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.
I'm not a particular fan of East St. Louis by any means, but this post just seems off to me.
1. It's across the river from Philadelphia. This would be like going on about Chicago when you're talking about a ghetto in metro Milwaukee. NYC may be "close," but it's still nearly 100 miles away.
2. That argument can be applied to anywhere in the Midwest then, including Chicago. St. Louis is still within 300 miles of Chicago, Kansas City, Memphis, Nashville, Louisville, and Indianapolis. There is nothing like the distances from Philly to NYC or Chicago to Milwaukee, but it's not isolated in rural nothingness either. EStL's location in the St. Louis metro isn't "very rural" either, or at least it didn't used to be. It's boxed in by downtown St. Louis and some fairly sizable Illinois suburbs St. Louis.
3. All three cities are ghettos located immediately across state lines from major cities. Camden actually works better than Gary because both are separated by rivers and both are across from much nicer areas of their anchoring cities. Gary doesn't share that same relationship with Chicago.
1. Camden is nearly a part of the NYC metropolitan area, over 20 million people. St. Louis Metro is roughly 3 million. This along gives a huge nod to Camden. There is SO much more there, and I'm from the midwest. The big east metro areas in no way compare to anything else anywhere in the country, the density and proximity of major cities has no competition in the midwest, NOTHING can compare to that.
2. I never suggested St. Louis metro was rural, but East St. Louis is pretty rural. It was always a small industrial suburb, kind of like a Gary to Chicago as East St. Louis is to St. Louis.
3. Not sure what the river has to do with anything? You can see the Chicago skyline from Gary, of course when you cross the state line you're in South Chicago, not the most desirable part of the city, but I'm not sure what being right across from a "good" area of the city has to do with anything.
I was merely suggesting that Gary and Camden probably have more in common than Camden and East St. Louis. East St. Louis is too small, Gary is still at around 80,000 people.
Do you now understand how East St. Louis is not like most suburbs? Gary Indiana is a suburb of Chicago, it looks nothing like Aurora Illinois another suburb of Chicago.
Now do it for Camden--you'll notice a similarity between it and ESL
Now do it for Camden--you'll notice a similarity between it and ESL
Oh yes, no doubt they look similar. They all have lots of similarities. However, Camden is more urban and dense, where East St. Louis looks like a bombed out Detroit with lots of missing buildings, and outside of downtown East St. Louis, it looks like the Mississippi Delta, just...impoverished and rural as hell. I'm not sure if there are any nice areas in East St. Louis.
I can't believe people are choosing EStL over Camden. There are no decent places to live in EsL unless you live in Metro East (the further east suburban cities in IL). Camden at least has livable areas. While not desirable, it would be better than an EStL shack or dilapidated structure.
1. Camden is nearly a part of the NYC metropolitan area, over 20 million people. St. Louis Metro is roughly 3 million. This along gives a huge nod to Camden. There is SO much more there, and I'm from the midwest. The big east metro areas in no way compare to anything else anywhere in the country, the density and proximity of major cities has no competition in the midwest, NOTHING can compare to that.
2. I never suggested St. Louis metro was rural, but East St. Louis is pretty rural. It was always a small industrial suburb, kind of like a Gary to Chicago as East St. Louis is to St. Louis.
3. Not sure what the river has to do with anything? You can see the Chicago skyline from Gary, of course when you cross the state line you're in South Chicago, not the most desirable part of the city, but I'm not sure what being right across from a "good" area of the city has to do with anything.
I was merely suggesting that Gary and Camden probably have more in common than Camden and East St. Louis. East St. Louis is too small, Gary is still at around 80,000 people.
1. By that logic then you should start lumping all of metro Philadelphia into the NYC CSA. Camden is quite literally next door to Philly, and not to NYC. Camden should therefore be associated with Philly before anything else. I'd also point out that if you have the misfortune of living in either of these cities that I doubt you're taking many vacations, even if NYC is close by to Camden.
2. East St. Louis has urban prairie due to its population loss, but it's not rural. It's surrounded by the city of St. Louis and other suburbs. Granted some of those suburbs are small industrial towns and aren't doing so well themselves, but it's also surrounded by a couple of normal suburbs of St. Louis that are doing just fine. There are plenty of areas in the St. Louis metro that are rural/have a small town fell, but East St. Louis is not one of them.
3. East St. Louis and Camden both share a similar orientation to their anchor cities in terms of geography that Gary does not share with Chicago. Camden and East St. Louis are both immediately across from downtown Philadelphia and St. Louis, which also gives them easy access to other desirable parts of town. Gary is very much removed from downtown Chicago by comparison. Size alone isn't everything.
I'm not personally saying that East St. Louis is doing better than Camden or that it's more desirable. I frankly only voted for it because I'm from metro St. Louis and I could find a stable block and spend the rest of my time elsewhere in the area. What I took issue with is the idea that Camden should get extra points because NYC is right there. You keep talking like it's immediately next door to NYC when it's frankly not. Camden is in Philly's metro as it's immediately across the river from downtown Philadelphia. That's why I said it would be like living in some ultra rundown area or suburb of Milwaukee, but then giving it points because "Chicago is right there." Neither city would be "right there" for you if you were so underprivileged that you had to live in such a city in the first place. Your big city option is going to be limited to the one that's a 10 minute drive away/accessible via public transit.
