St. Louis vs. Minneapolis?? (St. Charles, Kirkwood: condos, home, neighborhoods)

[arch_genesis]

St. Louis needs to brand itself as one of the last places left to pursue the American Dream. We're not as liberal as San Francisco and not as built and dense as New York. I kind of look at St Louis as a somewhat blank slate. I think its a place where you can make your mark. You can help create a burgeoning creative community or a small business. Low cost of living great institutions friendly people. I know people flock to New York and LA with dreams of making it. I think St. Louis could it brand itself the same but with a different spin on it.

Sorry to go off topic. I will say though I had a roommate from Minneapolis the nicest guy in the world and he knew how to throw a party and enjoy life. That's about all I can say about Minneapolis. That and I'm jealous they have an NBA team.

[ShadowCaver]

Originally Posted by DinsdalePirahna

I've been trying to keep my threads more positive but I still get edited by the moderators the minute you post anything negative about the fair city of Saint Louis. Or the fact that it is very hard on transplants. I've made a lot of friends here (albeit transplants lie myself) and I really do enjoy where I live. It is just dealing with the area outside my little fiefdom that I have issues with.

Go to the Orange County and Los Angeles boards almost everything is left in Warts and All. It reveals a much clearer picture of what living in there is really like.

Some clarity is needed here, as you are mistaken... this mod does not edit out negative material just because it is negative. However, I do and will edit and/or remove material that is off-topic, inflammatory, racist, and/or trolling. I myself have posted negative issues about the city, as can anyone else - and such are welcomed - as long as they are valid and/or worthy comments. For example, a post stating "This city sucks" will be removed... yet a post that goes into at least some detail describing a person's experiences, impressions, desires, etc. [negative, neutral, and/or positive] that can be helpful to others are great. Now, with that said, yes, those that love any city/region/state/etc. will defend its "honor" - and swipe at those that come with disparaging remarks... its up to both 'sides' to understand that there may well be validity to all perspectives and opinions - but to do such in a respectful and friendly manner. If anyone needs further clarification on this matter, send me a Direct Message, and I'll be more than happy to work/discuss, be it this subject or otherwise.

ps: stlcitygirl - actually, StL has 4 pro teams... don't forget the WPS's Athletica [here is to a victory tonight in the playoffs @ Anheuser-Busch Soccer Park for StL team ]

[rgb123]

Originally Posted by MN55

Both of The Cities are democratic, politically, but St. Paul is much more conservative than Minneapolis. STP is more old-line, blue-collar, union, socially conservative Catholic Democrats while Minneapolis is full of the artsy, yuppie liberal types. ST. Paul and alot of its suburbs have much more established families that have been there for generations (similar to STL) while the Minenapolis side is more suitable to newcomers.

And I'm not as familiar with st. Louis, but Minnesotans are also very divided between locals and transplants. Locals are extremelly friendly to others, but it is hard to become friends with them. And minnesotans have a very distinct culture similar to Texas. And they also have a lot of pride in their state also like Texas. I'd definitely read this thread:

http://www.city-data.com/forum/minne...-cities-4.html

Here's a quote:

ugh. I hate pride! Another reason for me not to be in Minnesota! lol. In all seriousness I noticed it in Minnesota and Wisconsin too (but Wisconsites hate Chicagoans so I don't know if its just because I was from Chicago). I would say that Texas is far worse than Minnesota in the "pride" regard. Actually the people from the Twin Cities tended to be nicer to me (at least, they liked Chicago) than the people from Milwaukee and Madison who tended to have a more negative view of Illinoisans.

I do agree with what someone said in that thread. Minnesot is a high sticky state....people stay there that are born there and not a lot of people move there. That is the main reason its hard to make new friends. They are not mean, they just are not interested in you, not beyond the working day or school day, for the most part. Of course it is a generality but I experienced it also.

Again though....I'd rather be there than Texas! But I'd rather be in California than Minnesota...

ps. Topographically speaking. If I were to move to Minnesota or that far north, I'd rather be in Duluth or the UP of Michigan or something. The Twin Cities are not as pretty as other parts of Minnesota. Minnesota is a great place to visit, but I find the Twin Cities lacking when it comes to the things that I find great about Minnesota -- which would be the outdoors and Lake Superior.

