Moving from Columbus, OH to St. Louis, MO

[chicagoerin]

Wustu-thanks for the info, that is good news! I had not seen those stats before, nice to know that there are some affordable options. Fish, I guess I would ask what does "considerable" time mean? If you have visited here 5 or 6 times then I would say no, I don't think that is enough to compare what it is like to live in both cities, since you haven't really lived here. If you spent several months here for an internship or something, then yes, that might be enough time to learn about all the different nuances of what it's like to live here or anywhere else. I guess I wouldn't feel I had enough info to comment on what it would be like to live in one city versus another if I had never lived there, but only visited.

[Fishtacos]

Originally Posted by zach_33

That's a good article Erin, and matches my sentiments well. I moved here from Chicago and was also surprised. I think it may be the average home price statistics that are misleading. Take for example this spreadsheet published by the Natl Assoc Realtors with median price of existing home sales for metro areas:

http://www.realtor.org/wps/wcm/conne...29ef8d0a12d865

For the 4th quarter 2008, it shows Stl at $113,700, Columbus at $126,500, and Chicago at $217,800. This is supposed to be taking into account the metro area, not just the city proper. So obviously, coming from Chi-town I am thinking I can do a lot better housing wise. Alas, it is not true if you want to live in a desirable part of the Lou. Clayton is no cheaper than Oak Park or Evanston. Huntleigh is probably nearly as expensive as Kenilworth.

Wustu87 was talking about the non-Ladue parts of the Ladue school district, like Olivette, Creve Couer, and Richmond Heights-- real estate there does not come close to the $900k Ladue average, but is still pretty pricey on the whole.

Clayton and Ladue are two of the most desirable places to live for the masses, in the entire St. Louis metro area. They are going to be expensive.

They also are not, as mentioned, the only good school systems in St. Louis, and as mentioned, even in the expensive areas, deals can be found as well.

Let's compare apples to apples. I've lived in Chicago many years so I know the landscape very well. Oak Park and Evanston are a combined 125k population, 75k and 50k ish each. Clayton is approx 12k. You are not comparing apples to apples.

Huntleigh? OMG. Brett Hull lived there, the Chairman of the board of Enterprise Rent a Car lives there, it's the most exclusive part of St. Louis. Population: Drum Roll please...less than 400. And you are expecting a "deal" there? Wow.

It was mentioned someone looking for a nice home, with good school district within 30 minutes of working in Clayton. There are several more choices. But all I keep hearing are the very top 3 most expensive and exclusive parts of St. Louis. And supply is low and demand is high in those areas. The real topic here seems to be an unwillingness to live in the more affordable parts of those communities, as well as an unwillingness to actually live in a different part of St. Louis, that has nice homes, good schools, etc..

[Fishtacos]

Originally Posted by chicagoerin

Wustu-thanks for the info, that is good news! I had not seen those stats before, nice to know that there are some affordable options. Fish, I guess I would ask what does "considerable" time mean? If you have visited here 5 or 6 times then I would say no, I don't think that is enough to compare what it is like to live in both cities, since you haven't really lived here. If you spent several months here for an internship or something, then yes, that might be enough time to learn about all the different nuances of what it's like to live here or anywhere else. I guess I wouldn't feel I had enough info to comment on what it would be like to live in one city versus another if I had never lived there, but only visited.

I never post on any topic of which I know nothing about. My posting track record speaks for itself. If I believe I am qualified to post on something, I'll do so without hesitation.

Again, you are missing the point. What have I actually posted in this thread? I've consistently posted that comparing Columbus to St. Louis is like comparing apples to oranges. There are a lot of differences between the two places. Based on one's personal criteria, he/she can decide which place is a better fit for themselves.

I believe I have spent enough time in both places to make the basic general conclusion that I made that the two are like comparing apples to oranges, and not apples to apples. And, the response I received in this thread was agreement. So I am not exactly sure of which is your "problem."

