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.
Missouri: 6.0% of land is owned by either the state or federal government, or 2.677 million acres.
Tennessee: 10.7% of land is owned by either the state or federal government, or 2.889 million acres.
Thanks for sharing! This seems to be fairly good. So Tennessee does have more, Google Maps just must be deceiving.
Tennessee has more flash, Missouri has more substance: Missouri wins in my book.
Tennessee has dramatic Appalachian scenery, but Missouri has more public land; particularly state land and conservation areas. SE Missouri in particular really flies under the radar when it comes to outdoors, there's not drastic sights that pull people from all over, but it's beautiful country for in state visitors to enjoy with their own peace and quiet. The whole Ozark area feels like America's back 40 with vistas, caves, and clean rivers that many people don't even know exist. In comparison a lot of TNs outdoor space is in the Blue Ridge which is a big destination.
Nashville downtown is booming, but small towns and outskirts seemed in rougher shape in TN; there's a lot more trailer trash compared to Missouri, which is still midwestern in the sense they keep the yard clean and the roof on the house. My impression is that Missouri is the more outdoorsy state. Roads are better in Missouri, and people drive slower, for better and worse.
Geographically TN is more blessed, with more consistent weather and more rain (no plains) and less disasters such as wind and hail. The Mississippi and Missouri rivers are almost more of a liability than an asset now days.
Great post overall.
Tennessee is a beautiful state geographically, and that puts it at an advantage. Missouri does have some gorgeous areas too, but overall just a flatter state.
St Louis is a powerhouse city and so is Kansas City, although a bit less-so. Nashville is definitely "an it city" in the US right now, and Memphis is somewhat slow growing but finally gentrifying.
Tennessee has the Great Smoky Mountains and Gatlinburg/Pigeon Forge, while Missouri has the Ozarks and the Branson area.
Over the past couple of decades, Tennessee has broken out and grown much faster population-wise, and sits at almost 6.9 million, with Missouri a more steady slow grower, at 6.1 million.
These 2 states have a lot in common and are very fascinating to compare.
Tennessee has more flash, Missouri has more substance: Missouri wins in my book.
Tennessee has dramatic Appalachian scenery, but Missouri has more public land; particularly state land and conservation areas. SE Missouri in particular really flies under the radar when it comes to outdoors, there's not drastic sights that pull people from all over, but it's beautiful country for in state visitors to enjoy with their own peace and quiet. The whole Ozark area feels like America's back 40 with vistas, caves, and clean rivers that many people don't even know exist. In comparison a lot of TNs outdoor space is in the Blue Ridge which is a big destination.
Nashville downtown is booming, but small towns and outskirts seemed in rougher shape in TN; there's a lot more trailer trash compared to Missouri, which is still midwestern in the sense they keep the yard clean and the roof on the house. My impression is that Missouri is the more outdoorsy state. Roads are better in Missouri, and people drive slower, for better and worse.
Geographically TN is more blessed, with more consistent weather and more rain (no plains) and less disasters such as wind and hail. The Mississippi and Missouri rivers are almost more of a liability than an asset now days.
I think we’ve cleared up the public land issue.
Otherwise I agree with much of what you say.
Missouri tends to be the least midwestern of midwest states, but the traits are still there.
It’s generally a well-run state in spite of the naysayers on this forum.
MO does tend to be cleaner looking than some other states. The contrast with Arkansas is the most stark. MO has areas that are less than spiffy, but overall not too bad. If they had a ban on billboards, it would be a nice looking place to drive through.
Weather-wise, neither are anything to brag about and both have to contend with the Mississippi to some extent.
Which is best Outside of Major Cities? - TN
[...] Best City Combinations - ? TN cities are freestanding and we've got 4 major cities, not 2 [...]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caesarstl
I agree with some of these, but yeah, you def went all homer like on a lot of them... For example:
"TN has 4 major cities, not 2"
What? Let's take a look shall we...