[DinsdalePirahna]

Originally Posted by ShadowCaver

Some clarity is needed here, as you are mistaken... this mod does not edit out negative material just because it is negative. However, I do and will edit and/or remove material that is off-topic, inflammatory, racist, and/or trolling. I myself have posted negative issues about the city, as can anyone else - and such are welcomed - as long as they are valid and/or worthy comments. For example, a post stating "This city sucks" will be removed... yet a post that goes into at least some detail describing a person's experiences, impressions, desires, etc. [negative, neutral, and/or positive] that can be helpful to others are great. Now, with that said, yes, those that love any city/region/state/etc. will defend its "honor" - and swipe at those that come with disparaging remarks... its up to both 'sides' to understand that there may well be validity to all perspectives and opinions - but to do such in a respectful and friendly manner. If anyone needs further clarification on this matter, send me a Direct Message, and I'll be more than happy to work/discuss, be it this subject or otherwise.

Point taken. I'm just trying to validate my experiences here. I am not trolling (if I were, and I am sure that many people would be happy if I did, I would have fired my shots and left). Some people just don't want to hear negative about this fair city. Another poster called St. Louis the soccer capital of the USA. I simple said it wasn't and my post was truncated) ) Off topic LA/OC has 2 mens pro teams (Chivas USA, LA Galaxy) a Women's Pro team (SOL) and a youth club system that feeds a lot of talent to colleges and pro teams. Plus a hispanic culture that is much more open to "futbol". I would call Southern California the Soccer Capital of the USA. The next in line would be North Jersey.
Back on topic. Start a new thread if this needs to be a topic.

Originally Posted by arch_genesis

St. Louis needs to brand itself as one of the last places left to pursue the American Dream. We're not as liberal as San Francisco and not as built and dense as New York. I kind of look at St Louis as a somewhat blank slate. I think its a place where you can make your mark. You can help create a burgeoning creative community or a small business. Low cost of living great institutions friendly people. I know people flock to New York and LA with dreams of making it. I think St. Louis could it brand itself the same but with a different spin on it.

I've pointed this out before. In order for this happen you have to bring in the adventurist, hip, creative, artistic type and then make it attractive to the less adventurist crowd that thinks they are the hip, creative type. The graphic design coming out of this area is among the best I've seen. The low cost of living should make it attractive to the creative types.

So what's wrong?

Because of the inherent redneck attitudes, the mind set of settling for mediocrity and small minded parochialism that is endemic to this area, St. Louis scares away any new comers. Yes, Soulard is hip (sort off) but it is also very dirty. Same with Lumiere place. So filthy it makes Atlantic City look like Monte Carlo. (I hit both areas today) YOU CANNOT SETTLE FOR MEDIOCRITY if you want to be great. You can't cater to the trucker cap, mullet and sleeveless t-shirt (or the baggy pants and gold-chain) crowd if you want to bring in the cash and class that will make Saint Louis a first class city.

One of the best examples of how a city transforms itself is by looking at Austin, Texas. This city transformed itself from a sleepy capital and college town know for Texas-brand football into a community that even New Yorkers want to go to (4 of my friends from Long Island have relocated there and love it. 2 of them warned me about moving to Saint Louis after living here for a few years and then moving on). Austin, TX became hip by embracing the Alt-music scene and is now considered on par with /and maybe even a fusion of Nashville, LA and NY.

On the other hand, Missouri gives us Branson. A cheap Vegas wannabee with the all-you-can-eat buffets, but without the casinos. Branson caters to the over 50 year old redneck, black socks and sandals crowd. That may be fine for the locals, but to the rest of the country Branson is a punchline. Again settling for Mediocrity.

I've also mentioned that because of all the interesting architecture and varied terrain (and even weather) of this area, Saint Louis could very well brand itself as an inland Hollywood, and become "hip" to the film industry. It could be bigger than Pittsburgh, Wilmigton, Toronto and Vancouver. All you need is a favorable business environment and the desire to be great. Is there even an infrastructure in place for production companies to rent equipment? hire talent (production) and film crews? catering? securing the permits? location scouting? I'm making most of my money from California business and charging Missouri rates ($50/hour as opposed to $75/hr. I make enough to keep busy, afford a home and pay my bills. That should be a good, simplified example of how it could work.

