do you think st.louis' skyline is small (Kansas City, St. Louis: school, college)

[oscottscotto]

lol Phoenix's skyline is not THAT small.

St. Louis skyline is par with other mid-size larger cities. It's the arch that makes it great. The arch is easily one of my favorite landmarks.

But of course, St. Louis has a MUCH larger skyline than my hometown of Mobile, AL. But my hometown is still beautiful.

[northbayeric]

I've flown into Phoenix a couple of times on my way to other destinations, so I don't know how its skyline compares to other cities.

For small skylines, I would have to say San Jose's is really small for a city of about 925,000. It's far smaller than San Francisco's and even a little smaller than Oakland's. St. Louis has a larger skyline than San Jose or Oakland.

[Hey_Hey]

Originally Posted by ajf131

Compared to Hong Kong, St. Louis has a small skyline. For a large American city, its skyline is about average. The buildings are more crammed together downtown. Skylines can appear bigger or smaller based on how far apart the buildings are spread. St. Louis' skyline is about the same size as Cleveland's. I would call it right in the middle for an American city, as many major U.S. cities have skylines that are not anywhere near as big as St. Louis.

Driving through Cleveland and St Louis I get the feeling that St Louis is much larger. St. Louis seems to have maybe 2 or 3 times as many highrises, although the height of Key Bank Building in Cleveland seems to top anything in St Louis. I don't know if it's true or not, but that's my feeling. St Louis's skyline stretches really far East-west, but the north-south length is coparatively small. Of course that means looking at it from Illinois makes it look smaller than it is.

[desperad0stl]

compared to the rest of the world stl skyline is pretty tiny
I wish there was more and on both sides of the river...like shanghai.
It would be sweet if some major industry moved to the center of the US...

here's what I want stl skyline to be like

the old west side of shanghai (west of huangpu river)



the brand new development on the east side of the year (Pudong)
The entire west side is only 15 years old




Both sides together





It can be done...make an American city one of the fastest growing in the world again!
STL was the 2nd busiest port after NYC and the 4th largest city in the nation...no reason it can't come back...all we need is some progressive politics.

[desperad0stl]

and what's up with the road in front of the arch? It should easily be the most well maintained road in the city...but its ugly and falling apart. STL needs some new management...

[stlsmoore]

STL and progressive politics seems like an oxymoron honestly, I would def. like to see the skyline grow one day though. It seems as if things were shaping up but the whole economy thing happened, it's going to be years probably before we get to the same rate we're at is my guess. By the way isn't Shanghai like the biggest city in the world?

[desperad0stl]

just used it as an example...since shanghai was developed on the west side of the huangpu river for hundreds of years and the building boom on the east side only happened recently...

[en08]

I have lived in Kansas City, MO (it's rival city) all of my life, and just recently, I transferred to college in St. Louis. I have now lived in STL for 6 months, and I believe I am VERY qualified to make an analysis on this topic.

For all of those who don't know, Kansas City, Missouri, my hometown, has a very impressive skyline in my opinnion for a city of 2.5 million people. In fact, if you go to wikipeia and type in "tallest buildings in missouri" (or list of skyscrapers), only 3 are from St. Louis, while the rest are all from Kansas City.

When I first arrived in St. Louis, I thought it was VERY blighted. As I drove down 170, and then 64-E, I saw the skyline. It was VERY unimpressive. Their downtown has only about 4 highrises, the US Bank Building, The SBC building (now AT&T), Metropolitan Square, and the Eagelton Courthouse. All other buildings in the city with the exception of the building by the Ritz in Clayton are around 1-25 stories. So, on that picture taken by someone who obviously was a St. Louisian, all of those ""tall"" buildings are really only about 20 stories. The bulk of the buildings are in the Central West End, and their tallest building is the Chase Park Plaza, which I believe has about 25 stories. Most of those other buildings were 10 stories. When there are NO other tall buildings around, even a six story building can look impressive. Take a picture of Mobile, AL, or Omaha, NE's skyline, and you will think the buildings around it are tall, when in reality they are not. (Pheonix is an example, when flying over there looks to be a good ammount of sksycrapers, but when you google it, you find their tallest is about 350 feet).

I have noticed that St. Louisians like to "beef up" their city-- signficantly. This, to me, seems that they are doing just that. Overall, their skyline is VERY unimperssive for a city that claims to have 2.8 million people in their metro area, and I think it probably has one of the smallest skylines out of any city major in the midwest, if not the United States. I was more impressed by Tulsa, Oklahoma's skyline than I was of St. Louis.

Let's look at some hard facts. The tallest building in St. Louis is Metro. Square, which is about 580 feet. After the first four buildings, the height drops below 400 feet, and after about 2 more, it goes below 290. List of tallest buildings in St. Louis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia; List of tallest buildings in Missouri - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Honestly, St. Louis has a VERY unimpressive skyline, and I feel it is an overall unimpressive city. It's percentage of metro blight is probably the second highest in the nation, right behind everyone's favorite city: Detroit.

