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.
There is a word being bandied around here that means nothing. "Bigger". Bigger does not prove Better. Bigger may or may not provide opportunity for Better but it does not prove it. Sometimes bigger just means harder to deal with.
Bigger in terms of how many towns? Hasn't the state just asked St Louis County to combine some of its multitudinous towns and villages into fewer but larger cities, large enough for a good central government? Not going to happen, I almost agree. But it says something about "bigger" or "more" or any other such superlative.
And what about those winding streets that keep me getting lost? I wonder how many extra miles you have to drive from here to there on a street that keeps turning in one direction after another and sometimes even winds back on itself. A simple grid may not be a pretty but it gets you there faster and calmer. For artistic beauty, I'll take SL streets (with someone else driving). For utility and ease of transport, I'll take KC's grid.
Oh please KC's get so much butthurt when they're put in their place. Might as well lock 'em in a cage and throw away the key.
Have you read any of my posts? I am probably one of the biggest supporters of StL from a non resident on city data. I have even stated that I actually prefer it over KC, although my preference has gone back to KC simply because I think they have a more livable downtown with a brighter future. Ten years ago, I would have chosen StL, but I do think KC is starting to pull away from StL as far as urban core living. I would still choose StL over KC in a heartbeat if I didn't want to live Downtown or Midtown. Suburban StL blows away suburban KC (both inner and outer suburbs).
It's ridiculous for people to say that KC is a larger city than StL. But it's also ridiculous to think the cities are not actually quite comparable today. It's not 1910 anymore and the vast majority of growth and change in StL has been in the metro area while the city has actually lost a lot of ground to not only KC, but most other major cities in this country. KC has too, but not as much as StL has.
That doesn't mean that StL is a slouch of a city. Not in the slightest, but it is absolutely a comparable city to Kansas City today. I would honestly say the only real differences are that the metro is larger (more suburbs), StL has more urban neighborhoods in both the city and inner suburbs and the entire metro is less fragmented with less leapfrog development (except metro east IL which is actually worse than metro KC). Actually metro east is like 3/4 of a million people in the STL MSA and it doesn't even feel like it's part of the metro it's so rural and undeveloped from the highways and development is very spread out. The MO side of StL is about the same size as KC in both MO and KS. My point is that metro StL feels like the IL side is not connected to the MO side so it only feels as large as the MO side by itself. If that makes any sense. StL still feels larger than KC though because the MO side of STL is very densely developed.
Anyway. There are things about StL that still trump KC. Metro Rail (StL bus system still sucks though). Better airport, much nicer suburbs, better topography (suburbs only, KC has better downtown topography), better downtown sports venues, forest park is amazing, etc etc.
But KC has plenty going on as well. The Plaza is so much more than just the retail portion. It's the entire area form the Stowers Institute / UMKC / Nelson Museum to Loose Park to south of Wesport. That area is full of great urban neighborhoods of all kinds. When I think of the Plaza, I think of the entire district and while I'm a huge fan of Central West End, it's nowhere near the scale of the plaza "area". The Barnes Hospital is huge, but it also nearly dominates the area. The plaza is more mixed use and diverse.
Speaking of the P&L district. At least KC has a place for suburbanites and tourists. Ballpark village? There is a reason that 95% of Cards fans leave as soon as possible after games and don't hang around. A few make their way over to Wash Ave etc, but most just get out of there. Having something like the P&L district would help suburbanites feel more comfortable sticking around.
You also can't compare the relatively small neighborhood of Westport to Midtown StL. You can compare both midtowns to each other which would include Westport though. And Westport is a far cry from white suburbanites. That's the P&L district. Westport and W39 are both very eclectic districts.
And the River Market is every bit of a cultural experience as Soulard on Saturdays. I really think StL people need to spend a little more time in KC. Just like more KC people need to spend more time in StL.
St Louis does not have anything like the Crossroads just like KC has nothing like the Hill. KC has NFL and MLS. StL Has NHL and StL University college sports. Both cities have a lot to offer.
