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.
This is a very common complaint about St. Louis. But you have to realize that St. Louis is a very old city (founded in 1764), so of course it's going to have old buildings, some of which will inevitably be rundown. Like a lot of people have said, STL is like an East Coast city and all of those cities have a lot of old rundown buildings too. What's really remarkable about St. Louis that KC can't match are the neighborhoods where we've taken really old buildings, rehabbed them, and created hopping neighborhoods (Soulard, Tower Grove, Lafayette Square, etc.). These places have an old-school authenticity to them that draws people in despite the fact that the entire city is not quite there yet.
A lot of people say that about St. Louis being an east coast city and I agree it has more eastern attributes to it.
I think Baltimore would be a great comparison. Both similar to each other. And historically as well because both were a border city in the civil war, and both had similar riots at the start, and after the war and into the 1900s both cities became more industrialized.
Cinci to an extent too, but Balitimore is a good one.
A lot of people say that about St. Louis being an east coast city and I agree it has more eastern attributes to it.
I think Baltimore would be a great comparison. Both similar to each other. And historically as well because both were a border city in the civil war, and both had similar riots at the start, and after the war and into the 1900s both cities became more industrialized.
Cinci to an extent too, but Balitimore is a good one.
Yeah, I always think Baltimore, Cincinnati, and Pittsburgh are good for comparison. Kansas City, not so much.
Yeah, I always think Baltimore, Cincinnati, and Pittsburgh are good for comparison. Kansas City, not so much.
Now I think St Louis reminds me most of Louisville KY and Baltimore. Kansas City reminds me most of Cincin OH and Pittsburgh PA. I think it's the hills in KC proper that remind me of Cin and Pits. It's the brick of St Louis that reminds me of Louisville and not sure what it is that reminds me of St Louis and Baltimore other than the people perhaps.
Location: Jefferson City 4 days a week, St. Louis 3 days a week
2,709 posts, read 5,092,431 times
Reputation: 1028
Quote:
Originally Posted by welshearl
Now I think St Louis reminds me most of Louisville KY and Baltimore. Kansas City reminds me most of Cincin OH and Pittsburgh PA. I think it's the hills in KC proper that remind me of Cin and Pits. It's the brick of St Louis that reminds me of Louisville and not sure what it is that reminds me of St Louis and Baltimore other than the people perhaps.
St. Louis also has a lot of frame houses...I'm not sure where you picked up on that it was only brick. Brick buildings are a common feature throughout all of the Midwest. I was in Louisville and saw nothing that reminded of STL...Louisville appears brand new, not run-down industrially, and is full of Southern culture and dialect....St. Louis by contrast is Midwestern. St. Louis reminds me more of the latter two cities you mentioned...Cincinnati and OHio.
Kansas City is the most like Omaha and Des Moines and other cities of the western Midwest.
Location: Jefferson City 4 days a week, St. Louis 3 days a week
2,709 posts, read 5,092,431 times
Reputation: 1028
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMissouriFan
A lot of people say that about St. Louis being an east coast city and I agree it has more eastern attributes to it.
I think Baltimore would be a great comparison. Both similar to each other. And historically as well because both were a border city in the civil war, and both had similar riots at the start, and after the war and into the 1900s both cities became more industrialized.
Cinci to an extent too, but Balitimore is a good one.
St. Louis and Baltimore maybe were in the beginning, but ultimately both supported the Union. Post-Civil War, there are virtually zero similarities. St. Louis was always an industrial city, far before the beginning of the 20th century.
Kansas City is the most like Omaha and Des Moines and other cities of the western Midwest.
Kansas City is larger than either of those cities, so I'm not sure if that's a fair comparison. Indianapolis and Cincinnati I feel are more comparable to KC in terms of size and infrastructure. St. Louis is much more like Cleveland and Baltimore, but the Pittsburgh comparison could apply to both STL and KC in many ways.
St. Louis and Baltimore maybe were in the beginning, but ultimately both supported the Union. Post-Civil War, there are virtually zero similarities. St. Louis was always an industrial city, far before the beginning of the 20th century.
At the start of the war, if General Lyon didn't make the rapid advancement into Missouri, and didn't secure St. Louis and the ports, or in 1864 during "Prices Raid" if Sterling Price went to Stl and secured it, do you think it still would be an industrial city today?
1864 perhaps the most interesting because he made the mistake at stopping at Pilot Knob and took heavy losses instead of going straight to stl.
Baltimore I wonder what would have been different if the Confederates secured it? However I really doubt that would have happend because of the large union army presence in the northeast, and Maryland I don't think had an well organized militia like the Missouri State Guard.
Maryland was never close to really seceding. The lawmakers were jailed, but most of the historians agree they still wouldn't have enough votes. Then also the legality if you need a constitution rewrite (convention) for it just like Missouri's debate. However I think they had a better shot at seceding than Kentucky, because almost all the lawmakers in KY were pro union. They might have been admitted into Confederate congress like Missouri, but an actual secession vote by the lawmakers would not have happen.