[AJohnston_STL]

Originally Posted by en08

I have lived in Kansas City, MO (it's rival city) all of my life, and just recently, I transferred to college in St. Louis. I have now lived in STL for 6 months, and I believe I am VERY qualified to make an analysis on this topic.

For all of those who don't know, Kansas City, Missouri, my hometown, has a very impressive skyline in my opinnion for a city of 2.5 million people. In fact, if you go to wikipeia and type in "tallest buildings in missouri" (or list of skyscrapers), only 3 are from St. Louis, while the rest are all from Kansas City.

When I first arrived in St. Louis, I thought it was VERY blighted. As I drove down 170, and then 64-E, I saw the skyline. It was VERY unimpressive. Their downtown has only about 4 highrises, the US Bank Building, The SBC building (now AT&T), Metropolitan Square, and the Eagelton Courthouse. All other buildings in the city with the exception of the building by the Ritz in Clayton are around 1-25 stories. So, on that picture taken by someone who obviously was a St. Louisian, all of those ""tall"" buildings are really only about 20 stories. The bulk of the buildings are in the Central West End, and their tallest building is the Chase Park Plaza, which I believe has about 25 stories. Most of those other buildings were 10 stories. When there are NO other tall buildings around, even a six story building can look impressive. Take a picture of Mobile, AL, or Omaha, NE's skyline, and you will think the buildings around it are tall, when in reality they are not. (Pheonix is an example, when flying over there looks to be a good ammount of sksycrapers, but when you google it, you find their tallest is about 350 feet).

I have noticed that St. Louisians like to "beef up" their city-- signficantly. This, to me, seems that they are doing just that. Overall, their skyline is VERY unimperssive for a city that claims to have 2.8 million people in their metro area, and I think it probably has one of the smallest skylines out of any city major in the midwest, if not the United States. I was more impressed by Tulsa, Oklahoma's skyline than I was of St. Louis.

Let's look at some hard facts. The tallest building in St. Louis is Metro. Square, which is about 580 feet. After the first four buildings, the height drops below 400 feet, and after about 2 more, it goes below 290. List of tallest buildings in St. Louis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia; List of tallest buildings in Missouri - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Honestly, St. Louis has a VERY unimpressive skyline, and I feel it is an overall unimpressive city. It's percentage of metro blight is probably the second highest in the nation, right behind everyone's favorite city: Detroit.

You are hilarious. You are "VERY" qualified because you have lived here (as a student, no less) for 6 months? First off, the very idea that height is so important to you is the first sign that you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to urbanity. Big tall buildings are great, but that does not make a great city. Get off your pedestal. I would suggest you get out and explore city neighborhoods before you, a twenty-something (if that) college student come on here acting like you know what you are talking about.

[STLCardsBlues1989]

Height does not make a skyline great. It's part of it, but so is density.

And from what I've seen of KC, it's not all that impressive either. It might be taller, but that doesn't make it more dense. And St. Louis skyline can be deceptive because it runs east-west, and most views from Illinois show it from North-South.

And you're saying St. Louisans like to "beef up" their city. Isn't that a little hypocritical? Aren't you doing the exact same thing?

I'm a college student as well, so I understand our tendency to think that we are right. Because we're young, and in school, and we know everything. We do not. ANY major city has blight, and Kansas City is no exception. Although I think I'd take some blight over acres of cookie cutters and mcmansions. St. Louis is a historic city, as is KC and Chicago and Milwuakee and Detroit. All have different levels of blight. All have lots of sprawl. Hard to rank cities based on either.

Think there is absolutely NO blight or abandonment in Kansas City? I think you need to look again. Any city, even a city like Chicago, has blight. It's inevitable. I've never been to KC, but all cities have blight.

And if you think St. Louis is unimpressive, then you must be blind. St. Louis has some fabulous architecture and rich history. One of the best (free) zoos in the country, lots of museums. Forest Park, which is larger than Central Park, is beautiful as well.

And yes, KC and St. Louis are different. KC is in land area about equal to New York (318 sq. miles of land, compared to 304 sq. miles of land in NYC (160 sq. miles of water). KC has like 450k people in the city with a density of 1,500 and St. Louis city is 62 sq. miles with a density of over 5,500. With all that blight that Kansas City "doesn't have" St. Louis still has much higher density.

I have nothing against KC. Never been there. But please, your highness, get off your throne and enjoy St. Louis. Go to the bars, the festivals, the music clubs. Go to hockey games (something you can't get in KC), or a baseball or football game when it comes time. Visit the museums. Soak up the culture. I realize KC is home, but that doesn't make it a better city than any other. If you're going to school in St. Louis, then enjoy it. No point in being miserable the whole time.

And as far as skyline, KC is not exactly New York or Chicago either.