Positives and negatives of living in St. Louis (Kansas City, Springfield: schools, college)

[davey123]

Originally Posted by stlcitygirl

Do you have any actual stats to back that up? I'm not saying that it's not segregated, but have you been to some of the southern cities? My south city neighborhood is WAY more integrated than my florida neighborhood.

You have access to the internet. Look it up. You will see that St. Louis is ranked in the top 5. Just look it up. Incidentally, I have not mentioned anything that has not been mentioned in Stl news.

[kshe95girl]

Originally Posted by stlcitygirl

Do you have any actual stats to back that up? I'm not saying that it's not segregated, but have you been to some of the southern cities? My south city neighborhood is WAY more integrated than my florida neighborhood.

The racial divide here in Florida is frightening, to say the least. I have NEVER been eyed, or treated with such hostility by other races in STL as I have been down here.

[TNRyan23]

Originally Posted by stlcitygirl

Do you have any actual stats to back that up? I'm not saying that it's not segregated, but have you been to some of the southern cities? My south city neighborhood is WAY more integrated than my florida neighborhood.

I wouldn't say "southern cities" because I've lived in Nashville, Tampa, and New Orleans and can say that I haven't experienced segregated neighborhoods really in any of them. Esp. Nashville though.

[ajf131]

Originally Posted by rgb123

Well, I wasn't putting down Chicago (my hometown). But St. Louis is far more unique in history. Chicago is a lot like a little New York or Boston, it has a lot in common with other east coast cities that immigrants poured into.

St. Louis is actually older, was a grander city in earlier American history, ha rich history from the birth of the nation and western exploration and expansion, and the civil war. Chicago doesn't have a similiar history at all really, except that they both became immigrant places later on. St. Louis was far more established than Chicago in the earlier days, when Chicago was still just a swamp backwater.

St. Louis has more French influences, and older architecture. It's a river city and you can really see cultures from east west, north south crashing there.

Tons of famous people from American history have lived in St. Louis or came from there.

Chicago...well Chicago was more planned than St. Louis, and has it's own history, but by comparsion, Chicago's roots are not nearly as deep and rich as St. Louis.

St. Louis is far more haunted and far more interesting to someone like me who always passed it by for the bigger cities.

But then, I am a huge Mark Twain fain, and I like to get deep into American History and geography.

Chicago doesn't compare on that level.

I also have family roots from that area, and Southern Illinois. They were living full lives there, commiserating with Indians, farming, joining the military, and running routes to Texas and Montana long before Chicago was on the map.

I agree as far as history goes that St. Louis played a unique role. But as far as Southern and Western culture today, there really is not much of either here today. There is no western culture here whatsoever, no cowboys, no ranches...Kansas City has those. The Southern culture St. Louis has today is very limited, and got here in much the same way as it did in Chicago and other Midwestern cities like these two. It was brought up from the Mississippi Delta...jazz, blues, bbq, etc...all that wasn't here before the 1920s...St. Louis is often called the westernmost eastern city, KC the easternmost western city. Chicago is a Great Lakes city, but is very unique because it grew and developed differently than almost any other city in the Midwest. There is no city in the Midwest like Chicago, or really any city for that matter. Chicago's culture and architecture is noticeably different from New York and Boston. It almost seems as though you are trying to say the Midwest doesn't exist, which is far from true. In any case, both are Midwestern cities in Midwestern states. And St. Louis and Chicago are definitely the most unique cities in the Midwest, that much is undebatable. Cincinnati and Kansas City actually bear a lot of similarities to St. Louis.

[ajf131]

Originally Posted by Central Illinois 1

I agree 100% with your post. But I think that outsiders who have never been to St.Louis often perceive it as being conservative, bible belt because it is located in Missouri. (which, of course, isn't viewed by most people as a liberal mecca). If St. Louis were located across the river in Illinois, the perception would be different I think. Obviously, outstate MO is very different than St. Louis socially and politically. But, oftentimes, outsiders don't make that distinction. I ran into alot of people with this view of St. louis in both California and in midwestern cities further north including Chicago, Detroit, and Milwaukee.

Missouri and Kansas are in the Bible Belt, and big chunks of Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio definitely are as well (I would say mainly the southern halves of these states.) Nonetheless, you still have liberal cities in these states. If you want to know the truth. Indianapolis, Cincinnati, and Springfield, Missouri are much more conservative than St. Louis is. Kansas City is overall more liberal. Missouri is not even the most conservative state in the Midwest. Indiana is far more conservative. Up until this past election, Indiana had been voting Republican for almost 60 years. Illinois I think without Chicago might be a red state as well.

[CarrieNeno]

I agree with you there. St Louis Central Corridor, Columbia, and Kansas City are the only reason why Missouri isn't a purebred red state.

[ajf131]

Originally Posted by CarrieNeno

I agree with you there. St Louis Central Corridor, Columbia, and Kansas City are the only reason why Missouri isn't a purebred red state.

Same thing I would say with Illinois. Take out Chicago, and you more than likely will get a red state. Same with Ohio if you took out Columbus and Cleveland.

[rgb123]

afj. I think you mistake me on my post about history. I'm not denying anything. I think you are sensitive about St. Louis being midwestern, and that has nothing to do with my post.

It's about American history and it's place in gegoraphy of the US. Period. St. Louis and Chicago played very differnt roles and St. Louis was far more established in our history than Chicago. Western and Southern had entirely different meanings then, and it still plays an interesting role when studying history, settlement patterns, geneaology, architecture, etc. that is what makes it unique.

[crystalblue]

Originally Posted by ajf131

Same thing I would say with Illinois. Take out Chicago, and you more than likely will get a red state. Same with Ohio if you took out Columbus and Cleveland.

that would be true of almost every state

take out the big cities, and almost the whole country is red.

President - Election Center 2008 - Elections & Politics from CNN.com

[ajf131]

Originally Posted by rgb123

afj. I think you mistake me on my post about history. I'm not denying anything. I think you are sensitive about St. Louis being midwestern, and that has nothing to do with my post.

It's about American history and it's place in gegoraphy of the US. Period. St. Louis and Chicago played very differnt roles and St. Louis was far more established in our history than Chicago. Western and Southern had entirely different meanings then, and it still plays an interesting role when studying history, settlement patterns, geneaology, architecture, etc. that is what makes it unique.

St. Louis IS Midwestern. If you perceive me being sensitive about it, it's because I don't like when people try and tweak the truth. As far as Chicago goes...it is actually one of the newer established cities in the Midwest. St. Louis, Detroit, and Cleveland all emerged at around the same time as major industrial cities. At any rate, if you are talking about western and southern having different meanings back then, yes I completely agree with that. No arguments here. I agree that back in the day, St. Louis definitely was the beginning of the West.