Omaha.

I've only heard good things about the Omaha zoo, but not too much doggin on the city.

[slengel]

coming from the suburbs of philadelphia, i never had the perception that st. louis and kansas city were alike. it is true that the average person on the east coast doesn't think much about any place in the midwest (chicago included), but in academic circles washington university in st. louis is very highly regarded. there are so many people in pennsylvania, new york, maryland and massachusetts who have ties to wash. u. and therefore the city has some respect among the east coast intellectual set. admittedly, kansas city is not as known. before i visited kc last summer i had the impression that it was more like omaha. i was pleasantly surprised to find a much larger and more cosmopolitan city than i expected. it is not really in the same class as st. louis in my mind, which has many neighborhoods that remind me a lot of philadelphia. i feel very comfortable in st. louis.

[TabulaRasa]

I grew up in Illinois, and moved to KC to be with my boyfriend, who lived there when we met. I'd never spent any time whatsoever in KC in my lifetime before meeting him, but had spent a good deal of time in STL due to it being a few hours from my hometown, and a nice daytrip/alternative to Chicago. When my boyfriend and I first got together and were long distance, we'd meet up in St. Louis for the weekend, because it was pretty equidistant from me in my hometown and him in KC. I do have much love for St. Louis, and what it offers.

But I've been living in KC for the past several years, and I have to give it my vote...it's a great place to live, tremendous bang for the buck (I used to live in Chicago, and my money goes much further here, and I have just as many amenities at my fingertips here as I did in my old neighborhood in Chicago, with the exception of really great public transportation). I'm sure if we'd decided to settle in St. Louis instead of KC, I'd feel the same way about St. Louis that I now feel about KC. Truth is, they're so comparable that I don't really get why people fight over this.

I do feel that St. Louis is more on the national radar than KC...and I'm just fine with that. Truth be known, I prefer living in places that are more along the "best kept secret" lines. Underrated works fine for me.

[Gfitz1010]

I like KC better.

[1greatcity]

Originally Posted by Gfitz1010

I like KC better.

Ooookay....

[CoffeeAndBeer]

KC and St. Louis are at once similar but a little different., and it completely depends on what you want.

If you want the most new house for the money and a solid school district, I would choose KC. The average suburbanite is probably a little more friendly and possibly a transplant.

If you want a fixer upper 1970s-1980s suburban starter house, there are loads of those in stable neighborhoods in good school districts in KC (northern JoCo). KC.

Urban...this is where it gets interesting. Both cities have unique traits that the other is lacking. Kansas City has a more informal, open social climate, and I think the city is laid out more conveniently. St. Louis on the other hand has neighborhoods with strong neighborhood organizations...urban neighborhoods that feel tighter knit, almost like a small town (or more accurately, an old school urban neighborhood where everyone knew everyone) with neighborhood "characters," block captains, taverns that are all interconnected in a way I didn't feel in KC. I even knew the name of the neighborhood drug dealer before he was busted (a lot of angry people contributed to that in a pro active fashion, I have a harder time seeing that happen in KC)...If you are going to put down serious roots in an urban hood, advantage St. Louis. As someone who wants to help fix an urban core, St. Louis is more rewarding for me, I think. There's more at stake. On the other hand, KC feels more socially dynamic, and it depends on your personality I guess. As an urban dweller, you have to be a little more "aggressive" or "pro active" for St. Louis while KC is definitely more laid back, cool and calm, and the city doesn't demand your attention and energy like St. Louis. If you are an artist or someone indifferent to urban living, KC is better, if you are an "urban revivalist soldier" and someone who is absolutely obsessed with cities, St. Louis is way more rewarding..and more challenging. (depends on your personality).

Say that you have kids who are about school aged and want public school for them, but don't want to give up an urbanish, walkable lifestyle, hands down St. Louis (inner St. Louis County). There is really no equivalent in KC that have their own tiny (or not so tiny) business districts, historic homes, sidewalks, and have great school districts...I still am knocked out when I see these some of these areas, because flyover country isn't supposed to have areas like this, right? There is a gradient of these kinds of areas that are as urban as almost any neighborhood in KCMO that range from expensive but very livable to areas needing just a little help (borderline school districts) to more challenged areas, all with walkable business districts.

All in all, I like both places. St. Louis has more options for people wanting to maintain a semi-urban lifestyle, but is also more complicated. KC is definitely more fun to live in...until you reach a point where you need more options that just really don't exist. The trade off is that full on suburban living in KC is probably much better, and life in general is laid back. Crime does seem worse in some areas of St. Louis, HOWEVER - the urban revival has spilled into areas equivalent to some of the worst neighborhoods in KC because the urban fabric is so desirable, I just couldn't see that happening in KC quite like that. With that comes the potential for much more urban "glory" or more heartbreak, and you have to be able to handle the heartbreak, which isn't always easy. Weekend trip options are much better for St. Louis...whether you like winery/b+b stuff, hiking Appalachian like backpacking loops, float trips, or hanging out in natural waterfalls with a beer. You can access that stuff from KC too, but it's decidedly harder to get to and my KC friends often arent willing to drive to meet me.

More intangible - The crunchy feel of the combination of the Ozarks and urban St. Louis is a nice counterpoint to the flyover/cornbelt feel of a lot of my work weeks travels. There's a slight touch of east coast feel, people sitting outside their house, even on a stoop with the cardinals game on a radio in the summer. I also like the rail access to Chicago. Some would construe that as being because of shortfalls St. Louis has, but every midwestern city falls short in urbanity and bustle compared to Chicago, and that's what I like. Also, even though KC has easy access to Chicago by air, I find that I use the rail link from StL far more often. I don't like airports and I don't like driving into Chicago. I also like being able to drive to Nashville, Memphis, Louisville, Cincy, etc for a weekend trip.

For all of the intangible stuff, someone could make a compelling case for KC, too.

[CoffeeAndBeer]

Also, all of that said, the revitalization of urban St. Louis is very important to me, so therein lies a bias. Everybody has different interests and motivations - urban, suburban, social, whatever. KC does have great neighborhoods I would live in, like Volker/39th.

[aragx6]

Originally Posted by CoffeeAndBeer

Also, all of that said, the revitalization of urban St. Louis is very important to me, so therein lies a bias. Everybody has different interests and motivations - urban, suburban, social, whatever. KC does have great neighborhoods I would live in, like Volker/39th.

As a St. Louis native and devoted urbanist, I chose Volker too. It's a great neighborhood with a lot of diversity in age, experience and socio-economics, which almost makes up for waht it lacks in any real racial diversity. It's truly one of the things I will genuinely miss about KC when our time here runs down.

[xenokc]

One difference between KC and STL is that higher % of people who move to KC stay there. KC's % growth rate is twice that of STL and KC outgrows STL in raw numbers too. STL's growth rate is essentially the birth/death rate.

Instead of posting opinions, here are some stats from a pretty good STL study...
http://www.ewgateway.org/pdffiles/li...ws/wws2011.pdf

KC migration study that shows STL too...
http://www.metrooutlook.org/assets/migration2007.pdf