Webster Grove or CWE for families? (St. Louis, St. Charles: apartment, how much, houses)

[aragx6]

Originally Posted by scocar

I'm definitely a newbie to the area, but a lot of times I think it's about feel to. When I'm in the northern part of Webster Groves it "feels" like the inner-ring suburbs that make up Mid-County. But when I'm on the southern edge on Watson that butts right up against South County and has that "feel". The bottom line is that the further you get going any direction the more suburban you get. And I don't think there's any argument that almost all of Kirkwood looks and "feels" much more like Richmond Heights than it does like Balwin or Chesterfield. I think that when people "think" West County they are thinking of the exurbs.

Well we're sure getting off the initial topic, but the OP hasn't yet come back, so I'll further digress.

Definitely no doubt about the bolded. I just don't think of those particular areas when I think of West County and what makes West County such an exhalted term (or at least those who live there would like to think it exhalted -- ever heard someone from there say half jokingly that the sun always shines in West County? I have, and it's hilarious).

When I think of West County I think of the house my mom grew up in in Creve Coeur off of Mason Rd. (one of the first before the subdivision behind it was even built) and all our family buried in Bellrive Cemetery and all the weddings I've been to at the Bellerive Country Club.

I think of my dear college friend's place off of Manchester and Dougherty Ferry and those greenhouses that have been there off of Barrett Station since probably the beginning of time even though the land must be worth a fortune.

I think of true West County older than most of Ballwin and beyond. I think of it as white flight central -- where families moved beginning in the '60s after generations in places like Moline Acres to their new homes way out in what was, at the time, the very fringes of the metro.

There's a history to, what I guess what we'll call, Central West County, that the newer chunks out west don't have. The luring elements were the same -- good schools, new homes, larger lots -- but not just the decade was different. In conversations with people that now live in Chesterfield and the like I haven't found nearly as many of them to be white flighters (though I'm sure some are children of them, as many St. Louisans frankly are) -- most of the folks who "flighted" that late ended up in good old St. Charles where I called home. Likely because of the costs.

[aragx6]

Originally Posted by flynavyj

Webster Groves hands down. I love the mansions in the CWE, and if I could afford one of those homes + private schools I'd like living down there. But i think there would be more opportunities to be a "normal" kid in Webster than you're going to see in the CWE "attempting" to act cosmopolitan.

For Webster Groves to be considered West County is kinda nuts...Kirkwood isn't really West County. They're all inner-ring suburbs of St. Louis County. And the interpretation that anything county and not ghetto is "West" is just nuts! C'mon Arag...you've got more potential than that.

You know, I got really caught up earlier in talking about the geography/history of the region/place making stuff because that interests me a ton, but the bolded has been bothering me.

What exactly is a normal kid and how does growing up in an upscale, walkable and dense area preclude a kid from becoming one?

I'm genuinely interested to hear your thoughts on that and what you mean -- I think we've civilly disagreed enough times for you to know I mean that.

[MUTGR]

Originally Posted by mike0421

Having spent a lot of the recent past researching the area, I relate exactly to what you say here via the bolded. There's a marked difference in Webster once you slide below 44 on Big Bend. However, there's an even larger difference in housing architecture once you go past that Berry and Grant Road interchange. That almost seems like the flashpoint where you transition to South County.

Definately the southern parts of WG has an old south county feel to it.

We lived in Oakland, south of 44, just north of Big Bend, when I was young, kind of wedged in between Kirkwood, WG and Crestwood. It was still Kirkwood schools, but felt more like South County. The closest mall was south county mall, we went to Crestwood Swim club, St. Elizabeth parish, the drive in theater on Watson. We spent more time shopping off of Watson than anywhere else.

When I went to college, I made friends from places like Town & County & Frontenac that thought Kirkwood was south county. I remember thinking everyone knows south county starts with Crestwood (LOL).

[Dawn10am]

I'm new to the area, but when I think "West County" I think of Chesterfield, Wildwood, Ballwin, etc. Basically strip malls, chain stores, and brand new cookie-cutter houses on huge lots (I don't mean that in a bad way--it's just not for me). Kirkwood and WG aren't really like that. Like I said in an earlier post, I consider anything between 170 and 270 to be "second ring" suburbs and West County really starts after you cross 270. It's interesting how many times this topic comes up because it seems pretty common. However, I'd still go for the CWE any day

[flynavyj]

Originally Posted by aragx6

You know, I got really caught up earlier in talking about the geography/history of the region/place making stuff because that interests me a ton, but the bolded has been bothering me.

What exactly is a normal kid and how does growing up in an upscale, walkable and dense area preclude a kid from becoming one?

I'm genuinely interested to hear your thoughts on that and what you mean -- I think we've civilly disagreed enough times for you to know I mean that.

