New Orleans vs. St Louis, 2015 (crime, compared, life, quality)
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.
St. Louis isn't that unique...you can find St. Louis in Chicago, Cleveland, Cincinnati, etc.
I can't think of very many, if any, neighborhoods in Chicago or especially Cleveland that one might mistake for StL city. Cincinnati is a little closer. Maybe parts of the mid-Atlantic cities, Baltimore, Wilmington, a little bit of very "lite" Philly. There are a couple swaths of New Orleans that are pretty non-descript, southern postwar ranches, a la Houston, Memphis, Atlanta, etc. though.
I don't agree. I actually think the French Quarter in NOLA is top 5 for best architecturally great neighborhoods in the country and the compact feel of it makes it feel more urban, walkable, and European than St. Louis. It's a unique cityscape for the United States. St. Louis isn't that unique...you can find St. Louis in Chicago, Cleveland, Cincinnati, etc.
Anyways, i chose NOLA. It has an energy that St. Louis can't compete with and it's a destination. St. Louis is not. No one cares about a bunch of brick buildings. Overrated on this forum. Plus the food in NOLA is amazing and has a great cafe culture.
The unique blend of African, French, and Creole makes NOLA very culturally rich. St. Louis simply can't compete.
I could def. see that about the French Quarter (ignoring the "European" thing as I hate it when US cities try to describe themselves this way), but it's only one small part of New Orleans, and it's a part that locals (including my family, friends, and myself when I lived there) don't really ever go to unless we have to take others there. For its amazing built environment I'm a little sad about what the French Quarter is today. This being said, most of New Orleans is not the French Quarter so this small section of the city that I hardly ever visited while I lived there doesn't sway the argument that much for me. I'm not saying the rest of the city is bad/not urban/bad architecture, far from it/the opposite, but that's the point... Most in New Orleans want people to know the city is way more than just the tourist overrun French Quarter; therefore, using it as a poster child here is a little...
What does your comment, "it's a destination. St. Louis is not." mean to you for this discussion? Seriously wondering what weight this holds for you and others.
As for your comment on the look of St. Louis, I strongly disagree with what you said and s.davis here sums up a lot of my thoughts. St. Louis and Cleveland for example have a lot in common, but overall built environment/architecture? They really look nothing like each other... New Orleans isn't exactly all unique either though so I'm not sure what the point of this comment even was exactly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by s.davis
I can't think of very many, if any, neighborhoods in Chicago or especially Cleveland that one might mistake for StL city. Cincinnati is a little closer. Maybe parts of the mid-Atlantic cities, Baltimore, Wilmington, a little bit of very "lite" Philly. There are a couple swaths of New Orleans that are pretty non-descript, southern postwar ranches, a la Houston, Memphis, Atlanta, etc. though.
The ignorance about St. Louis is astounding. These are typical neighborhoods in St. Louis. Not exceptions or token examples, this is pretty much what the entire city is comprised of:
^^^That's just ugly. Every time someone posts pictures of St Louis in attempts of representing the architectural style of the city, in this thread and elsewhere, the areas posted are hideous. The bottom picture there is decent, but this is the second post I've come across with pictures of what is supposedly the good of St. Louis and once again I find it very unappealing.
I mean every city has its ugly areas and New Orleans is certainly no exception, but if these pics are what "typical" neighborhoods look like in St. Louis, I have to agree with others that New Orleans' easily wins on that front.
I could def. see that about the French Quarter (ignoring the "European" thing as I hate it when US cities try to describe themselves this way), but it's only one small part of New Orleans, and it's a part that locals (including my family, friends, and myself when I lived there) don't really ever go to unless we have to take others there. For its amazing built environment I'm a little sad about what the French Quarter is today. This being said, most of New Orleans is not the French Quarter so this small section of the city that I hardly ever visited while I lived there doesn't sway the argument that much for me. I'm not saying the rest of the city is bad/not urban/bad architecture, far from it/the opposite, but that's the point... Most in New Orleans want people to know the city is way more than just the tourist overrun French Quarter; therefore, using it as a poster child here is a little...
What does your comment, "it's a destination. St. Louis is not." mean to you for this discussion? Seriously wondering what weight this holds for you and others.
As for your comment on the look of St. Louis, I strongly disagree with what you said and s.davis here sums up a lot of my thoughts. St. Louis and Cleveland for example have a lot in common, but overall built environment/architecture? They really look nothing like each other... New Orleans isn't exactly all unique either though so I'm not sure what the point of this comment even was exactly.
The ignorance about St. Louis is astounding. These are typical neighborhoods in St. Louis. Not exceptions or token examples, this is pretty much what the entire city is comprised of:
Beautiful pics, most especially the last one! Definitely looks reminiscent of a Mid-Atlantic urban neighborhood in Wilmington, DC, or Philly but still manages to pull off a distinctly STL look
St. Louis urban neighborhoods have setbacks that are too large...it doesn't really make the area feel compact like you'd find in other cities. I think the last picture is good, but I do agree I'm left unimpressed at the other three photos.
But architecture aside, NOLA is still more vibrant, bustling, and energetic. If St. Louis's only angle is architecture, then it's going to lose.
I'm reluctant to post, but I tend to agree with LadyReverie and Ant131531. The 4th picture looks nice, but those other pictures look pretty desolate. And I too have seen these same photos in other threads from other posters.
Can someone else present a nicer look of St. Louis neighborhoods or are these the most accurate depictions?
I don't have time to search for or post pictures but I grew up in STL and there are blocks and blocks and blocks that look like the last picture and even better (the old gated neighborhoods that you can glimpse in Meet in St. Louis, the old Judy Garland movie.) Parts of the city fell into disrepair due to white flight but the bones remain and are being revitalized. And there are sections that stayed vital throughout.
I love visiting NOLA but for living I would take STL in a heartbeat! If you include the metro area, the schools are much better than NOLA and the whole area is more family friendly. Better bang for the COL buck too!
I've lived in Austin for decades now but last year the most "Austiny" place I visited (weird, creative, vital, unexpected) was the City Museum in Saint Louis. Absolutely blew me away! Made me take a harder look at the city. I think its prospects are brighter than many realize.
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.