Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
dc wins in most measurable categories, but many would be surprised to know that st. louis can actually hold its own pretty well in this matchup. much of this can be attributed to the fact that st. louis proper actually grew to be a larger city than dc ever was. as recently as 1950, st. louis had nearly 857,000 within its 61 square miles. dc also peaked the same year with 802,000 in about the same square mileage. st. louis was the more densely populated of the two as well.
of course times have changed (for both cities), but st. louis certainly retains a wealth of culture and institutions that keep it a contender in many categories.
Which city would you rather live in? Which city has the better:
downtown: DC
nightlife: DC
restaurants: DC
shopping: DC
architecture: DC
sports: STL
culture: TIE
public transportation: DC
museums: DC
parks: DC
schools: DC
diversity: DC
history: DC
concerts: Not Sure
people in general: STL
Of course DC is gonna win... But I'd still choose St. Louis. Personal preference. I just love the place. I guess one of the few categories St. Louis would beat DC in is skyline.
downtown: DC
nightlife: DC
restaurants: Tie (StL is big enough to compete with DC)
shopping: DC (only because of IKEA), other than that, not much difference for what I shop for anyway
architecture: DC
sports: DC
culture: DC
public transportation: DC
museums: DC
parks: DC although Forest Park is a top big city park
schools: Tie
diversity: DC
history: DC
concerts: DC
people in general: Tie (people are about the same everywhere)
A few others:
Cost of Living : StL
Traffic Congestion: StL
Skyline: StL
Amusement Parks: DC
Airports: DC
Regional Countryside: DC
Safety/Crime: StL
Movie Theaters: StL
Family Friendly Suburbs: StL
StL is a great town, but DC is really in a different league.
However, StL offers something that DC lacks at times. Quality of life. The traffic, parking, congestion and cost of living in DC is at times testing to say the least. As much as DC offers, it can be difficult to take advantage of them due to cost, long commutes, high cost of living in general (lower discretionary income) and doing things like taking in a concert, sporting event or theater can be more of a pain in the ass than an enjoyment. It's almost impossible to take a family to a sporting event downtown on weekday for example without taking a half day off work and not getting home till midnight because of long drives, transit waits etc.
I think it's worth it and I enjoy the rat race of DC, but there is something to be said about a nice sized city of 2-4 million people that has just about everything a much larger city has with far less hassle and cost.
It's obvious that DC is on a different level than StL, but StL would be in my top ten of cities in the country to live in.
Just curious as to the rationale behind ranking StL ahead of DC in this category? StL is one of the few U.S. cities with a higher violent crime rate than DC.
St Louis has some extremely bad areas, but they really are isolated to certain areas of the city. StL City being so small geographically sort of skews the stats and gives the city a much worse crime stat than what it really has. It would be like if the east or southeast side of DC and only a small part of the west side of DC were in the city.
While DC has similar bad areas, the city as a whole and especially the metro as a whole feels somewhat less safe (not really less safe, just more potential for petty crime like auto break ins etc) than metro StL.
Don't get me wrong, I think DC is a safe city in general, but looking at the big picture and not hanging out in ghetto parts of the cities (being an average law abiding citizen), I think StL is a safer city and a safer metro. The police activity and presence after an event at Verizon or Nats stadium borderline police state and even then, those areas of DC can be a bit intimidating late at night compared to StL.
Although the touristry areas of the city, mall area, tidal basin etc seem very safe, so all in all, it's probably a tie in the central city.
But if you look at metro vs metro, I think StL would have far less crime issues in inner and outer suburbs compared to metro DC. It's just a midwest thing I think.
So in the end, I give StL the edge in crime and safety. BTW, DC has one of the safest and nicest subway systems in the country.
I have never felt unsafe in StL City or the suburbs (other than parts of the north side of StL City).
I can't say that about a lot of cities like Baltimore, Philly, Detroit, even Memphis or New Orleans and parts of Chicago, Oakland, LA, Atlanta and NYC.
You can pretty much avoid the bad areas in StL. In Baltimore for example, you go a few blocks from the inner harbor in the wrong way and you are in some pretty bad areas.
BTW, I love cities and they generally don't intimidate me, even in the worst parts of them. I have no problems with any of the cities I listed above.
My point is that StL is far from being one of the worst cities when you actually visit the city rather than just look at crime stats.
St Louis has some extremely bad areas, but they really are isolated to certain areas of the city. StL City being so small geographically sort of skews the stats and give the city a much worse crime stat than what it really has. It would be like if the east or southeast side of DC and only a small part of the west side of DC were in the city.
While DC has similar bad areas, the city as a whole and especially the metro as a whole feels somewhat less safe than metro StL.
Don't get me wrong, I think DC is a safe city in general, but looking at the big picture and not hanging out in ghetto parts of the cities (being an average law abiding citizen), I think StL is a safer city and a safer metro. The police activity and presence after an event at Verizon or Nats stadium borderline police state and even then, those areas of DC can be a bit intimidating late at night compared to StL.
Although the touristry areas of the city, mall area, tidal basin etc seem very safe, so all in all, it's probably a tie in the central city.
But if you look at metro vs metro, I think StL would have far less crime issues in inner and outer suburbs compared to metro DC. It's just a midwest thing I think.
So in the end, I give StL the edge in crime and safety. BTW, DC has one of the safest and nicest subway systems in the country.
I see what you're saying, but I'm not following you on your conclusion. As you state, it's probably a tie in the central city. I agree. But DC in general, like Saint Louis, is a predominantly safe city that happens to have some particularly bad areas, nearly all of which are east of the Anacostia.
For example, west of 16th Street--which represents approximately half of the city--DC has experienced all of two homicides this year, and both of those occured around the same intersection a block west of 16th. West of the Anacostia--an area which includes about 70% of the city's land area and over 450,000 people (a population larger than all of Saint Louis)--DC has recorded 29 homicides, which would place it among the nation's safest large cities. Neighborhoods that were formerly high crime areas--such as Logan Circle and U Street--have yet to record a homicide this year.
Yes, many neighborhoods east of the Anacostia are blighted with high crime rates, but like Saint Louis they represent a comparatively small portion of the city and are easily avoided.
As for the suburban areas, DC is home to some of the most affluent and safe suburban neighborhoods in the country. Arlington, Alexandria, Fairfax, Loudon and Montgomery County all have very low crime rates (both Montgomery and Fairfax counties, with populations at or over 1 million, would rank as among the safest large cities in the country). Even PG County, notorious in recent years for its high crime rate, hit a 10 year low last year, and is on pace to better those numbers this year.
In 2008 (the most recent figures I could find), St. Louis had a murder rate 50% higher than DC, sexual assault and aggravated assault rates that more than twice as high as DC's, a higher rate of robbery, and a property crime rate nearly twice as high as DC's. (United States cities by crime rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
I can't identify a single metric by which Saint Louis could be reasonably considered safer than DC--the only reason one might argue otherwise is because DC's decades-long reputation as a crime-ridden, violent city has proven difficult to shake off.
And for the record, in spite of the numbers I don't think of St. Louis as a particularly unsafe city, either. As you noted, the worst crime is relegated to a handful of particularly bad neighborhoods that are for the most part easily avoided. I'm just not seeing how it could be considered safer than DC, particularly considering the disparity in violent crime statistics.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