[Fishtacos]

Originally Posted by zach_33

That's a good article Erin, and matches my sentiments well. I moved here from Chicago and was also surprised. I think it may be the average home price statistics that are misleading. Take for example this spreadsheet published by the Natl Assoc Realtors with median price of existing home sales for metro areas:

http://www.realtor.org/wps/wcm/conne...29ef8d0a12d865

For the 4th quarter 2008, it shows Stl at $113,700, Columbus at $126,500, and Chicago at $217,800. This is supposed to be taking into account the metro area, not just the city proper. So obviously, coming from Chi-town I am thinking I can do a lot better housing wise. Alas, it is not true if you want to live in a desirable part of the Lou. Clayton is no cheaper than Oak Park or Evanston. Huntleigh is probably nearly as expensive as Kenilworth.

Wustu87 was talking about the non-Ladue parts of the Ladue school district, like Olivette, Creve Couer, and Richmond Heights-- real estate there does not come close to the $900k Ladue average, but is still pretty pricey on the whole.

I believe this part says it all. "Desirable." Clayton, Huntliegh, and Ladue have been mentioned so far as the "desirable" parts to live in St. Louis. I'm quite curious of your list of the "desirable" parts in which to live in St. Louis and why. This is probably the topic here that can best be broken down to better assist you in your search. There are a lot of other "desirable" places out there besides those handful. That's the "real" issue here that I keep seeing in this thread. I'm not sure who convinced you that those were the only handful of places to live, or if you convinced yourself, but almost 3 million people live in metro St. Louis. If you do not expand your choices, or take Wustu87's advice on school districts vs that city's limits, you already box in yourself with a closed mind, and limit yourself before you begin the process.

Oak Park, Evanston, Kenilworth, Glencoe, Wilmette, Highland Park....there are other parts of Chicago to live than just these areas, just as there are other parts of St. Louis to live than Clayton, Huntleigh, Ladue, Town & Country.

Clayton is very generally speaking similar to Oak Park and Evanston as you know, and Clayton will be highly desirable, as are Oak Park and Evanston, therefore, it won't be cheap. And, take into account, the much smaller population there, and demand is high, supply is low. If this thread is about inner rung burbs, walkable areas, within 10 miles of the city, then the focus would include, but not be limited to Clayton.

[chicagoerin]

Fish-I think the point that those of us who have lived in Chicago, St. louis and Columbus are trying to make is that to live in what most people consider to be desirable (as inexpensive as possible, highly ranked schools, 15 min to work and wherever you spend your weekends-city, soccer field, walkable distance to coffee shop or local restaurant, safety, etc) there are fewer choices in St. Louis than there should be for a city it's size and when you compare it to other cities like Chicago, it's the same if not more $ to live in these areas and you are usually paid less than in Chicago ..and St. Louis is no Chicago in terms of overall *perceived desirability. How do I know? Well, I recruit for a Fortune 250 company and can tell you that St. Louis is as hard to recruit people to as Detroit. I know firsthand the reputation because I hear it everyday when I call someone in Minneapolis, Columbus, Indy, Chicago, etc and ask them to consider a move to St. Louis. It is an incredibly hard sell. Then they take a look at how much it costs to live in the highly ranked school districts and I have lost them for good. Forget about the fact that it ranks as one of the most dangerous cities, has a super high poverty and teen pregnancy rate, etc. I would like to move back to St. Louis to be near family but the job market (outside of healthcare which it's a great market for) for white collar workers has always been softer than other midwestern cities. AND they don't pay you extra to live there but you spend a lot more to live in a desirable community that meets the above criteria. In a Columbus, Chicago, Indy, etc you have a lot of options that meet the above critera- in St. Louis there are a handful. Also, I have found that what people in St. Louis consider to be "great schools" is so different than someone in Chicago. It's all about perception. When you are comparing say a Columbia, IL school district (which everyone says are GREAT SCHOOLS!) to any number of Chicago burbs where you can live for the same money, the Columbia schools rank as average as best. The Chicago burbs are truly world class. Again, St. Louis has many nice things, yet it is a hard sell.

[zach_33]

okay, this discussion has become unproductive, quite possibly before I ever chimed in with my opinion. St. Louis and Columbus are interesting cities to me, but by now I am sure EthelBeth has stopped reading these messages, and so we should probably wait for the next inquisitor to launch into a different debate about the relative merits of two or more cities. Peace out. Happy Friday.