Top 4 MSA's (2014 estimates from wiki, if someone wants to double check the census site as some numbers varied by wiki page but I'm now too lazy to go back... These seem like the best numbers for TN btw):
So... for your "four major metros" compared to MO's two... 3/4 of them are still smaller than St. Louis by itself...
Caesarstl left out Missouri's 4th-biggest metro, Columbia (home to Mizzou's flagship campus and thus comparable to much larger Knoxville in what drives its economy). Per the Wikipedia article on it, its metro population in 2017 was 256,640; Census Reporter gives the 2019 estimate as 208,548. I suspect the Wikipedia figure may also include the Moberly and Mexico µSAs, which together with the Columbia MSA form the Columbia-Mexico-Moberly CSA.
I wouldn't include large cities in the orbit of larger nearby cities (Independence, MO: Murfreesboro, TN) as separate cities for purposes of this comparison.
Also: what do you mean "3/4 of them are still smaller than St. Louis by itself," Caesarstl? All four are smaller than both of Missouri's two largest, though Nashville's gaining on Kansas City. (Kansas City's also gaining on St. Louis, but more slowly.)
In the "suburbs" category, no Tennessee metro area has suburbs comparable to those in St. Louis County, Mo. (the city itself is separate from the county, a situation some in Metro St. Louis believe should be reversed). Kansas City's best suburbs, however, lie on the other side of the state line in Kansas and thus do not contribute to this conversation.
The Great Smokies may be more mountainous than the Ozarks, but I'd put the latter up against the former as a tourist/vacation destination any day, thanks in large park to the artificial lake in the middle of the latter.
As for state governance (and politics), well, Tennessee has yet to produce anyone as odious as Josh Hawley (who succeeded the much more sensible Claire McGaskill), so I have to give a slight edge to the Volunteer State over my native Show-Me State, but I do note that in the case of Hawley, the lion of the Missouri GOP, John Danforth, has called backing Hawley "the worst mistake I've ever made in my life", and The Kansas City Star has called for him to resign, saying he has "blood on his hands." (This last, however, may simply underscore the size of the disconnect between Missouri's two biggest cities and the rest of the state. Ditto Danforth's opinion: he's a St. Louisan whose family owned Ralston Purina Company for decades.)
I'm not going to break down the categories, but while I think Tennessee's future right now is a little more hopeful than Missouri's, I'd still give my native state the edge over Tennessee.
Caesarstl left out Missouri's 4th-biggest metro, Columbia (home to Mizzou's flagship campus and thus comparable to much larger Knoxville in what drives its economy). Per the Wikipedia article on it, its metro population in 2017 was 256,640; Census Reporter gives the 2019 estimate as 208,548. I suspect the Wikipedia figure may also include the Moberly and Mexico µSAs, which together with the Columbia MSA form the Columbia-Mexico-Moberly CSA.
I wouldn't include large cities in the orbit of larger nearby cities (Independence, MO: Murfreesboro, TN) as separate cities for purposes of this comparison.
Also: what do you mean "3/4 of them are still smaller than St. Louis by itself," Caesarstl? All four are smaller than both of Missouri's two largest, though Nashville's gaining on Kansas City. (Kansas City's also gaining on St. Louis, but more slowly.)
In the "suburbs" category, no Tennessee metro area has suburbs comparable to those in St. Louis County, Mo. (the city itself is separate from the county, a situation some in Metro St. Louis believe should be reversed). Kansas City's best suburbs, however, lie on the other side of the state line in Kansas and thus do not contribute to this conversation.
The Great Smokies may be more mountainous than the Ozarks, but I'd put the latter up against the former as a tourist/vacation destination any day, thanks in large park to the artificial lake in the middle of the latter.
