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.
Places that offer good jobs, high quality of life, low taxes, and a great location are likely to attract more people.
What do you consider high quality of life? Isn't that different for different people? I personally don't think Nashville and St Louis would attract the same demographic.
Missouri is moderate on the tax side of things. Cities with up to date public infrastructure such as underground power lines, useful rapid transit and good clean parks are not going to have low taxes. You kind of get what you pay for with the tax thing.
There is some of everything within reach in St. Louis. The Ozarks, Kansas City, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Memphis, Nashville, Chicago & Louisville.
Locally, there is very little that can't be found. St. Louis is too small for Bloomingdale's. Non top ten airport. No beaches. No real mountains but the area does have a few lumps for hiking.
Unfortunately, I don't believe St. Louis can boom without some sort of metropolitan growth plan. It will happen just don't know when. It's the cycle of life of the city. St. Louis is too advanced to grow like Nashville. Minneapolis Seattle and Boston are good model cities for St Louis.
Last edited by mjtinmemphis; 04-27-2022 at 06:29 PM..
Kansas City is centrally located close to absolutely nothing desirable, not near any cities, or anything scenic outdoors. Nashville has a far better geographic location, close to far more other cities and a short drive to scenic areas and mountains.
Opinion duly noted.
If access to the rest of the southeast is your thing, then Tennessee would work.
For me, I'll take Kansas City and it's alleged isolation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shakeesha
Places that offer good jobs, high quality of life, low taxes, and a great location are likely to attract more people.
That pretty much describes a whole bunch of non-trendy places. The two Missouri metros excel at those things.
Missouri is generally a lower-tax state.
Concerning the oft-mentioned crime, the vast majority of people who live in those areas mostly live a crime-free life.
It's not like the Tennessee cities have any advantage in that regard anyway.
Some sources I came across have Nashville, Memphis, and Chattanooga all in the top 20 in terms of violent crime.
Another stat shows that Tennessee is the third most violent state in the country. Missouri doesn't fare much better at #8, but for this comparison it wins, I suppose.
And no, it's not just little ol' Memphis dragging the whole entire state down like Mr. Briggs suggests. Most of its sizable cities struggle with crime that's higher than the national average.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jas75
I think even if the rate of real estate appreciation slows down, many locations with perceived higher desirability have already become very expensive. I don't think St. Louis will see rapid growth any time soon but its relative performance should improve vs. other mid-sized to large metro areas.
Certainly, and some of these criteria are subjective such that a variety of locations can qualify for different people. I actually prefer metro Nashville over other locations in MO and TN, but some people are more interested in a well established urban center with affordable housing, less traffic congestion, and a major league baseball team (among other factors) which would give the major Missouri cities an advantage.
These conversations sometimes make it seem like if one chooses an established city over a trendy up-and-commer, they're some how settling or sacrificing. That's just not the case, especially with KC and St. Louis.
Not sure if this has been laid out, but here are the professional sports teams in both states:
Missouri (6 teams)
St Louis:
MLB St Louis Cardinals
NHL St Louis Blues
MLS St Louis SC (starting 2023)
Kansas City:
MLB Kansas City Royals
NFL Kansas City Chiefs
MLS Kansas City Sporting
Tennessee (4 teams)
Nashville:
NFL Tennessee Titans
NHL Nashville Predators
MLS Nashville SC
Memphis:
NBA Memphis Grizzlies
Tennessee doesn't have MLB and Missouri doesn't have NBA.
Both of Missouri's cities have historically been "big" on the US scale, dating back to 100 years ago, or more--but they have decreased in national importance in recent decades, due to growth of so many others that passed them.
So they definitely have a strong headstart on most cities in the south or west, in terms of infrastructure and establishments like sports.
MLB has a very strong history in both cities, and they both have pretty good teams.
Last edited by jjbradleynyc; 04-28-2022 at 09:01 AM..
What do you consider high quality of life? Isn't that different for different people? I personally don't think Nashville and St Louis would attract the same demographic.
Good schools, infrastructure, no decrepit buildings/run down areas, not hearing gunshots every night, being able to go about your day without fear of being a crime victim. I think traffic and infrastructure are St. Louis advantages. It is never busy like it is here.
Quote:
Missouri is moderate on the tax side of things. Cities with up to date public infrastructure such as underground power lines, useful rapid transit and good clean parks are not going to have low taxes. You kind of get what you pay for with the tax thing.
There is some of everything within reach in St. Louis. The Ozarks, Kansas City, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Memphis, Nashville, Chicago & Louisville.
Nashville is actually closer to Louisville, Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland. It is closer to Charlotte, Atlanta, and Florida beaches as well.