StL still has the urban edge over KC. It just feels like a more established and urban city. It's similar to comparing KC to Charlotte or Nashville. Charlotte has a huge skyline, but it's not as urban feeling as KC. Same thing.
But you guys are nuts thinking that KC and STL are not nearly peers. You need to get out more. They are much closer in size and importance than StL people will ever admit today.
"But St. Louis is bigger"
"But St. Louis is older"
And?
I understand some St. Louisians fancy themselves to be Chicago's rival but in truth St. Louis is more like Kansas City. Like it or not this is a very good matchup. This isn't 1904
Shindig, please clarify something that has kept me confused ever since I moved to SL. I never know whether someone is talking about Saint Louis city or Saint Louis County when all they say is St Louis. It is amazing how many things are happening in St Louis that are really located in Chesterfield of South County or - in one case I remember, in St Charles County. There is a hotel in St Charles that is listed on a web site as in St Louis. For those not in the know, St Charles is across the Missouri River from St Louis County.
I suppose the same could be said of Kansas City even if the names are different. But, it does seem more so when city and county have the same name. Let's just take population. Are you talking city or county? Without a head for numbers, I am guessing city but is that it?
??? Midtown St. Louis is not comparable to West Port. West Port is a nice little area, but the Delmar Loop in STL is FAR more interesting, diverse, bigger and busier. West Port seems to draw a very white suburban crowd. The Loop is extremely diverse, and its proximity to Wash. U. doesn't hurt.
Is that a joke? The Delmar Loop is in a suburb
It's full of douche-ee franchises. I like the Loop, it's actually the best hood in STL. But that's how boring STL is, that a suburb is it's best neighborhood. The Loop is one street. Westport is MUCH LARGER, it runs from Warwick Blvd to State Line (east-west) and from 39th St to 43rd St (north-south). Westport has 4 major arteries lined with commerce. Westport is much more urban and 10X more interesting than the Loop. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree and let others decide for themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by STLgasm
I can certainly respect your opinion on this, but these two neighborhoods are not really comparable other than the fact they both have some luxurious historic high-rise residential buildings. The Plaza is, in effect, an outdoor shopping mall that happens to occupy pretty old buildings. Not much there in terms of amenities that you can't find in any typical suburban mall, although the atmosphere is very charming and interesting and it's certainly a unique attraction. The CWE has a much more authentic neighborhood appeal and more of diverse urban character overall, and also a HUGE employment center (BJC).
Sorry man, the CWE is nice, but it's not even in the same class as the Plaza for beauty, amenities, shops, restaurants, live music, museums - it's not even close. The Plaza is a complete neighborhood; with towering high-rises, tons of shops and restaurants, museums and office towers. It has everything the CWE has but with 10X better shopping and restaurants. The Plaza is simply in a class by itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by STLgasm
I completely disagree with you here. River Market is nice, but something about a gussied up farmer's market just sort of ruins it for me. It lacks authenticity. Soulard (especially on a Saturday) is alive with all kinds of action and sights and sounds and smells. It's the oldest continually operating farmer's market west of the Mississippi (1779), so it's not going to be quite as pretty because it doesn't try so hard to be a "cool" destination as much as it tries to actually serve a purpose as a market where people from all walks can come for fresh food and great bargains. This is just a matter of taste.
KC's River Market "lacks authenticity?" The City Market is the oldest neighborhood in KC dating back to the 1870s. Man you are using desperation tactics to claim an entire neighborhood built from 1880s-1930s "lacks authenticity. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree but I'm losing respect for you with the falsehoods. You know both cities better than that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by STLgasm
LOL. "Art District" as a label is so ridiculous in my opinion. Can you imagine underground New York artists ever wanting to live or work in the "Arts District"? Well depending on what you're looking for St. Louis has Grand Center in Midtown with all kinds of fine arts venues and organizations, galleries, theaters and artists in residence.