As for state governance (and politics), well, Tennessee has yet to produce anyone as odious as Josh Hawley (who succeeded the much more sensible Claire McGaskill), so I have to give a slight edge to the Volunteer State over my native Show-Me State, but I do note that in the case of Hawley, the lion of the Missouri GOP, John Danforth, has called backing Hawley "the worst mistake I've ever made in my life", and The Kansas City Star has called for him to resign, saying he has "blood on his hands." (This last, however, may simply underscore the size of the disconnect between Missouri's two biggest cities and the rest of the state. Ditto Danforth's opinion: he's a St. Louisan whose family owned Ralston Purina Company for decades.)
I'm not going to break down the categories, but while I think Tennessee's future right now is a little more hopeful than Missouri's, I'd still give my native state the edge over Tennessee.
Bill Lee is super conservative though. That could be a good or had thing depending on your beliefs, but he'a definitely not a RINO Charlie Baker type.
Caesarstl left out Missouri's 4th-biggest metro, Columbia (home to Mizzou's flagship campus and thus comparable to much larger Knoxville in what drives its economy). Per the Wikipedia article on it, its metro population in 2017 was 256,640; Census Reporter gives the 2019 estimate as 208,548. I suspect the Wikipedia figure may also include the Moberly and Mexico µSAs, which together with the Columbia MSA form the Columbia-Mexico-Moberly CSA.
I wouldn't include large cities in the orbit of larger nearby cities (Independence, MO: Murfreesboro, TN) as separate cities for purposes of this comparison.
Also: what do you mean "3/4 of them are still smaller than St. Louis by itself," Caesarstl? All four are smaller than both of Missouri's two largest, though Nashville's gaining on Kansas City. (Kansas City's also gaining on St. Louis, but more slowly.)
In the "suburbs" category, no Tennessee metro area has suburbs comparable to those in St. Louis County, Mo. (the city itself is separate from the county, a situation some in Metro St. Louis believe should be reversed). Kansas City's best suburbs, however, lie on the other side of the state line in Kansas and thus do not contribute to this conversation.
The Great Smokies may be more mountainous than the Ozarks, but I'd put the latter up against the former as a tourist/vacation destination any day, thanks in large park to the artificial lake in the middle of the latter.
As for state governance (and politics), well, Tennessee has yet to produce anyone as odious as Josh Hawley (who succeeded the much more sensible Claire McGaskill), so I have to give a slight edge to the Volunteer State over my native Show-Me State, but I do note that in the case of Hawley, the lion of the Missouri GOP, John Danforth, has called backing Hawley "the worst mistake I've ever made in my life", and The Kansas City Star has called for him to resign, saying he has "blood on his hands." (This last, however, may simply underscore the size of the disconnect between Missouri's two biggest cities and the rest of the state. Ditto Danforth's opinion: he's a St. Louisan whose family owned Ralston Purina Company for decades.)
I'm not going to break down the categories, but while I think Tennessee's future right now is a little more hopeful than Missouri's, I'd still give my native state the edge over Tennessee.
Hawley is a small symptom of a much bigger problem on both sides of the aisle, so getting rid of him only serves to pull back a scab a little bit, at best.
I agree that Missouri has the edge overall.
KC and St. Louis are still on another level over Memphis and Nashville.
I like Memphis. It might improve, but it isn't going to move up the latter against most other cities very much in our lifetimes.
Nashville has the economy and some tourism, but otherwise it can't compete with the intangibles of legacy cities. It's already starting to look like a city to avoid for the average person. Overhyped and overpriced, moving on to the next trend...
The MO cities do a better job with history and preservation. Vastly better infrastructure. They have more diverse housing options at more price points to include more people.
TN taxes are lower, but MO is not a high tax state by any means.
The Appalachians are more impressive just to look at, but ultimately the Ozarks offer pretty much the same experience but maybe with more reservoirs.
It's understandable that Tennessee could be ahead in the poll because it's enjoying popularity at the moment, but the poll probably should be a lot closer than it is when all aspects are taken into account.
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.