Quote:
Locally, there is very little that can't be found. St. Louis is too small for Bloomingdale's. Non top ten airport. No beaches. No real mountains but the area does have a few lumps for hiking.
Good
Quote:
Unfortunately, I don't believe St. Louis can boom without some sort of metropolitan growth plan. It will happen just don't know when. It's the cycle of life of the city. St. Louis is too advanced to grow like Nashville. Minneapolis Seattle and Boston are good model cities for St Louis.
I don't see St. Louis booming or modeling after fast growing cities. I am not sure what city Nashville could model after. Culturally, it doesn't really fit in a particular region like St. Louis. It is not in the Deep South, Midwest, Piedmont, or Appalachia. It is usually lumped in with other Upper South cities, none of which I would call "model cities" other than the capital, if you consider it Southern. Some have mentioned Denver or Minneapolis, which makes sense for Nashville.
Good schools, infrastructure, no decrepit buildings/run down areas, not hearing gunshots every night, being able to go about your day without fear of being a crime victim. I think traffic and infrastructure are St. Louis advantages. It is never busy like it is here.
Nashville is actually closer to Louisville, Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland. It is closer to Charlotte, Atlanta, and Florida beaches as well.
Good
I don't see St. Louis booming or modeling after fast growing cities. I am not sure what city Nashville could model after. Culturally, it doesn't really fit in a particular region like St. Louis. It is not in the Deep South, Midwest, Piedmont, or Appalachia. It is usually lumped in with other Upper South cities, none of which I would call "model cities" other than the capital, if you consider it Southern. Some have mentioned Denver or Minneapolis, which makes sense for Nashville.
Considering Tennessee has consistently been one of the most violent states in the country, I'm sure there are places where you can hear gunshots every night.
Won't even have to leave Nashville with its 100+ annual homicides recently. Why on earth are we giving that city a pass on crime?
Missouri suburbs often have stellar schools and they're not run down.
Tennessee isn't exactly sparkly and new everywhere either, not even in Nashville. All in all, Missouri might have a slight edge on cleanliness.
Deep south, upper south, Nashville is southern through and through.
Denver.. Minneapolis? uh....
St. Louis has all the pieces in place, it just needs to grow its economy. KC is neither boom nor bust, just solid with consistent growth and a diverse economy. From that standpoint, I find it the most appealing. It just needs to focus on reducing crime and rehabbing parts of the city.
"Closer to Cleveland"... I guess we have a winner then.
Good schools, infrastructure, no decrepit buildings/run down areas, not hearing gunshots every night, being able to go about your day without fear of being a crime victim. I think traffic and infrastructure are St. Louis advantages. It is never busy like it is here.
Nashville is actually closer to Louisville, Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland. It is closer to Charlotte, Atlanta, and Florida beaches as well.
Good
I don't see St. Louis booming or modeling after fast growing cities. I am not sure what city Nashville could model after. Culturally, it doesn't really fit in a particular region like St. Louis. It is not in the Deep South, Midwest, Piedmont, or Appalachia. It is usually lumped in with other Upper South cities, none of which I would call "model cities" other than the capital, if you consider it Southern. Some have mentioned Denver or Minneapolis, which makes sense for Nashville.
I think you are aware of what you are writing. We've discussed all of this before.
Yes, St. Louis does have more rundown areas than Nashville.
Good school districts goes to Missouri at #18 while Tennessee ranks 31. The St. Louis area is home to 2 of the top 20 School Districts. Clayton at 16 and Ladue at 17. Nashville and Tennessee has none in the top 20. You get what you pay for with those taxes.
You admitted St. Louis has better infrastructure so we will leave that. Nashville has busy traffic because its infrastructure is out of date not because its such a happening place. You can have 100k's in Forest Park consistently without major traffic jams on the 64, Kingshighway, Lindell, Forest Park Parkway or Skinker. St. Louis is just that well put together that the city can handle large amount of cars and people.
You've written that you have relatives in Clayton so you know not everyone hears gun shots every night and live in fear of being shot every time they leave home. You are also aware that Tennessee is more dangerous for violent crime. You also know that Nashville ranks high among top 50 msa's for violent crime because you live there. Nashville spreads their crime out where as St. Louis is more concentrated.
You know Nashville is southern because you lived there.
You know Charlotte, Cleveland and the closest beach is over 300 miles from Nashville.
^Concerning taxes, Missouri is still comfortably in the bottom half in terms of overall tax burden. The average person isn't going to have a financial windfall if moving from MO to TN just based on taxes alone. It is a lower-taxed state.