Oh yes, no doubt they look similar. They all have lots of similarities. However, Camden is more urban and dense, where East St. Louis looks like a bombed out Detroit with lots of missing buildings, and outside of downtown East St. Louis, it looks like the Mississippi Delta, just...impoverished and rural as hell. I'm not sure if there are any nice areas in East St. Louis.
You've obviously never been to St. Louis let alone the suburbs of it in Illinois in the Metro East. You can't be "rural as hell" when you're literally mere minutes from downtown St. Louis and other thriving suburbs.
Camden.... you've got access to Philly right acros the river.....also Jersey beaches are an hour away....NYC, DC....just more to do in and around Camden.
You've obviously never been to St. Louis let alone the suburbs of it in Illinois in the Metro East. You can't be "rural as hell" when you're literally mere minutes from downtown St. Louis and other thriving suburbs.
Uhh...yes you can, what do you think is just outside of Chicagoland? Endless cornfields...
Take a look at some pictures of East St. Louis. There are PLENTY of desolate and now rural areas.
1. By that logic then you should start lumping all of metro Philadelphia into the NYC CSA. Camden is quite literally next door to Philly, and not to NYC. Camden should therefore be associated with Philly before anything else. I'd also point out that if you have the misfortune of living in either of these cities that I doubt you're taking many vacations, even if NYC is close by to Camden.
2. East St. Louis has urban prairie due to its population loss, but it's not rural. It's surrounded by the city of St. Louis and other suburbs. Granted some of those suburbs are small industrial towns and aren't doing so well themselves, but it's also surrounded by a couple of normal suburbs of St. Louis that are doing just fine. There are plenty of areas in the St. Louis metro that are rural/have a small town fell, but East St. Louis is not one of them.
3. East St. Louis and Camden both share a similar orientation to their anchor cities in terms of geography that Gary does not share with Chicago. Camden and East St. Louis are both immediately across from downtown Philadelphia and St. Louis, which also gives them easy access to other desirable parts of town. Gary is very much removed from downtown Chicago by comparison. Size alone isn't everything.
I'm not personally saying that East St. Louis is doing better than Camden or that it's more desirable. I frankly only voted for it because I'm from metro St. Louis and I could find a stable block and spend the rest of my time elsewhere in the area. What I took issue with is the idea that Camden should get extra points because NYC is right there. You keep talking like it's immediately next door to NYC when it's frankly not. Camden is in Philly's metro as it's immediately across the river from downtown Philadelphia. That's why I said it would be like living in some ultra rundown area or suburb of Milwaukee, but then giving it points because "Chicago is right there." Neither city would be "right there" for you if you were so underprivileged that you had to live in such a city in the first place. Your big city option is going to be limited to the one that's a 10 minute drive away/accessible via public transit.
I'd rather be in Philly's backyard than the backyard of St. Louis.
St. Louis isn't even close to the same level as Philadelphia. New York City, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and D.C. are all within 200 miles or less of Camden, there's only one major city close to East St. Louis...what's more is the urban transit in the area you can use to reach these cities. Driving is not the only option.
Uhh...yes you can, what do you think is just outside of Chicagoland? Endless cornfields...
Take a look at some pictures of East St. Louis. There are PLENTY of desolate and now rural areas.
We're not talking about a far flung exurb of Chicago or a small town immediately outside of metro Chicago, nor are we talking about the same thing in the St. Louis metro. We are talking about a run down, dilapidated, crime infested city immediately adjacent to downtown St. Louis and to some other non-crime infested suburbs. I do not need to look at a picture because I grew up in Belleville, the suburb that's sitting on top of the hill that overlooks East St. Louis. I drove through East St. Louis to get into St. Louis all the time.
Also that's not a rural area, nor is that how rural is defined. Rural implies countryside, farms, small towns, etc. That's not what East St. Louis is. There's urban blight and urban prairie for sure, but that doesn't make it rural. Going by what you think rural is, then there are areas of Chicago proper that are positively rural.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdAilment
I'd rather be in Philly's backyard than the backyard of St. Louis.
St. Louis isn't even close to the same level as Philadelphia. New York City, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and D.C. are all within 200 miles or less of Camden, there's only one major city close to East St. Louis...what's more is the urban transit in the area you can use to reach these cities. Driving is not the only option.
That was never the point, but good for you for liking Philadelphia more.
I took issue with your argument not due to an issue between Philadelphia or St. Louis, but because you keep referencing New York City when this should be about Philadelphia. That's the metro Camden is in. Do you think a poor person living in Camden is throwing money at constant trips to New York City, Baltimore, or DC?
By that logic a poor person in East St. Louis could just be popping into Chicago, Louisville, Memphis, Indianapolis, Kansas City, or Nashville all the time as well since those places are all 250-300 miles away from East St. Louis. They don't even have to drive either. They can take the Amtrak or the bus.
But, again, that wasn't my point.
My points were that none of those cities, whether you're in Camden or E. St. Louis, are options for many of either cities' residents due to the level of poverty they're in, and that Camden should not be considered to be in NYC's metro/that NYC is right there when Camden is immediately across from downtown Philadelphia. That's all.
You would prefer to live in Camden? Go ahead. You think E. St. Louis is a hellhole? Good for you again. So does the rest of Greater St. Louis, myself included. That was never my point when I originally responded to you though. Was I nitpicking when I replied? Most likely, but still, arguing that one was better than the other was never my point. I just wanted to clear up what I perceived to be misinformation.
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.
