Chicago vs saint louis (Noble, Humboldt: living in, trendy, place)

[linicx]

You can fly or take a train to Chicago for the weekend, too. Yoiu will also find a lot of large festivals and events - like one of the largest night time Christmas Parades and displays in America - between central Illinois and St. Louis, as well as the largest inland Wetlands with 13,000 cares of waer if you happen to like nature. There are many quick and fun get-away trips for a day or a weekend. I always saved Chicago for 3-4 day mini-vacations

[STLCardsBlues1989]

Sorry to bring up a nearly month old thread.

I did want to throw my two cents in and see if there is an update.

I've only visited Chicago. It was a lot of fun, but it obviously there's a lot more traffic and it's more expensive to live in.

I guess it really depends on what you are looking for. They're hard to compare since they are so different in size. Of course, St. Louis does have museums and the zoo and the sports teams, so there's quite a bit to do. Although attractions aren't the only reasons people pick places. And you could always visit Chicago on a weekend if you lived in St. Louis.

St. Louis is more affordable and smaller. It doesn't offer as much as Chicago does, but St. Louis does offer a lot. I think how much each transfer pays makes a lot of difference, because Chicago is a more expensive city.

I really love St. Louis, though I don't live there. I've visited Chicago once. I had a blast. I wouldn't want to live there, though. Too big. Too crowded. Too expensive. That said, every person is different. It really depends on how much you can spend on rent and stuff and how big of a city you want. It's hard to compare the cities because they are so different in size.

[Swandaddy]

Originally Posted by STLCardsBlues1989

It really depends on how much you can spend on rent and stuff and how big of a city you want. It's hard to compare the cities because they are so different in size.

That's true; however historically I think these two cities are significantly related to each other in that at one point StL was like the 3rd or 4th biggest city in the nation, had the Olympics and World Fair/etc and somehow Chicago passed it up and became the biggest city in the midwest.

That would be an interesting discussion--how/why Chicago became what it is and how/why StL became what it is when it could probably have been just as easily the other way around.

[Avengerfire]

Originally Posted by Swandaddy

That's true; however historically I think these two cities are significantly related to each other in that at one point StL was like the 3rd or 4th biggest city in the nation, had the Olympics and World Fair/etc and somehow Chicago passed it up and became the biggest city in the midwest.

That would be an interesting discussion--how/why Chicago became what it is and how/why StL became what it is when it could probably have been just as easily the other way around.

Chicago already was the largest city in the midwest in 1904. It passed up St. Louis within a couple of years of the great Chicago fire.

Chicago was already way larger (twice as large) than St. Louis when St. Louis had the Olympics and Chicago got robbed of that Olympics. It was awarded to Chicago and then taken away. Look it up.

St. Louis had somewhere between 600,000 and 690,000 in 1904.
Chicago had somewhere between 1.6 million and 2 million in 1904.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Louis,_Missouri

http://tigger.uic.edu/depts/ahaa/ima...mcclendon.html

[Milwaukee City]

Saint Louis who?

[Drover]

Originally Posted by Swandaddy

That would be an interesting discussion--how/why Chicago became what it is and how/why StL became what it is when it could probably have been just as easily the other way around.

Chicago's rise to prominence can be traced back to connecting the inland waterways to the Great Lakes by canal, making it the link between two huge shipping lanes. Then came the railroads; then came the manufacturing and processing plants because the raw materials could easily be shipped in from any part of the country and the finished goods just as easily shipped back out. Then came the exchange markets to buy and sell all this stuff along with the banks to manage all the money for the buying and selling, then came the insurance companies and law firms to provide logistic services to all these companies. And of course you needed a large labor pool to build and maintain all this stuff and the related infrastructure. And with huge coal fields just to the south (think Coal City), it was nearly effortless to provide the necessary energy to fuel all this growth.

St. Louis' chance to become the prominent Midwest city all but died on account of the Union blockade during the Civil War.