Underground art scene - Cherokee Street on the South Side
Artists lofts can be found scattered throughout Midtown/Grand Center and Downtown/Downtown West
The neighborhood was founded as "The Crossroads" because KC was and is the #2 railroad hub (behind Chicago) and the tracks ran under this neighborhood. In the 80s when the artists started to convert the millions of sq ft warehouses into studios and lofts the name added the tag "Art District." Sour grapes much? KC has the best art scene in the midwest and most other cities for a reason. The neighborhood is known locally as "The Crossroads" to locals, I'm inserting "art district" for reader's benefit. STL has no comparison. Cherokee Street is tiny and fairly lame (other than your shop).
Quote:
Originally Posted by STLgasm
I don't think St. Louis has a direct parallel to Crown Center, but in terms of clustering of major attractions, it doesn't get better than Forest Park-- home to the Art Museum, Science Center, History Museum, Muny Opera, the Zoo, bike trails, boat rentals, golf courses, endless festivals and events throughout the year.
Agreed, STL has no equal for Crown Center. Forest Park is a park, not an entertainment district.
It's a poor and desperate comparison as parks should be compared with other parks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by STLgasm
The Hill > Columbus Park
As single entities - agreed. However you have to add the City Market to Columbus Park as it's right there also. The Hill has the restaurants but no shopping, no high-rises, no live music, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by STLgasm
City Museum > Lego Land
As single entities - agreed. But again, you have to compare the entire neighborhood. Besides LEGOLand Crown Center has the mall, skating rink, SEA Aquarium, Union Station, Science City, Liberty Memorial WWI Museum. All of these attractions are together in Crown Center.
Quote:
Originally Posted by STLgasm
South Grand/Tower Grove = ? in KC? Not Waldo, not Brookside
Agreed, for residential neighborhoods STL has the edge - clearly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by STLgasm
Lafayette Square (STL) = ? in KC?
Agreed, for residential neighborhoods STL has the edge - clearly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by STLgasm
Soulard/Benton Park (STL) = ? in KC?
Agreed, for residential neighborhoods STL has the edge - clearly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by STLgasm
The Grove/Forest Park Southeast (STL) = ? in KC? Does KC even have a concentrated gay scene? St. Louis has a pretty vibrant scene in various neighborhoods, but the Grove has become the de facto center of late-night gay nightlife for the younger crowds especially. The streets are literally packed after midnight every Thurs-Sat.
I'll grant you that STL is "gayer" than KC...that's my guess as I have no info on that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by STLgasm
Cherokee Street (STL) = ? in KC? It's the underground music/art/film/design/experimental hub with a heavy Latino presence and an extreme mix of cultures and demographics and loads of grit, DIY spirit and an unparalleled sense of community and collaboration. You won't see flashy signs welcoming you to Cherokee Street, it just is what it is and it doesn't care. If you're here to create something, find a space and get to it. It's urban authenticity at its best IMO and few places with that combination exist in the entire country. It is completely organic with no master plan or single vision. It just evolves naturally, and it's awesome.
Sorry, I'm not a big fan of Cherokee St. yet. I've walked it, drove it, even made some purchases at your shop and it's funky, gritty, but not vibrant and certainly not "artistic" in the true sense. It has a lot of potential, get back to me in 10-15 years. KCs West 39th Street neighborhood beats it, and I haven't even mentioned that area of KC yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by STLgasm
Bevo (STL) = ? in KC? This South Side neighborhood is the epicenter of the largest population of Bosnians outside of Bosnia.
KC has a similar Somalian hood on Lexington Ave and Brooklyn Ave. I know about STL's "Bosnians" and am not impressed. KC's large Mexican Districts on the West Side, the Northeast Side (Independence Ave) and Central Avenue in KCK are far more "ethnic" with hundreds of Mexican and Hispanic restaurants, food carts and cafes. KC has about 400,000 Hispanics on both sides of the state line that have created their own neighborhoods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by STLgasm
STL academia > KC academia
STL has the edge - clearly. FYI KC has the new UMKC Arts Campus being built downtown about to break ground. The new performing arts campus downtown will put UMKC in the top league of prestigious performing arts Universities. Additionally the Kansas City University of Medicine and Biosciences on the northeast side of downtown continues to build to it's campus and is growing fast.
Quote:
Originally Posted by STLgasm
There's just a general sense that St. Louis has more going on overall at any given time. Which should not be surprising because it's a bigger market.
