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.
We may as well be talking about the same place in overall stature. Many contrasts abound but stature is around the same...
Which I guess is a +1 for Oakland. It's clearly less popular than SF within its region, and in the present you can argue SJ is more desirable and important than Oakland---and yet Oakland is still right there with StL in regards to national prominence and relevance...
I'd probably prefer living in Oakland over StL, but thats a preference for the hyoerdiversity, it's a preference for my California bias if two cities are otherwise equal, etc. I don't think Oakland is the p4p stronger city. St Louis has many strengths and it isn't fair to get ****ted on the way it does sometimes, based solely on crime rates...
That said, St Louis is a VERY violent place, has been the most murderous city I the country the past 6-7 years, is one of the most violent cities in the world. That's compared to Oakland of all places, which is no sweet day at the beach itself in terms of violence, yet St Louis is two to three times Oakland's murder and violent crime rates...
So StL shouldn't be merited solely by its violence, but for those who think it needs more context, we are talking about the most dangerous city in the country. It's a factor...
I’d pick St. Louis.
The metro areas as a whole have to be taken into consideration.
Looked at it that way, St. Louis is reasonably safe and the violence is pretty isolated.
It’s also far more politically diverse which is infinitely more appealing than the Bay Area.
There is something for everyone no matter your beliefs and plenty of it. The city is blue and the metro is purple. MO is red but in a somewhat libertarian way while IL is blue and… all that comes with that.
Perhaps most importantly, St. Louis is a place where lower income folks aren’t relegated to sleeping in tents and cars, nor do they need to rely heavily on welfare for everything if they’re being honest. They don’t even have to crash with strangers to bust up the bills.
It’s also quite strong in terms of amenities.
What's crazy about this comparison is that Oakland is kind of what I'd imagine a West Coast version of St. Louis to be. The East Coast version is definitely Baltimore. The Southern version is New Orleans.
I’d pick St. Louis.
The metro areas as a whole have to be taken into consideration.
Looked at it that way, St. Louis is reasonably safe and the violence is pretty isolated.
It’s also far more politically diverse which is infinitely more appealing than the Bay Area.
There is something for everyone no matter your beliefs and plenty of it. The city is blue and the metro is purple. MO is red but in a somewhat libertarian way while IL is blue and… all that comes with that.
Perhaps most importantly, St. Louis is a place where lower income folks aren’t relegated to sleeping in tents and cars, nor do they need to rely heavily on welfare for everything if they’re being honest. They don’t even have to crash with strangers to bust up the bills.
This is not really a case for St Louis but really a diatribe against the Bay Area for really superficial reasons(politics)---most people here don't really talk about politics at all in public or drive around in personal vehicles they have turned into political propaganda mobiles with huge signs supporting their candidate---this is something you see WAY MORE in places like St Louis and environs. People in the Bay Area don't have time, and are too busy for that, literally. I live in the most militantly liberal area of the country, but people arent obsessed with being suspicious of the 'other side'---it's amazing actually how outwardly unpolitical the Bay Area is in real life to be honest.
and you make really inaccurate depiction of how 'lower income folks' in St Louis are supposedly way better off, which I don't really think is the case. How can poor people be happy in a state that does little to help them lift themselves out of poverty but instead perpetuates poverty and a good portion of the electorate actually vilifies poor people?
This is an editorial from the St Louis Times-Dispatch: Editorial: Missouri's worst-in-the-nation stinginess toward poor kids speaks volumes
This is not really a case for St Louis but really a diatribe against the Bay Area for really superficial reasons(politics)---most people here don't really talk about politics at all in public or drive around in personal vehicles they have turned into political propaganda mobiles with huge signs supporting their candidate---this is something you see WAY MORE in places like St Louis and environs. People in the Bay Area don't have time, and are too busy for that, literally. I live in the most militantly liberal area of the country, but people arent obsessed with being suspicious of the 'other side'---it's amazing actually how outwardly unpolitical the Bay Area is in real life to be honest.
and you make really inaccurate depiction of how 'lower income folks' in St Louis are supposedly way better off, which I don't really think is the case. How can poor people be happy in a state that does little to help them lift themselves out of poverty but instead perpetuates poverty and a good portion of the electorate actually vilifies poor people?