To see a vivid illustration of Chicago's legacy as a transportation hub, just take a look at Amtrak's service map:

http://www.trainsamerica.co.uk/images/USA_RailPassMapcopy.jpg (broken link)

[smoking357]

Originally Posted by Cincinnati boy

I'm from Denver Colorado and currently my job transferred to both cities Chicago and st. Louis I was wondering what city should I choose since it does not matter what city I choose I was wondering what do they have in saint Louise I been to Chicago many times but what city wins I need your help I need to know before next month.

Chicago isn't Chicago, any more. It's gone.

Go to St. Louis. You'll be happier, in so many ways.

[jlawrence01]

Originally Posted by Drover

To see a vivid illustration of Chicago's legacy as a transportation hub, just take a look at Amtrak's service map:

A far more compelling argument would be to show the freight lines as opposed to the Amtrak system map.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by jlawrence01

A far more compelling argument would be to show the freight lines as opposed to the Amtrak system map.

Here, this better?

http://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/images-magazine/2010/30/BB/201030BBM913.gif (broken link)

[STLCardsBlues1989]

If the China Hub deal comes through for St. Louis (which it sounds like it will, but nothing is set in stone), St. Louis will probably grow a bit, though it won't be a huge change overnight. Even just two cargo flights a week between St. Louis and China will probably mean some development near Lambert airport. Hopefully it'll grow from there. It's a good start anyway. Being smaller had advantages (for St. Louis) in this case, because O'Hare was too busy and too crowded in by development for this project.

To the OP, just spend some time in each, look at what you can afford, how big of a city you want and stuff like that. If you just want to live in Chicago for the entertainment but you couldn't afford to live there, then you could always live in St. Louis and take weekend trips to Chicago. It wouldn't be the same as living there, but it's been my experience that most people can't afford to go out every single night anyway. It's also about the same distance to Memphis and KC from St. Louis. So there are those possibilities.

Chicago does have a lot of advantages. Larger tax base. Probably less blight (at least proportionately based on the city's size). Chicago has a much better media image. There's more to do in Chicago of course. It has a lot of charm. The public transit is good. There are disadvantages to Chicago as well. From my brief visit there, it seemed like everything was more expensive. There's a lot more traffic. Chicago has more snow and is known for being a bit colder. St. Louis can be unbearably hot in the summer. Both obviously have stark contrasts between the seasons.

I do think St. Louis is on the right track. The Downtown area has gotten a lot better in the last ten years. The China Hub sounds like it might come through. Some construction in the city is ongoing. St. Louis is in the running for the 2012 DNC. Things appear to be starting to move in the right direction. It's not Chicago, though, and obviously it won't be.

The sports fans are pretty fanatical on both sides.
Here's a St. Louis video which is interesting. Granted, it shows the positives of the city. It's supposed to. St. Louis, like any city, has its negatives, too.
http://www.stlrcga.org/x2929.xml

There are plans to redo the Arch grounds. In 2014, I-70 will be rerouted. It'll pass over the Poplar Street Bridge just to the south of Downtown. From there it'll go into Illinois. The highway to the north will come down from the north and pass over the new bridge north of Downtown. Most of the bids to redo the Arch Grounds have included turning (what will then not be I-70 in the middle of Downtown anymore) into a Boulevard. That should reconnect the arch and the city again. But that won't be for a few more years.

This video about Cardinal Culture is pretty neat as well
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NdbxUc2iqU
The Blues have a very good following as well and the Rams are getting there. The Dome sounded really loud on TV last Sunday.

At my last Cardinal game I was talking to fans from Arkansas, northern Illinois, and Kentucky. The guy from Arkansas said St. Louis felt really Midwestern and the guy from northern Illinois thought St. Louis seemed southern. It's just a matter of perspective in some ways I think.

I don't think St. Louis could have really done anything to become Chicago. Granted, St. Louis did make bad decisions over the years, but, while it has a great geographic location, the transportation systems (as listed above) and Chicago's location really helped it.

I don't live in St. Louis, but I always enjoy visiting and I know people who live there and we visit often. I really enjoy it and I know a fair amount about it. St. Louis doesn't have the same fanfare that Chicago does, but St. Louis is a pretty good city (albeit much smaller than Chicago) in its own right. Any city has its positives and negatives. Each person just has to decide what city is best for them.