Cahokia Mounds - Illinois (St. Louis, California: appointed, credit, home)

[hkgal]

OK, I saw a program on Discovery or Nat Geo about amazing places and it covered a place just east of St Louis called Cahokia Mounds, which is apparently the oldest archealogical site in North America (over 1000 years old!) and is World Heritage listed. OK, pretty big deal right there - I was amazed.

So I was wondering, why doesn't the city make more of it, turn it into a real drawcard for tourists to the area? I'm so surprised - I've never heard of it and I'm sure many others haven't either. As far as tourism is concerned, there's not much else to really draw people in, so why not tell people it is there? Is this place a big deal it St Louis at all? Have you been there? I'm curious. I'm certainly going to make a trip there next time I'm in town.

[ShadowCaver]

Just a quick guess,,, because its in IL.

Besides that, IMHO seems StL has trouble w/ advertising the rich wealth that does surround and even is within its borders.
Cahokia Mounds Home Page


Its similar to how many people are aware that World Bird Sanctuary - Saint Louis, Missouri exists here too? One of my favourites...

[hkgal]

Originally Posted by ShadowCaver

Just a quick guess,,, because its in IL.

Yeah, but it's what, 10 miles east of the city centre? Come on...it's still a potential drawcard for the city regardless of state borders. I doubt people who came to visit would be looking to spend all their time in Collinsville, IL!!

[STLCardsBlues1989]

I've heard the city of Cahokia nearby isn't much.

But Cahokia Mounds is a neat place. It should be promoted more.

[goat314]

Originally Posted by hkgal

OK, I saw a program on Discovery or Nat Geo about amazing places and it covered a place just east of St Louis called Cahokia Mounds, which is apparently the oldest archealogical site in North America (over 1000 years old!) and is World Heritage listed. OK, pretty big deal right there - I was amazed.

So I was wondering, why doesn't the city make more of it, turn it into a real drawcard for tourists to the area? I'm so surprised - I've never heard of it and I'm sure many others haven't either. As far as tourism is concerned, there's not much else to really draw people in, so why not tell people it is there? Is this place a big deal it St Louis at all? Have you been there? I'm curious. I'm certainly going to make a trip there next time I'm in town.

Sadly HKGAL the St. Louis area is one of the most mismanaged and abused cities in America. Its crazy that the US has its own little ancient Indian ruins right next to a major metropolitan area. I mean you can literally see downtown St. Louis from the largest mound. The city of St. Louis also has a international monument (the Arch) on its front lawn and the riverfront in front of it looks like crap. We also have miles and miles of 19th century architecture that gets blockbusted by greedy developers and crooked alderman that would go for millions on either coast. I love the St. Louis area, but it really bothers me how poorly it is promoted and taken care of, it really does have the potential to be world class.

[RickMG]

Originally Posted by goat314

Sadly HKGAL the St. Louis area is one of the most mismanaged and abused cities in America. Its crazy that the US has its own little ancient Indian ruins right next to a major metropolitan area. I mean you can literally see downtown St. Louis from the largest mound. The city of St. Louis also has a international monument (the Arch) on its front lawn and the riverfront in front of it looks like crap. We also have miles and miles of 19th century architecture that gets blockbusted by greedy developers and crooked alderman that would go for millions on either coast. I love the St. Louis area, but it really bothers me how poorly it is promoted and taken care of, it really does have the potential to be world class.

I don't know how you say St. Louis is one of the most mismanaged and abused cities in America. What do you have to back it up? Look at all you say we have, and that's mismanaged? We wouldn't have them if it was. St. Louis only has the problem of not being a big tourist city. I mean really, a dozen years ago I used to take my kids to Chicago for a weekend every couple of months. Then it got cheaper to go to Cancun for four days than a weekend in Chicago, and we were there in three hours and Chicago has more to do than any city in the midwest. Where do you think we went then? I never understood anyone wanting to vacation in St. Louis, when there's Florida, New York, California, New Orleans, and even Chicago. People who don't want to spend the money to go to those places, can find a lot to do in St. Louis, but I doubt it would be someone's first choice to vacation no matter how the city is managed.