In all honesty, i felt a little odd when I was typing it but I decided to type it anyway. I guess if I was going to be nitpicking, I'd have to describe a normal childhood as being around other kids of similar ages, playing in backyards, trees, creeks, and setting up baseball games in the culs de sac. I'd be interested to get a general idea as to the number of families and young families in the CWE compared to the numbers found in Webster Groves or Kirkwood.

[scocar]

Originally Posted by flynavyj

In all honesty, i felt a little odd when I was typing it but I decided to type it anyway. I guess if I was going to be nitpicking, I'd have to describe a normal childhood as being around other kids of similar ages, playing in backyards, trees, creeks, and setting up baseball games in the culs de sac. I'd be interested to get a general idea as to the number of families and young families in the CWE compared to the numbers found in Webster Groves or Kirkwood.

I know and knew exactly what you meant. Sometimes it's not PC to call a typical lifestyle to be "normal", because it implies that an alternative one is abnormal. Clearly their are far more kids that live in Webster Groves. According to 2010 census 7% of CWE residents were under 18. According to the 2000 census 25% of Webster Groves residents were under 18. So clearly if you lived in the CWE as a kid, minimally you are not going to have as many friends in your immediate vicinity.

[aragx6]

Originally Posted by scocar

I know and knew exactly what you meant. Sometimes it's not PC to call a typical lifestyle to be "normal", because it implies that an alternative one is abnormal. Clearly their are far more kids that live in Webster Groves. According to 2010 census 7% of CWE residents were under 18. According to the 2000 census 25% of Webster Groves residents were under 18. So clearly if you lived in the CWE as a kid, minimally you are not going to have as many friends in your immediate vicinity.

I think those stats can come across as a bit misleading if you don't think about what they really mean on a day-to-day basis. Webster Groves is 6 sq/miles and a density that while high-ish for a suburb, is still half of the density of the Central West End.

So even with the CWE having a significantly lower percentage of children, having 1,000 kids within 1.89 sq/miles versus 5,800 kids within 6 sq/miles isn't really much of a difference. Anecdotally, my gut tells me that the bulk of the families in the Central West End live in a chunk well less than 1.89 sq/miles -- there are a ton of apartment and condo buildings in certain parts of the neighborhood that are less likely to have families in them than the specific streets and parts of the neighborhood in which the OP would be looking.

As to flynavy's points about a normal childhood, I have a couple of rebuttals -- one of my favorite things about St. Louis is that for the price of a condo in a walkable neighborhood in Chicago you can have a single family home in one of St. Louis' best neighborhoods, so city living in St. Louis doesn't preclude your kid from having that backyard to play in. Somehow I have a suspicion that I wouldn't have grown up maladjusted with a backyard like this: Coldwell Banker Gundaker -- Your site for St. Louis Real Estate


And just for argument's sake, we'll use this same house on Laclede as an example. It, in fact, is on a cul-de-sac -- both ends of Laclede are actually a cul-de-sac in this part of the CWE, and the private street would make for a nice quiet road. Sure, with the big planter in the middle it might not be so great for baseball, but a kid could do some sweet bike riding nonetheless. And if baseball is what you want, you're a 10-minute bike ride from Boeing Aviation Field in Forest Park: Athletic Fields | Forest Park Forever

[flynavyj]

Where do you play in the above backyard? In the pool, the "slipery when wet" stone, the rocks, or the mulch? It's not a bad backyard for the sake of a pool, but I can't imagine setting up soccer goals between the fence posts, or playing catch (without good accuracy) out there...Then evertime you want to play, you're a 10 minute bike ride to forest park...and depending on age, some rents may not feel very comfortable letting their kiddo's ride 10 minutes away to a park to play by themselves.

[mike0421]

Originally Posted by flynavyj

Where do you play in the above backyard? In the pool, the "slipery when wet" stone, the rocks, or the mulch? It's not a bad backyard for the sake of a pool, but I can't imagine setting up soccer goals between the fence posts, or playing catch (without good accuracy) out there...Then evertime you want to play, you're a 10 minute bike ride to forest park...and depending on age, some rents may not feel very comfortable letting their kiddo's ride 10 minutes away to a park to play by themselves.

No way in hell I let my kids ride their bikes from one of these homes, because I'd fret about Kingshighway. Traffic, and the speed of it on that road, combined with distracted drivers, sorry, no way. I say this as someone who was allowed to ride his bike as a kid in a suburban, pretty intensified area as well, almost having gotten hit by cars on at least a half dozen occasions that I remember vividly.

[aragx6]

I didn't say I'd let them go by themselves either. I have a bike too

I had a pretty overbearing (sweet, but worried all the time) kind of mother and I can't remember going anywhere without her until at least middle school. I had friends at 12 who were babysitting; I had a babysitter. So maybe my expectations of running all over the suburbs to parks and what not are skewed, but then again my mom spent a ton of time with us as kids and I loved it -- I wouldn't trade that for anything.

And Fly, that specific house was just an example -- obviously all the homes don't have pools. It's a pretty good sized backyard for the size of the home and the area in which it's located.