[Fishtacos]

Originally Posted by chicagoerin

Fish-I think the point that those of us who have lived in Chicago, St. louis and Columbus are trying to make is that to live in what most people consider to be desirable (as inexpensive as possible, highly ranked schools, 15 min to work and wherever you spend your weekends-city, soccer field, walkable distance to coffee shop or local restaurant, safety, etc) there are fewer choices in St. Louis than there should be for a city it's size and when you compare it to other cities like Chicago, it's the same if not more $ to live in these areas and you are usually paid less than in Chicago ..and St. Louis is no Chicago in terms of overall *perceived desirability. How do I know? Well, I recruit for a Fortune 250 company and can tell you that St. Louis is as hard to recruit people to as Detroit. I know firsthand the reputation because I hear it everyday when I call someone in Minneapolis, Columbus, Indy, Chicago, etc and ask them to consider a move to St. Louis. It is an incredibly hard sell. Then they take a look at how much it costs to live in the highly ranked school districts and I have lost them for good. Forget about the fact that it ranks as one of the most dangerous cities, has a super high poverty and teen pregnancy rate, etc. I would like to move back to St. Louis to be near family but the job market (outside of healthcare which it's a great market for) for white collar workers has always been softer than other midwestern cities. AND they don't pay you extra to live there but you spend a lot more to live in a desirable community that meets the above criteria. In a Columbus, Chicago, Indy, etc you have a lot of options that meet the above critera- in St. Louis there are a handful. Also, I have found that what people in St. Louis consider to be "great schools" is so different than someone in Chicago. It's all about perception. When you are comparing say a Columbia, IL school district (which everyone says are GREAT SCHOOLS!) to any number of Chicago burbs where you can live for the same money, the Columbia schools rank as average as best. The Chicago burbs are truly world class. Again, St. Louis has many nice things, yet it is a hard sell.

Reputation isn't always reality. I would not discount stereotypes, as sadly they exist everywhere. There are legions of people that commute 2hrs one way per day in Chicago from burb to burb or burb to city or city to burb. Road Construction, slowness of the CTA these days, weather, self racial sgregation outside of some areas, brutal O'Hare delays, gas prices, home costs, etc..and so on....I love Chicago, but these things exist too.

I'm commenting on what is, as opposed to reputation and stereotype. I've lived it. St. Louis is not dangerous than Chicago. Ever spend time West of Western Ave or near Chicago St. U.? Crime in St. Louis is heavily concentrated and those stats are well skewed, as you should well know. And as you well know crime is not limited to Chicago's West Side and South sides, though it has a higher concentration there. Legions of my Chicago born and bred friends usually say matter of factly that Chicago is a great place, but it has tons of crime. I'd agree on both counts.

Every place has its pros and cons, St. Louis and Chicago included. I've lived in Milwaukee too, D.C. NYC and others. Milwaukee has a lot of great aspects, though it won't get the reputation of a Chicago. Just like anywhere else, it has its pros and cons.

If you ever study personality type, the majority of people who travel frequently, or live in many places, are considered extroverts, as well as Artisans/Explorers/Experiencers. Studies show the vast majority of these people prefer bigger cities to non-bigger cities based on personality type, even if they have never been to any of the places involved. I am talking about Carl Jung, Isabel Myers Briggs and her mother, who were pioneers in the 16 personality types. And David Keirsey who was a founder of temperament. This easily explains stereotypes, perceptions etc...in your recruiting world. It's a "hard" or "harder" sell, based on personality type and biology, not necessarily fact and reality.

