St. Louis vs Chicago (cost, better, compare, place) - City vs. City - City-Data Forum

Stechkin · 06-09-2013, 01:41 AM

Pros/Cons, how are these metros similar and different, local mindset, culture, nightlife, what kind of person would each of them fit.

mjtinmemphis · 06-09-2013, 05:25 AM

It's been years since living in St. Louis and I will be making my return within 12 months.

A single man you can't beat Chicago. There are too many social opportunities for anyone in Chicago. You will never run out of things to do and the money is here!

St. Louis makes a great medium. Kind of like the baby brother syndrome. Low cost of living plenty to do but not on par with Chicago at all. Great place to raise a family. At the same time I never had a problem making friends or establishing a social network in either city.

Chicago has lake Michigan and superior architecture IMO and energy St. Louis could only dream about. St.Louis has rolling hills, greenery and better parks.

Both cities pride themselves on being the city of neighborhoods but Chicago is a bit more intense with it. Both are midwestern in behavior. St.Louis some say the question is where you go to high school. Chicago is where did you grow up (as in neighborhood). Both are irritating as hell to me.

Both cities have their reputation on the top 10 most segregated cities but I would say Chicago is a bit different because it's a multi racial city were as St Louis has diversified over the past 10 years but is still black and white. I never experienced the racism anywhere that I've experienced I've Chicago from just everyday people.

Chicago politicians are very corrupt St Louis politicians don't promote their city. There is so much more to say but don't have time.

Both are great cities within their own but they are so so different because of size.

Dawn10am · 06-09-2013, 12:25 PM

Even though this is a very unfair comparison, I'll go ahead and add my $0.02. Keep in mind I've never lived in Chicago, but have visited several times.

I've always thought of St. Louis as a smaller, watered-down version of Chicago. It's got your typical old-school, gritty, Catholic city feel with a few ethnic neighborhoods and a ton of history, but its nowhere near as extensive as Chicago. St. Louis definitely punches above its weight in terms of amenities due to its lingering history of being a much more important city and this compares very favorably to our peer cities, but still not as many amenities as the juggernaut to our north.

I think the biggest pro of St. Louis over Chicago is its value. It's big enough to feel like a real city and has enough energy to not be boring, but its still small enough to be manageable and cheap. You get a lot for what you pay for here since the cost of living is ridiculously low, and it's very easy to make your mark without getting lost in the multitudes. It's also very exciting to watch the city come back to life after decades of urban decay. There's parts of St. Louis that are totally reinvented now that 10-20 years ago were skid row and it's cool to be a part of that. It seems like Chicago is more of a completed picture and the residents get to just enjoy that, rather than having to work for it like in St. Louis. However much a person gets out of St. Louis depends on how much effort they put into enjoying it, whereas in Chicago it seems like everything is just there for the taking.

The biggest con of St. Louis is that a large segment of the local population likes to abuse it. They're still stuck in the old mindset that St. Louis is over and is a has-been without realizing the incredible opportunities the city has to reinvent itself, whereas nobody really doubts Chicago's greatness. A lot of these opportunities are currently being realized by the younger generation and by transplants who really appreciate the city, but the older natives still present a lingering problem (which I suspect will naturally work itself out in the next decades).

STLgasm · 06-09-2013, 01:23 PM

Wow, this is a crazy comparison. I think the above comments are pretty much spot on. Chicago's modern architecture kills St. Louis, but I think St. Louis' historic residential architecture is superior to Chicago's (can't beat our red brick)!

Every time I go to Chicago, I meet people who are from St. Louis, but when I start talking to them, they are from the suburbs and aren't even the slightest bit familiar with St. Louis City beyond an occasional ballgame. In that regard, it's kind of annoying because it seems like Chicago is a magnet for young suburban sorority and fraternity types from St. Louis, Detroit, Cleveland, etc who move there because it's the "safe" big city, but who never bothered to explore their hometowns. This is no fault of Chicago of course, but I do think it's interesting that St. Louis tends to weed out the posers who expect their stimulation to be spoon-fed to them. St. Louis, on the other hand, is more scrappy and challenging-- the younger generation is really passionate about the city and appreciate being part of a work-in-progress.