This is simply not true at all. KC has more "going on" in the city compared to STL.
Live music, restaurants, art galleries, small music festivals - KC is the younger, more vibrant, and more interesting city with more to do. If you're into huge suburban districts full of franchises sprawled all over the county you may prefer the STL Metro area over KC metro.
Last edited by Gene Merill; 04-08-2016 at 11:33 AM..
Ten years ago, I would have chosen StL, but I do think KC is starting to pull away from StL as far as urban core living. I would still choose StL over KC in a heartbeat if I didn't want to live Downtown or Midtown. Suburban StL blows away suburban KC (both inner and outer suburbs).
I enjoy your comments but please stop confusing the thread with your constant chatter about the STL suburbs being so great. This thread is about the city of STL vs the city of KCMO. You probably know both cities better than anyone on this forum and it seems as though you're wasting a lot of time discussing the inner ring and Clayton, making STL look better than it is. We have enough Loop, Clayton and St Charles hype from the desperate STL boosters.
Last edited by Gene Merill; 04-08-2016 at 12:05 PM..
StL still has the urban edge over KC. It just feels like a more established and urban city. It's similar to comparing KC to Charlotte or Nashville. Charlotte has a huge skyline, but it's not as urban feeling as KC. Same thing.
Sorry but that's a poor comparison (KC to Charlotte/Nashville) You're contradicting yourself as you've stated repeatedly that the urban cores of both cities are similar. And you posted photos to prove it.
In the core cities, the only "urban edge" STL has over KC is the residential/housing. KC urban housing does not compare. All other architecture; commercial buildings, residential high-rises and skyscrapers the cores are close with KC having more and better. Look at the new office space numbers just for downtown. KC has nearly a 1/3 more office space than STL. KC also has twice as many downtown residents. http://www.colliers.com/-/media/file...e.pdf?la=en-us(page 9)
Shindig, please clarify something that has kept me confused ever since I moved to SL. I never know whether someone is talking about Saint Louis city or Saint Louis County when all they say is St Louis. It is amazing how many things are happening in St Louis that are really located in Chesterfield of South County or - in one case I remember, in St Charles County. There is a hotel in St Charles that is listed on a web site as in St Louis. For those not in the know, St Charles is across the Missouri River from St Louis County.
I suppose the same could be said of Kansas City even if the names are different. But, it does seem more so when city and county have the same name. Let's just take population. Are you talking city or county? Without a head for numbers, I am guessing city but is that it?
This is just an indication of the metro population as a whole, not the City or County themselves. A lot of times, hotels/restaurants/etc don't take the time to properly state the City or they might use St. Louis because people will recognize the name (especially an out of towner) vs maybe St. Charles.
The City of St. Louis is about 319k. The City of Kansas City is around 470k, without looking up either number. The City of Kansas City is much large in terms of square miles which skews the numbers a bit.
I enjoy your comments but please for the love of God and everything good will you please stop confusing the thread with your constant chatter about the STL suburbs being so great? We've heard you a million times. This thread is about the city of STL vs the city of KCMO. You probably know both cities better than anyone on this forum and you're wasting a lot of time discussing the inner ring and Clayton, making STL look better than it is. We have enough Loop, Clayton and St Charles hype from the desperate STL boosters
We are comparing StL to KC. The good and the bad of each metro I thought. Places like Clayton are an integral part of StL and if you live in StL you will probably take advantage of more than just downtown. I don't see how you don't include areas like Clayton, the Loop etc when comparing the two cities. Does this mean that KC doesn't have pro sports in this comparison because all of the teams play outside the core of city?
I realize that KC's "rivercrownplaza" and the StL City urban corridor from the Riverfront to Central West End are very similar (something StL people don't want to admit), but outside of those corridors, not only in the suburbs, but also in the city itself, STL pulls away from KC. It just does. But since the most interesting parts of both cities in that central urban corridor, KC and StL are very comparable when it comes to their urban cores, actually KC is better. When you start adding in Soulard, The Hill, Forest Park etc, that's where StL starts to show their urban clout.
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.
