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.
to call st. louis "dead" only illustrates your ignorance of the city.
I would hop on Shameless Ground's c**k all the time if it were in Mpls (to use a metaphor in keeping with the vibe of that one-of-a-kind coffee shop) and although it's located in Fox Park and not counted above in the most walkable of St Louis' neighborhoods it's one of many examples of a compromised but budding urban neighborhood. You're being overly defensive and reading what's not being written. I said St Louis has "more dead urban density" which is worlds apart from saying that "St Louis is dead" since one leaves no possibility of "alive" parts of the city to exist and is a simplistic generalization (what I didn't say) whereas the other acknowledges that there are lively parts of the city despite having a higher number of uninhabited/dead structures (what I did say).
Sorry, but there is no denying that St. Louis looks and feels more urban than Minneapolis. It's not even close. Below are bird's eye views of AVERAGE St. Louis City neighborhoods, not just on the South Side, but some are also on the North Side. Average Minneapolis neighborhoods do not have this kind of eastern-style density and orientation, it's more of a prairie-style, Mrs. Poole looking town. Anyone who visits both cities and doesn't have a vision problem would agree that St. Louis is much more urban at street level. However, I do agree that Minneapolis trumps St. Louis in terms of modern urban infill.
Location: Jefferson City 4 days a week, St. Louis 3 days a week
2,709 posts, read 5,093,568 times
Reputation: 1028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlajos
It was a swing state, it hasn't been for a while unfortunately.
Only one election, ten years at most if you really want to get dirty with it. Until I see numerous examples of how Missouri isn't a swing state, and I'm talking several decades worth, don't say Missouri is not a swing state.
The question comes down to what is urban. Rowhouses might look dense but the mixed blocks of brownstone apartments and single family houses that Minneapolis has have more people. I guess it is a question of visual density or practical density. I like both cities but I think people overrate the urbanity of rowhouses vs the streetcar suburbia apartments in a forest thing that Minneapolis has going on. I think it is driven entirely on visuals because the numbers all say Minneapolis is significantly denser and more urban.
Last edited by Drewcifer; 12-16-2012 at 12:12 AM..
KC is getting hammered in this poll. I started a different thread to also include St Louis in with KC just to be fair since Minneapolis has St Paul in it's metro.
I'm pretty certain we've already acknowledged that St. Louis is more structurally dense than Minneapolis, but that's it......there isn't the population in St. Louis to trump Minneapolis on population density, which isn't the be-all, end-all either. so while St. Louis has the bones Minneapolis has the blood -- which is more important when it comes to being "urban"? I think you need both, to be honest.
The question comes down to what is urban. Rowhouses might look dense but the mixed blocks of brownstone apartments and single family houses that Minneapolis has have more people. I guess it is a question of visual density or practical density. I like both cities but I think people overrate the urbanity of rowhouses vs the streetcar suburbia apartments in a forest thing that Minneapolis has going on. I think it is driven entirely on visuals because the numbers all say Minneapolis is significantly denser and more urban.
I'm pretty certain we've already acknowledged that St. Louis is more structurally dense than Minneapolis, but that's it......there isn't the population in St. Louis to trump Minneapolis on population density, which isn't the be-all, end-all either. so while St. Louis has the bones Minneapolis has the blood -- which is more important when it comes to being "urban"? I think you need both, to be honest.
i would agree with this assessment if you're talking about overall city vibrancy, however there are a many neighborhoods in st. louis that do not struggle with vacancy and are as urban and vibrant as any neighborhood in any peer city, where the "bones" are utilized, occupied and sought-after. people tend to have a misconception that st. louis is an empty city, which couldn't be further from the truth.
The question comes down to what is urban. Rowhouses might look dense but the mixed blocks of brownstone apartments and single family houses that Minneapolis has have more people. I guess it is a question of visual density or practical density. I like both cities but I think people overrate the urbanity of rowhouses vs the streetcar suburbia apartments in a forest thing that Minneapolis has going on. I think it is driven entirely on visuals because the numbers all say Minneapolis is significantly denser and more urban.
i continue to disagree that minneapolis is more urban than st. louis. st. louis was a top 10 city for over 120 years beginning in 1850. minneapolis was never a top 10 city, not ever. there is a legacy of urbanity, culture, sophistication and overall atmosphere that comes with having held such stature for so long. st. louis is a mature and seasoned major city, with urban infrastructure that came of age parallel to the great cities of the east coast. walk scores and population density don't tell the whole story. there are way too many intangibles that contribute to a sense of place. st. louis was built to be a very big city and blossomed during the gilded age. the fabric that remains-- much of which is healthy, inhabited and vibrant-- is in a league above almost anything that exists in the midwest save for chicago. i say this as a philadelphia native who knows a thing or two about the stuff cities are made of.
i continue to disagree that minneapolis is more urban than st. louis. st. louis was a top 10 city for over 120 years beginning in 1850. minneapolis was never a top 10 city, not ever. there is a legacy of urbanity, culture, sophistication and overall atmosphere that comes with having held such stature for so long. st. louis is a mature and seasoned major city, with urban infrastructure that came of age parallel to the great cities of the east coast. walk scores and population density don't tell the whole story. there are way too many intangibles that contribute to a sense of place. st. louis was built to be a very big city and blossomed during the gilded age. the fabric that remains-- much of which is healthy, inhabited and vibrant-- is in a league above almost anything that exists in the midwest save for chicago. i say this as a philadelphia native who knows a thing or two about the stuff cities are made of.
let me be the first here to welcome you to the 21st century
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.
, ten years at most if you really want to get dirty with it. Until I see numerous examples of how Missouri isn't a swing state, and I'm talking several decades worth, don't say Missouri is not a swing state.