I love Chicago-- my mom is from Albany Park and it's in my blood-- but St. Louis is more "me." I'm glad the two cities are relatively close, and I think we should all be friends!

mjtinmemphis · 06-09-2013, 01:43 PM

Let the young suburban sorority types stay in Chicago. Trust me, you don't want them!

I was having a conversation with one the other day who told me how hard it was to get around after a night of partying and how there was nothing to do. After digging deeper, they lived in Maryland Heights. She worked in the Central West End and didn't know where the Delmar Loop was but she was convinced that downtown St. Louis was nothing but section 8 lofts and how dead it was outside of work hours and sporting events.

My conversation was soon cut off but that shows how silly the dialog can get with the type of people you referenced.

Dawn10am · 06-09-2013, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by STLgasm

Every time I go to Chicago, I meet people who are from St. Louis, but when I start talking to them, they are from the suburbs and aren't even the slightest bit familiar with St. Louis City beyond an occasional ballgame. In that regard, it's kind of annoying because it seems like Chicago is a magnet for young suburban sorority and fraternity types from St. Louis, Detroit, Cleveland, etc who move there because it's the "safe" big city, but who never bothered to explore their hometowns.

This is SO true. I meet people here in St. Louis all the time who say that the city is boring and there's nothing to do and that Chicago is soooooo much better. And then I find out that they live in St. Charles County and only come to the City for sporting events. I'm like "DUH! No wonder you think it's boring!"

cali3448893 · 06-09-2013, 06:56 PM

lol i voted for st. louis along with another clueless poster.

cali3448893 · 06-09-2013, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mjtinmemphis

Let the young suburban sorority types stay in Chicago. Trust me, you don't want them!

I was having a conversation with one the other day who told me how hard it was to get around after a night of partying and how there was nothing to do. After digging deeper, they lived in Maryland Heights. She worked in the Central West End and didn't know where the Delmar Loop was but she was convinced that downtown St. Louis was nothing but section 8 lofts and how dead it was outside of work hours and sporting events.

My conversation was soon cut off but that shows how silly the dialog can get with the type of people you referenced.

Yeah those suburban people especially in Chicago are just...their life is waking up going to panera, going to their daughter and sons sporting events and going nuts even though its not a big deal, than they maybe go to the woodfeild mall spend 500 dollars on some new pai of shoes so their kids can look like they have swag, the parents also want swag too...then they eat dinner at a Italian restaurant.

marothisu · 06-09-2013, 07:50 PM

St. Louis is an older, much much much smaller half version of Chicago with less cultural offerings, less opportunity (sorry St. Louis), less nightlife, architecture, etc. I do agree that St. Louis has some underrated architecture, but people not familiar with Chicago may be surprised at some of its older architecture too. A ton of beautiful stuff, but Chicago has a lot more modern buildings as well. I also don't think St. Louis' parks are any better than Chicago's - I think both have great parks.

IMO the comparison is a little unfair. I think a better comparison to St. Louis would be something like Cincinnati. St. Louis is a nice smaller city, though the city has been going through some rough times too, but it's still definitely not the worst place you could be. I just don't think you can compare it to a behemoth like Chicago. Cincinnati, Cleveland, etc are better comparisons.

RH3Flatlander · 06-09-2013, 08:08 PM

If I had to live in a mid-sized metro, St. Louis would be in my top 5 for sure. But yeah, I tend to agree that this comparison just isn't really fair. Chicago wins in almost every category one could think of. That said, when comparing a city like Chicago with St. Louis, I think the real question is, do you prefer living in larger or smaller cities. Because a lot of what is attractive to people who would choose St. Louis over Chicago is the scale of the city, not so much the extracurriculars.