Location: Jefferson City 4 days a week, St. Louis 3 days a week
2,709 posts, read 5,092,431 times
Reputation: 1028
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebigguns
At the start of the war, if General Lyon didn't make the rapid advancement into Missouri, and didn't secure St. Louis and the ports, or in 1864 during "Prices Raid" if Sterling Price went to Stl and secured it, do you think it still would be an industrial city today?
1864 perhaps the most interesting because he made the mistake at stopping at Pilot Knob and took heavy losses instead of going straight to stl.
Baltimore I wonder what would have been different if the Confederates secured it? However I really doubt that would have happend because of the large union army presence in the northeast, and Maryland I don't think had an well organized militia like the Missouri State Guard.
Maryland was never close to really seceding. The lawmakers were jailed, but most of the historians agree they still wouldn't have enough votes. Then also the legality if you need a constitution rewrite (convention) for it just like Missouri's debate. However I think they had a better shot at seceding than Kentucky, because almost all the lawmakers in KY were pro union. They might have been admitted into Confederate congress like Missouri, but an actual secession vote by the lawmakers would not have happen.
First off, I know who this is, so don't even pretend to be somebody different, onegoal, bigmissourifan, etc., etc., etc. Second off, more Missourians offered their services to the Union than to the Confederacy, so I doubt Lyon's so-called rapid advance would have even taken place. The vote for secession never materialized. The Confederates would never have secured either state, because they were viewed as the outsiders. This is a pointless and irrelevant discussion.
First off, I know who this is, so don't even pretend to be somebody different, onegoal, bigmissourifan, etc., etc., etc. Second off, more Missourians offered their services to the Union than to the Confederacy, so I doubt Lyon's so-called rapid advance would have even taken place. The vote for secession never materialized. The Confederates would never have secured either state, because they were viewed as the outsiders. This is a pointless and irrelevant discussion.
Also the 100,000 men labled "MO Units" a number of them were from nearby states like Iowa, IL, WI, KS and were placed in "Missouri Units" and labled Missouri. If you were to take those away the numbers would be more even.
IF MO did get under Confederate control, but undisputed in the History books and labled by Lincoln as seceded, The Union would have still took over the state at least physically.
The same thing like TN for example while they were Confederate, their government was unable to control sections of the state and by late 1862 basically was capitulated when Nashville was taken over by the Union.
Eastern TN actually almost broke away from TN because they were pro union, but the confederates stopped it.
TN was also first admitted back into the Union as well.
So if MO was officially confederate control it would not have lasted a long time.
So I say if MO was undisputed Confederate, they wouldn't have had control for very long. And MO too would have been the first, or one of the first states admitted back into the Union.
Now if there was no dispute to the legality of MO secession and they were labled officially Confederate on paper the main thing that it would have changed is the politics after the war due to Reconstruction at the Federal level. MO might have been more heavily Democrat up until the 1960s unlike it was where Republicans still won once in awhile at state level and MO might be called southern a little bit more.
One thing I want to point out regarding the argument about slavery is the areas of the state MO state guards men and Confederates came from. A good number of them came from areas that did not have many slaves like Ripley, Oregon counties in the Ozarks far southern Missouri and in SEMO a lot of Confederate Missouri men came from there too even though not all the SEMO counties had a ton of slaves.
I think it's Ripley county like 7 Confederate officers came from too. Ripley county even to this day is pretty Dixie.
Again Stlousian I'm not arguing with you if MO was labled official Confederate that it wouldn't last long. The state wasn't in the deep south, and was divided. Missouri probably would have capitulated in 1862 or so. Geographically MO was in an unfavorable position to put up much of a defense being surrounded by 5 Union states.
MO just wasn't in a position to be a Confederate stronghold. Same for KY.
The main thing it would have changed is reconstruction and our states politics to a degree if we were officially labled Confederate.
IMO the Battle of Pea Ridge in 1862 was the deciding point of who controlled MO. If Price would have won, then I think the Confederates would have taken control of the state for a bit and many also call Pea Ridge the deciding point. It would have opened the flood gates for the Confederates to set up in Missouri and march to St. Louis for a battle.
If that would have happend, that would have been a very bloody battle IMO. The union would have won likely because Stl was reinforced by the Union army, but also because being it was already such a built up urban area.
Think the Battle of Berlin and the fierce fighting.
Prices Raid in 1864 to capture Stl was a failure to start. Even if he did make it up there, he would have easily been outnumbered. the Main objective of that should have been to capture Jefferson City and install Reynolds as Governor as least for symbolic reasons. He was too weak after Pilot knob to even take jefferson City due to heavy losses.
I will say Missouri's boundaries as a state are truely odd and I've read Jay Nixon also stating something similar as well. You have the Platte Purchase region that sticks out way west, SE MO and the bootheel that extends south, and far SW MO that also is pretty far out to the west from the eastern part of the state bordering OK and KS.
I remember Jay Nixon saying how there are a number of cultures of Missouri and intertwining them. I think it was a quote about Mizzou joining SEC Nixon mentioned how Missouri lies in different cultures depending on which region of the state you're in. Someone from Williamstown Missouri is going to be different culturally from somewhere lets say Poplar Bluff or even Lebanon.
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.