Concerning Florida beaches, folks in Tennessee and Missouri will hit those at about the same rate if they go at all: probably once a year, maybe twice if they're really into it.
I think you are aware of what you are writing. We've discussed all of this before.
You keep bringing it up.
Quote:
Yes, St. Louis does have more rundown areas than Nashville.
Quote:
Good school districts goes to Missouri at #18 while Tennessee ranks 31. The St. Louis area is home to 2 of the top 20 School Districts. Clayton at 16 and Ladue at 17. Nashville and Tennessee has none in the top 20. You get what you pay for with those taxes.
Not when you consider higher education. Missouri has no schools ranked higher than Vanderbilt.
Quote:
You admitted St. Louis has better infrastructure so we will leave that. Nashville has busy traffic because its infrastructure is out of date not because its such a happening place. You can have 100k's in Forest Park consistently without major traffic jams on the 64, Kingshighway, Lindell, Forest Park Parkway or Skinker. St. Louis is just that well put together that the city can handle large amount of cars and people.
It is not a busy place, so that makes sense.
Quote:
You've written that you have relatives in Clayton so you know not everyone hears gun shots every night and live in fear of being shot every time they leave home. You are also aware that Tennessee is more dangerous for violent crime. You also know that Nashville ranks high among top 50 msa's for violent crime because you live there. Nashville spreads their crime out where as St. Louis is more concentrated.
St. Louis is more dangerous than any city in Tennessee, including Memphis. Tennessee's crime is high because of Memphis.
Quote:
You know Nashville is southern because you lived there.
Southern is not some monolith. I never said Nashville was not Southern.
Quote:
You know Charlotte, Cleveland and the closest beach is over 300 miles from Nashville.
They are closer to Nashville than St. Louis. I am not sure what is so difficult to understand about that. You mentioned Louisville and Cincinnati being close to St. Louis when Nashville is actually closer.
Not when you consider higher education. Missouri has no schools ranked higher than Vanderbilt.
It is not a busy place, so that makes sense.
St. Louis is more dangerous than any city in Tennessee, including Memphis. Tennessee's crime is high because of Memphis.
Southern is not some monolith. I never said Nashville was not Southern.
They are closer to Nashville than St. Louis. I am not sure what is so difficult to understand about that. You mentioned Louisville and Cincinnati being close to St. Louis when Nashville is actually closer.
Washington University swap places every year with Vanderbilt. Depending on who you ask.
St. Louis is a larger MSA with a much larger urban area population. We also have 4 major interstates rolling through DT St. Louis. Much of St. Louis is built on a grid. Add into that 170 inner belt, I 270 and 255 that forms a loop. Add in many state highways are freeway grade that makes sense. The number of two lane roads in Nashville without sidewalks or proper drainage is not good for traffic in the city. St. Louis has the infrastructure to handle another million people before the area will start having traffic problems. Nashville can have one accident and that will ruin the commute considering the outdated infrastructure and how slow tdot removes accidents. St. Louis does have a higher walk bike and transit score than Nashville or Memphis.
Nashville, Memphis, Jackson and Chattanooga are all more violent and dangerous as metropolitan areas than St. Louis or Kansas City. Tennessee is one of the few states that have multiple msas in the top 50.
Last edited by mjtinmemphis; 04-28-2022 at 06:04 PM..
You admitted St. Louis has better infrastructure so we will leave that. Nashville has busy traffic because its infrastructure is out of date not because its such a happening place. You can have 100k's in Forest Park consistently without major traffic jams on the 64, Kingshighway, Lindell, Forest Park Parkway or Skinker. St. Louis is just that well put together that the city can handle large amount of cars and people.
On the global TomTom Traffic Index of congestion, St. Louis ranks 391st and Kansas City 398th out of 404 cities (=metropolitan areas here) worldwide for amount of time drivers lose to traffic congestion each year.
Among U.S. metros with 2 million or more residents, St. Louis is the fourth-least-congested and Kansas City the least congested. (In between them are Cleveland and the Twin Cities.)
Knoxville ranks 377th, Memphis 355th and Nashville 261st. All but Nashville place in the index's green (congestion level <15%) zone; Nashville is in the middle of the yellow (congestion level 15-25%) zone. Only eight cities worldwide, none of them in the United States, are in the most severely congested category (congestion level >50%).
The pave-the-Earth crowd likes to point to Kansas City as vindication of their position, as the city has (IIRC) the most freeway lane-miles per capita of any large US metropolitan area — it's also one of only a few cities to have ringed its downtown with freeways completely. There is, however, talk of removing the north leg of the loop, which consists of the oldest freeway in Kansas City and separates its riverfront from its downtown.
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.