Delete this post if it offends anyone.

[rgb123]

hmm. well. see. the great thing about the midwest, is it's greatness is in the details, the very simple details. It generally does not want to appear to be the best. It's the stoic, strong, silent type.

St. Louis can use a makeover, from what I remember. But the great thing about the entire area is that its NOT overhyped.

Austin is okay. But it's overhyped, the pride around here doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Chicago was getting that way too.

I much prefer a humble place that is a little self concious, to a place where eveyrone is trying to outdo each other with their coolness (anothe reason I don't want to go back to Chicago).

I'd love to hear that the crime rates have improved in STL, there was less of a racial divide and less urban blight. But ....I prefer self conscious to image conscious

If you are from the east or west coasts, I could see how this mentality might not be something you are ingrained with or you may not like it. But make no mistake, it is intentional. It's called modesty, and I miss it, dearly.

[Brickmama]

STL has already gotten a make over in a lot of different areas.

Dins, I lived in both Soulard and just down the street from Lumiere and neither are dirty by any means. I also tend to think that a lot of the negative attitudes towards STL come from the long time natives. Most people who move here actually like it here and are positive about the city. I work at a company that has had a huge influx of people from other areas of the country and most of them have very positive things to say.

If you are looking for and inner ring suburb close to the city I would suggest U City, Clayton, Richmond Heights, Brentwood, and Maplewood. All are very nice areas with a lot going on.

BTW it is bigger than Pittsburgh!!!

[rgb123]

Originally Posted by Brickmama

STL has already gotten a make over in a lot of different areas.

Dins, I lived in both Soulard and just down the street from Lumiere and neither are dirty by any means. I also tend to think that a lot of the negative attitudes towards STL come from the long time natives. Most people who move here actually like it here and are positive about the city. I work at a company that has had a huge influx of people from other areas of the country and most of them have very positive things to say.

If you are looking for and inner ring suburb close to the city I would suggest U City, Clayton, Richmond Heights, Brentwood, and Maplewood. All are very nice areas with a lot going on.

That would not suprise me. The city has seen and been through a lot and people remember that kind of thing.

It is similiar with my parents generation that left Chicago for the suburbs. I also know people whose parents left St. Louis for other parts of Illinois.

It takes awhile for those perceptions to change, because they remember how great the place once was, how it went downhill in their perception and that they felt they had to leave.

[DinsdalePirahna]

Originally Posted by Brickmama

BTW it is bigger than Pittsburgh!!!

I know. As anyone know its not the size, its the motion.

Originally Posted by Brickmama

Dins, I lived in both Soulard and just down the street from Lumiere and neither are dirty by any means. I also tend to think that a lot of the negative attitudes towards STL come from the long time natives. Most people who move here actually like it here and are positive about the city. I work at a company that has had a huge influx of people from other areas of the country and most of them have very positive things to say.

I guess it is all matter of perception and reality. I saw filthy areas, and I wouldn't want to bring an-of-town visitor there. Especially someone from NY or LA.

If you think those areas are clean, you need to set your standards higher. Like I said you can not settle for mediocrity.

The zoo, science center and museums are definitely places you want to show off.

[Marksman84]

Originally Posted by ShadowCaver

ps: stlcitygirl - actually, StL has 4 pro teams... don't forget the WPS's Athletica [here is to a victory tonight in the playoffs @ Anheuser-Busch Soccer Park for StL team ]

Some clarity is needed here, as you are mistaken.

St. Louis also has the St. Louis Aces, a professional level tennis team. Many legends of this awesome sport - including most recently the lovely Kim Clijsters and Anna Kournikova - have taken the floor in the cozy Dwight Davis tennis center in Forest Park.

Check em out in 2010!