[Fishtacos]

Originally Posted by chicagoerin

Fish-I think the point that those of us who have lived in Chicago, St. louis and Columbus are trying to make is that to live in what most people consider to be desirable (as inexpensive as possible, highly ranked schools, 15 min to work and wherever you spend your weekends-city, soccer field, walkable distance to coffee shop or local restaurant, safety, etc) there are fewer choices in St. Louis than there should be for a city it's size and when you compare it to other cities like Chicago, it's the same if not more $ to live in these areas and you are usually paid less than in Chicago ..and St. Louis is no Chicago in terms of overall *perceived desirability. How do I know? Well, I recruit for a Fortune 250 company and can tell you that St. Louis is as hard to recruit people to as Detroit. I know firsthand the reputation because I hear it everyday when I call someone in Minneapolis, Columbus, Indy, Chicago, etc and ask them to consider a move to St. Louis. It is an incredibly hard sell. Then they take a look at how much it costs to live in the highly ranked school districts and I have lost them for good. Forget about the fact that it ranks as one of the most dangerous cities, has a super high poverty and teen pregnancy rate, etc. I would like to move back to St. Louis to be near family but the job market (outside of healthcare which it's a great market for) for white collar workers has always been softer than other midwestern cities. AND they don't pay you extra to live there but you spend a lot more to live in a desirable community that meets the above criteria. In a Columbus, Chicago, Indy, etc you have a lot of options that meet the above critera- in St. Louis there are a handful. Also, I have found that what people in St. Louis consider to be "great schools" is so different than someone in Chicago. It's all about perception. When you are comparing say a Columbia, IL school district (which everyone says are GREAT SCHOOLS!) to any number of Chicago burbs where you can live for the same money, the Columbia schools rank as average as best. The Chicago burbs are truly world class. Again, St. Louis has many nice things, yet it is a hard sell.

How often do people who live in Chicago's South burbs, SW, NW, N etc...get to the city of Chicago? You and I both know that answer is rare, very rare. I know people who only even get to some of the cities' amentities a half a dozen times per year. How often are people from Lake Forest, Naperville, etc...getting to Cubs games? Dinner in the Italian Village? etc..for shows. How often are they utilizing the Lakefront? All of that goes into "quality of life." And, as you well know many of these burbs, have chain stores, restaurants, etc..as they do many other places.

A friend of mine is the current editor of St. Louis Magazine. He is formerly an editor of National Magazine based in Chicago and he lived in several different areas. And he said it best when he once said, in Chicago you can go to 50 different concert or theater venues etc...but you can only go to one per night.

O'Hare Airport is amongst the country's worst airports in delayed flights. On the one hand, it's great to have so many direct flights, and International flight options from terminal 5, but if so many get canceled, delayed, and bring large inconveniences, that offsets the advantages sometimes. Even the train from O'Hare to the city has now become an hour-ish trip. Every place has its pro's and con's.

I love Chicago, but the weather to many is an extremely difficult "sell." There are reasons the bible belt and warm weather places have had so much growth and expansion in recent memory, and it isn't because of its suburban sprawl, and box stores for the most part. It's largely because of weather to go with other opportunity.

Have you ever tried to go visit your friend in La Grange or insert West burb here, and drive from Highland Park on Chicago's North Side? It's an hour on a good day.

If one includes St. Louis County in crime statistics, St. Louis' violent crime rates would be in the 100's. Similar to Chicago, St. Louis' violent crime rates are mostly confined to different areas, i.e. 75% of Chicago's crime was committed in 25% of areas the past several years. The same can be said for St. Louis where every one familiar knows that much of the Stl violent crime exists in North St. Louis City. I won't defend St. Louis in terms of crime and violent crime just as I won't defend Chicago's and other places' crime too. It's too high lots of places.

There were 512 murders in the city of Chicago alone last year, and the track record dating back this decade and last decade are not good. So if one wants to talk violent crime or crime, in Stl, it would be as easy to discuss it with merit in Chicago.

Teen Pregnancy? When is the last time you spent time at Robeson High School in Englewood, in Chicago? Currently 80 students are pregnant, and that's only the kids who reported their pregnancies. Perhaps you spend most of your time at New Trier High School? It doesn't mean these other things exist in other places.

If you want to say Columbus and St. Louis are different. I would agree with you. If you want to say Columbus is better than St. Louis or St. Louis is better than Columbus, I would not agree with you.

If you want to say Chicago and St. Louis are different. I would agree with you. If you want to say Chicago is better than St. Louis, I would not agree with you.

[aragx6]

Fish, I'd rep ya immediately if I could!