By the way the reason, I believe, a big deal isn't made about the mounds, is it's just that, a mound that is not too impressive. It's moving to know what is there and to reflect on that, but I wouldn't plan a trip around it. And, like mentioned above, the area around it doesn't offer up much.

[aragx6]

It's cool that the mounds are big and old sure, but if you go there you'll probably be bored and disappointed- when I was a kid I was.

[goat314]

Originally Posted by RickMG

I don't know how you say St. Louis is one of the most mismanaged and abused cities in America. What do you have to back it up? Look at all you say we have, and that's mismanaged? We wouldn't have them if it was. St. Louis only has the problem of not being a big tourist city. I mean really, a dozen years ago I used to take my kids to Chicago for a weekend every couple of months. Then it got cheaper to go to Cancun for four days than a weekend in Chicago, and we were there in three hours and Chicago has more to do than any city in the midwest. Where do you think we went then? I never understood anyone wanting to vacation in St. Louis, when there's Florida, New York, California, New Orleans, and even Chicago. People who don't want to spend the money to go to those places, can find a lot to do in St. Louis, but I doubt it would be someone's first choice to vacation no matter how the city is managed.

By the way the reason, I believe, a big deal isn't made about the mounds, is it's just that, a mound that is not too impressive. It's moving to know what is there and to reflect on that, but I wouldn't plan a trip around it. And, like mentioned above, the area around it doesn't offer up much.

ya see thats the problem here. You say St. Louis cant be a tourist city when it could easily become one with the right marketing. I have had friends from all over the country come to St. Louis and they were really surprised of how urban and cosmopolitan the city is, but with the right management and proper love St. Louis could be even better and more marketable. You cant deny that we have miles and miles of 19th century architecture that is left to rot away and become a distant memory. We have a beautiful international monument on our front lawn and we don't even have the decency to fix up the riverfront that lays at its feet. In my humble opinion that is mismanagement and cities that aim for greatness don't let that kind of stuff happen.......I would also like to add that the Cahokia Mounds would not be the only tourist site that would be an option coming to St. Louis, we have a lot of other things here but it could better with a little vision.

[Sleeping in Skyscrapers]

Sure St. Louis has a lot of potential. But being growing up on the "east side" of St. Louis myself, I know how often this area is marginalized simply because it does not sit on Missouri soil. There are a lot of great places and people in the metro east, 100's and thousands of them drive across the river and make huge contributions to the city of St. Louis everyday. In my opinion, St. Louis has the potential to become a world class city, but one of the major keys to its success is developing the other side of the river. Who wants to pay for an expensive high rise downtown if they have to look at East St. Louis all day? Granted, attempting to re-develop East St. Louis will likely be one of the most difficult and challenging re-developments this country has ever seen. Not to mention developers must deal with IL government to get tax credits and as anyone south of Champaign, IL can tell you the IL government has practically zero interest in spending a dime on metro IL/ E. St. Louis (granted the new I-70 bridge gives me some hope). From their perspective, why should they bother? They have their own city to worry about (chicago) and no E. Chicago to worry about (unless you count Gary, In which is also a mess). All the while, people from Southern IL many of whom consider themselves St. Louisans (except for the 3 or 4 freaks who are cubs fans) to the fullest extend end up with the short end of the stick. Its a shame, but sadly typical for St. Louis to turn its back (literally) away from the metro east and consequentially St. Louis turns its back on one of its biggest and most ardent fans.

[aragx6]

What exactly do you propose St. Louis do? It's not like the city does anything to promote or extend the Missouri suburbs. That's not the city's job imo. They have enough problems in the city limits to take care of- what are they supposed to do about E. St. Louis??