This is an editorial from the St Louis Times-Dispatch: Editorial: Missouri's worst-in-the-nation stinginess toward poor kids speaks volumes
These 2 cities both have their challenges, but I also see one has a much more tangible silver lining visible in stats.
When you say things such as people in Oakland are too busy to put political signs in their yard etc…it makes the rest of the discussion moot. It’s childish.
In your previous post you referenced Oakland’s proximity to San Francisco, mentioning that these days it’s all about Metro areas. Oakland as a larger part of the San Francisco Bay area makes more sense as a discussion. If one has spent any time at all in St. Louis, that person wouldn’t isolate certain parts of the metro. The discussion would include the entire metro area.
When you say things such as people in Oakland are too busy to put political signs in their yard etc…it makes the rest of the discussion moot. It’s childish.
Nope. Childish is making political persuasion the centerpiece of a position regarding something so far reaching as livability, which is what the person I responded to did, which I think is silly, but if we're going that route, I have no problem talking about it. So I didn't bring politics into this discussion btw.
Quote:
In your previous post you referenced Oakland’s proximity to San Francisco, mentioning that these days it’s all about Metro areas. Oakland as a larger part of the San Francisco Bay area makes more sense as a discussion. If one has spent any time at all in St. Louis, that person wouldn’t isolate certain parts of the metro. The discussion would include the entire metro area.
IMO, any attempt to isolate a city from it's metro in 2023 is impossible. We can include whatever advantages and disadvantages a city has based on it's surroundings because that's what it is in real life. People in cities enjoy their surroundings, work in their surroundings etc. ONLY ON C-D do we try and force this conversation into strict city boundaries as if people do that for real. They don't.
Nope. Childish is making political persuasion the centerpiece of a position regarding something so far reaching as livability, which is what the person I responded to did, which I think is silly, but if we're going that route, I have no problem talking about it. So I didn't bring politics into this discussion btw.
IMO, any attempt to isolate a city from it's metro in 2023 is impossible. We can include whatever advantages and disadvantages a city has based on it's surroundings because that's what it is in real life. People in cities enjoy their surroundings, work in their surroundings etc. ONLY ON C-D do we try and force this conversation into strict city boundaries as if people do that for real. They don't.
Actually, your reply was defensively childish. The person to whom you replied mentioned one sentence in the middle of a longer post about political diversity being appealing to them. That’s hardly a centerpiece.
Many people in this thread are trying to isolate (violent crime statistics for example) a small portion of a greater metro area)
It isn’t surprising that many people would say St. Louis. But they would say Oakland when the entire San Francisco Bay area is considered.
Actually, your reply was defensively childish. The person to whom you replied mentioned one sentence in the middle of a longer post about political diversity being appealing to them. That’s hardly a centerpiece.
Incorrect, it was the absolute centerpiece and theme of his entire post, his main point in fact, even trying to weave into welfare for the poor, so please stop trying to defend strangers on the internet---he doesn't need it.
Quote:
Many people in this thread are trying to isolate (violent crime statistics for example) a small portion of a greater metro area)
It isn’t surprising that many people would say St. Louis. But they would say Oakland when the entire San Francisco Bay area is considered.
The fixation on crime was most likely the impetus for this thread in the first place, seeing as how both cities have very high crime rates, and people here like to define entire cities by their crime rates, thus Oakland vs St Louis was created.
In any event, this is the reason I have largely refused to bad talk St Louis, for the fact that like Oakland, it's reputation and image has been sullied by one factor and that's not right imo.