St. Louis Aces

[BoomBoxing]

Originally Posted by DinsdalePirahna

Point taken. I'm just trying to validate my experiences here. I am not trolling (if I were, and I am sure that many people would be happy if I did, I would have fired my shots and left). Some people just don't want to hear negative about this fair city. Another poster called St. Louis the soccer capital of the USA. I simple said it wasn't and my post was truncated) ) Off topic LA/OC has 2 mens pro teams (Chivas USA, LA Galaxy) a Women's Pro team (SOL) and a youth club system that feeds a lot of talent to colleges and pro teams. Plus a hispanic culture that is much more open to "futbol". I would call Southern California the Soccer Capital of the USA. The next in line would be North Jersey.
Back on topic. Start a new thread if this needs to be a topic.



I've pointed this out before. In order for this happen you have to bring in the adventurist, hip, creative, artistic type and then make it attractive to the less adventurist crowd that thinks they are the hip, creative type. The graphic design coming out of this area is among the best I've seen. The low cost of living should make it attractive to the creative types.

So what's wrong?

Because of the inherent redneck attitudes, the mind set of settling for mediocrity and small minded parochialism that is endemic to this area, St. Louis scares away any new comers. Yes, Soulard is hip (sort off) but it is also very dirty. Same with Lumiere place. So filthy it makes Atlantic City look like Monte Carlo. (I hit both areas today) YOU CANNOT SETTLE FOR MEDIOCRITY if you want to be great. You can't cater to the trucker cap, mullet and sleeveless t-shirt (or the baggy pants and gold-chain) crowd if you want to bring in the cash and class that will make Saint Louis a first class city.

One of the best examples of how a city transforms itself is by looking at Austin, Texas. This city transformed itself from a sleepy capital and college town know for Texas-brand football into a community that even New Yorkers want to go to (4 of my friends from Long Island have relocated there and love it. 2 of them warned me about moving to Saint Louis after living here for a few years and then moving on). Austin, TX became hip by embracing the Alt-music scene and is now considered on par with /and maybe even a fusion of Nashville, LA and NY.

On the other hand, Missouri gives us Branson. A cheap Vegas wannabee with the all-you-can-eat buffets, but without the casinos. Branson caters to the over 50 year old redneck, black socks and sandals crowd. That may be fine for the locals, but to the rest of the country Branson is a punchline. Again settling for Mediocrity.

I've also mentioned that because of all the interesting architecture and varied terrain (and even weather) of this area, Saint Louis could very well brand itself as an inland Hollywood, and become "hip" to the film industry. It could be bigger than Pittsburgh, Wilmigton, Toronto and Vancouver. All you need is a favorable business environment and the desire to be great. Is there even an infrastructure in place for production companies to rent equipment? hire talent (production) and film crews? catering? securing the permits? location scouting? I'm making most of my money from California business and charging Missouri rates ($50/hour as opposed to $75/hr. I make enough to keep busy, afford a home and pay my bills. That should be a good, simplified example of how it could work.

Delete this post if it offends anyone.

Your posts miss the mark time and time again. I don't find them offensive but I just think you can't say you know this city when you live 50+ miles away. I concede St. Louis' flaws all the time, but the things you point out simply aren't true, or are the reality of the part of town you live in. To call St. Louis a redneck town is completely and utterly ridiculous. I don't even know one person who could remotely fit that criteria. Of course if you live in Jefferson county or the far reaches of St. Charles county, you might have a different perception, but those places are NOT St. Louis. They are a part of our region of course but they are not representative of our region the way east St. Louis isn't representative of our region.

For the love of God spend some serious time in St. Louis city, Clayton, U.City, Webster Groves, Kirkwood, Des Peres, Ladue, Creve Coeur and tell me this is a redneck town. You act like there aren't any rednecks in the suburbs of Pittsburgh and San Fransisco. Give me a break. The "culture" of St. Louis that you have experienced is the culture of the far flung exurbs. But moreover, who ever said St. Louis should be more like LA or NYC or Austin? Having a lot of big city amenities with a low cost of living makes St. Louis more desirable for me. Oh and there are plenty of creative class types here, but being in Lake St. Louis I can see how you would think they are non-existent.

Now to the OP...I think you should choose St. Louis. I've always kinda liked the Twin Cities too but those winters will be brutal!