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.
Charlotte is an ok place if you like new and shiny, but I find St. Louis to be a much more interesting city with lots of local flavor including food traditions like toasted ravioli, St. Louis style pizza, gooey butter cake etc.
Plus Charlotte has nothing like the St. Louis Cardinals baseball tradition and never will.
Just got back from St. Louis attending the SEC tournament. I thought the city had a lot of great attractions and the people seemed very laid back and casual, which I liked. The city seemed as if it was put in a blender with Louisville, KY and Cleveland, OH to make St. Louis. Being there only three days I did not have the chance to visit all the different neighborhoods but noticed the transit in the city is very good. It was an easy city to navigate. The suburbs were also very interesting. Checked out Delmar Avenue, and had a good time. I enjoy cultural amenities and there was so much I just didn't have time to check out.
On the other hand, Charlotte, a city I have visited many, many times is definitely a new South city and I like that about it. It's got a strong Southern feel, it feels cleaner and safer. I also like Charlotte's location. Not too far from the coast or the mountains as well as other cities.
Charlotte is the safe, clean, sterile city. St. Louis is the gritty, dirty, dangerous city, yet it has a story to tell. Downtown Charlotte just feels too much like Disneyland. The feeling is just so sterile and it just lacks history. It's very clean though and plenty of people love that type of environment so I can absolutely understand why it would win a contest like this. And really and truly outside of the red brick buildings, I find St. Louis to be a fairly ordinary city. Almost every midwestern city has their history and brick buildings so it's not like it's unique or anything special which is why it's not a media or Millennial darling.
I've been to Charlotte a lot and St. Louis just once. I like Charlotte's location better, with its close proximity to mountains and relative proximity to beaches.
I lived in Indianapolis for three years. Charlotte is basically the mirror image of that, but newer and cleaner. I've only been to STL for a baseball game. I'd like to visit, but the general location just doesn't interest me.
I believe the negative vibe comes from home grown poverty who has never left regardless of where one lives. St. Louis has a higher percentage of those Blacks. Most of the blacks who move to St. Louis have a positive disposition on life. Charlotte is a newer southern city with a higher percentage of Black transplants who has that fresh outlook on life that is typical of transplants.
I believe suburban areas are better for families. Sunbelt cities do a better job at integration of Black in their suburbs. Depending on your personal viewpoint on the issue, you may find better living options elsewhere. With that being said, St Louis does offer many options to live in a well mixed neighborhoods of all different income levels both urban and suburban. In St Louis your areas that are recognized as "the best" suburbs (the ones with the better amenities and highest home appreciation) are over 90% white. I am not sure that is the case in the sunbelt.
St. Louis has many great things going for it. If you like the idea of living in or near a small big city, St Louis is one of the best places in the country. If you prefer a sunbelt city that is more suburban oriented, go for the sunbelt. One of St Louis strong points is the central location.
I appreciate you, my friend. I need to do a lot more research. We may be St Louis bound as soon as the end of the year.
St Louis has more historic buildings mainly because Charlotte was an extremely small town 150 years ago. During the Civil War, St Louis had over 160,000 people. Charlotte had 2,300 during that time. This is why you'll never hear the name "Charlotte" in US history. Charlotte didn't really come onto the scene until around 1988. With that said, St Louis (along with Pittsburgh) are two of my favorite midsized US cities to visit.
As for your pics, I think you're not as familiar with Charlotte as you think you are. With the exception of the historic brick structures in St Louis's urban core, some of those pics look extremely similar to Charlotte's Dilworth, Eastover, Myers Park, and Elizabeth neighborhoods.
At any rate, here are some links to areas around Charlotte. Charlotte isn't nearly as historic or urban as St Louis, but it's only fair that you see what some of Charlotte's hoods and burbs look like.
I personally live in a townhouse community 12 mins south of downtown. I'm about a 3-5 min drive away from two light rail stations. I have a few friends who live on "country roads" within city limits. I also have a few friends who live 30 floors above the city downtown (investment bankers; there's quite a few of them here ya know). My point is that Charlotte has a lot of "city" attributes; way more than it's often given credit for. I easily could've provided much more than just 7 links, but I really don't have that type of spare time.
I could easily live in St Louis and enjoy myself (though I would miss going to NBA/NFL games).
Charlotte is the safe, clean, sterile city. St. Louis is the gritty, dirty, dangerous city, yet it has a story to tell. Downtown Charlotte just feels too much like Disneyland. The feeling is just so sterile and it just lacks history. It's very clean though and plenty of people love that type of environment so I can absolutely understand why it would win a contest like this. And really and truly outside of the red brick buildings, I find St. Louis to be a fairly ordinary city. Almost every midwestern city has their history and brick buildings so it's not like it's unique or anything special which is why it's not a media or Millennial darling.
Both cities are enjoyable places to live.
St. Louis is ordinary but the strong points are its charming neighborhoods, bars, live theater is pretty good. Ofcourse there is a unique food scene like most cities. Other than that it is pretty ordinary.
I think it is sad that St Louis is looked at as such a dangerous city that people don't think it's safe to live or even visit the city. That is surely part of our identity that I wish would go away. I hope if you decide to visit St Louis again that you would open your mind to find the interesting and fun things to do. It's not Seattle or San Francisco but it is a fun city.
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.