Incorrect, it was the absolute centerpiece and theme of his entire post, his main point in fact, even trying to weave into welfare for the poor, so please stop trying to defend strangers on the internet---he doesn't need it.
The fixation on crime was most likely the impetus for this thread in the first place, seeing as how both cities have very high crime rates, and people here like to define entire cities by their crime rates, thus Oakland vs St Louis was created.
In any event, this is the reason I have largely refused to bad talk St Louis, for the fact that like Oakland, it's reputation and image has been sullied by one factor and that's not right imo.
Ok. Fair enough. I re-read his post and I must have missed a little bit of it. My bad. I don’t agree with his characterizations of either place. It doesn’t change what I read in your post. Perhaps make it more about the individual poster than the place next time because I saw and read your post first.
Besides, you're not a good fit here anyway. After reading your posts, I see you lean heavily conservative, which is your prerogative, but clearly that has a lot to do with the blatant inaccuracy and anti-Oakland bias in your post, but to each his own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
This is not really a case for St Louis but really a diatribe against the Bay Area for really superficial reasons(politics)---most people here don't really talk about politics at all in public or drive around in personal vehicles they have turned into political propaganda mobiles with huge signs supporting their candidate---this is something you see WAY MORE in places like St Louis and environs. People in the Bay Area don't have time, and are too busy for that, literally. I live in the most militantly liberal area of the country, but people arent obsessed with being suspicious of the 'other side'---it's amazing actually how outwardly unpolitical the Bay Area is in real life to be honest.
and you make really inaccurate depiction of how 'lower income folks' in St Louis are supposedly way better off, which I don't really think is the case. How can poor people be happy in a state that does little to help them lift themselves out of poverty but instead perpetuates poverty and a good portion of the electorate actually vilifies poor people?
This is an editorial from the St Louis Times-Dispatch: Editorial: Missouri's worst-in-the-nation stinginess toward poor kids speaks volumes
I mean, nowhere is perfect but let's not cast stones from a glass house.
Furthermore, Oaklanders have far better well being overall, at least according to this ranking by CITY PROPER:
2022’s Best Cities for Mental Wellness:
#13 Oakland, CA
#140 St Louis, MO
You say that someone isn't a "good fit" for being conservative, but then try to point out that politics is "superficial".
Politics generally doesn't factor into my personal decisions unless we're talking about someplace as lopsided as the Bay Area.
I've lived in 7 states. For the most part, the level of people's discussion concerning politics is roughly the same anywhere.
If you're not seeing political paraphernalia in your area then it probably has more to do with people seeing no need to preach to the choir.
In politically diverse areas, you will see a lot more back and forth concerning yard signs and bumper stickers.
Also, throwing out a couple of opinion articles from those two sources means nothing.
I absolutely love Kansas City, but their paper is not to be taken seriously.
People in more common industries will find themselves far better off financially in St. Louis then they would Oakland.
They can be middle class in St. Louis or lower class in Oakland. A lot of us aren't going to get paid nearly enough to compensate for the cost of living difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
Incorrect, it was the absolute centerpiece and theme of his entire post, his main point in fact, even trying to weave into welfare for the poor, so please stop trying to defend strangers on the internet---he doesn't need it.
The fixation on crime was most likely the impetus for this thread in the first place, seeing as how both cities have very high crime rates, and people here like to define entire cities by their crime rates, thus Oakland vs St Louis was created.
In any event, this is the reason I have largely refused to bad talk St Louis, for the fact that like Oakland, it's reputation and image has been sullied by one factor and that's not right imo.
No.
My political statement was just that. Everything else is simply the reality of coastal California at the moment.
It's expensive. It has social problems. That's all I was saying. It's no big secret. Everyone of all stripes recognizes those basic facts.
If you want to say that politics contribute to those issues, by all means be my guest.
Surely mentioning political issues is every bit as mature as quoting happiness surveys and average credit score rankings.
Last edited by sub; 01-12-2023 at 04:47 PM..
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.
