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.
BlueRedTide, no I've only been thru The Lou, not specifically been there. That's why I mentioned how StL seems from the "outside looking in"...
We don't live under rocks, culture crosses boundaries and StL has certain cultural characteristics that are publicly visible to those who have never been...
Regarding Memphis, you haven't actually disproved that StL isn't more similar than it is to Chicago. Of course there isn't the level of decay in StL, but this is due to a variety of factors, including the fact Memphis annexed parts of Shelby County to stabilize the city in the 80s and 90s...
My point was, Memphis is over 300m² of land, it isn't short on areas of urban decay. At least it wasn't. I haven't been back in three years, your image of new construction in the link I posted didn't exist three years ago. You'll just have to take my word for it (or not)...
I once knew Memphis a little more intimately and even now have decent knowledge on the city and it's people. There were more areas of urban decay, I just pointed out one that jumped out to me...
Memphis has nothing near that level of decimation. The Memphis population is at about--or close to about--the highest it has ever been in its history--650,000 approximately. The 1950 population of Memphis was 396,000. So Memphis has grown considerably.
No, it hasn't, unless you're referring to the city's square miles. Since 1960 the footprint of Memphis has more than doubled (240%) while its population has grown by only 31%. And since the state made it illegal for cities to annex areas without the residents' permission, the population of Memphis has been in decline. A population growth of 31% over 60 years is not "considerable" growth, even if it were without massive annexation.
While St Louis does have more urban decay than Memphis--much of that because Memphis has bulldozed thousands of abandoned homes--it's hard to overlook the fact that the tallest building in Memphis and the 5th tallest building in Memphis are completely vacant.
Although I agree with your point about people trying to downplay Chicago’s “Midwestern-“ness I have to disagree with your analogy between St. Louis and Chicago, and Chicago and New York. IMO magnitudes of scale are more relevant than the raw population difference between cities.
So, for example: Chicagoland has about 9.5 million people, St. Louis has 2.8 million. Chicago - STL = 6.7 million difference. New York Metro has around 19 million, which is 9.5 million more than Chicagoland, so by that metric Chicago is closer to STL than New York.
But the number needs context. Obviously a difference of 7 million is a bigger deal between, say a city of 100,000 and a city of 7,100,000, than it is between a city of 7,100,000 and a city of 14,100,000. In the first instance you would be comparing a city with a smaller population than many suburbs, to a major city; in the second you are comparing two major cities.
If you look at magnitudes of scale, Chicagoland has roughly 3.5x the population of STL and New York has 2x the population of Chicagoland. So Chicago is definitely way smaller than New York, but more comparable to NY than STL would be to Chicago. You could think of it as Chicago having 3.5x as many “things” as STL (in the form of restaurants, movie theatres, hospitals, you name it) but NY only has 2x as many “things” as Chicago.
In this thread, STL is ~2x the size of Memphis’ metro area but 3.5x smaller than Chicago. I personally put it in the middle but I understand why people would think it’s closer to Memphis.
Wow, I was reading this post and thinking to myself "this sounds exactly like something I would have written".
Kudos to you. A simple and obvious point, but one that seems to elude a lot of people.
I think a more accurate analogy would be Memphis is to St. Louis as St. Louis is to Chicago as Chicago is to New York. Fair?
Memphis is to St Louis as Chicago is to NY. That I would agree with. St Louis to Chicago -- no. Whether you look by city or metro size, Chicago is much closer to NY -- in percentage terms (which, as the other poster articulated so well, is the most sensible way to measure these things) -- than St Louis is to Chicago.
Memphis is to St Louis as Chicago is to NY. That I would agree with. St Louis to Chicago -- no. Whether you look by city or metro size, Chicago is much closer to NY -- in percentage terms (which, as the other poster articulated so well, is the most sensible way to measure these things) -- than St Louis is to Chicago.
Sure, but culture and overall vibe are intangible qualities and Chicago feels very familiar to anyone in the urban Midwest as being quintessentially midwestern. And NYC being like a second home to me since early childhood, I don’t feel that Chicago is any more or less comparable to New York than STL is to Chicago. Different leagues. Just my opinion.
Sure, but culture and overall vibe are intangible qualities and Chicago feels very familiar to anyone in the urban Midwest as being quintessentially midwestern. And NYC being like a second home to me since early childhood, I don’t feel that Chicago is any more or less comparable to New York than STL is to Chicago. Different leagues. Just my opinion.
Sure, but culture and overall vibe are intangible qualities and Chicago feels very familiar to anyone in the urban Midwest as being quintessentially midwestern. And NYC being like a second home to me since early childhood, I don’t feel that Chicago is any more or less comparable to New York than STL is to Chicago. Different leagues. Just my opinion.
Milwaukee is more comparable to Chicago, I believe, than is St. Louis. Not sure why one would think St. Louis is comparable to Chicago.
Milwaukee is more comparable to Chicago, I believe, than is St. Louis. Not sure why one would think St. Louis is comparable to Chicago.
St. Louis is about twice the size of Milwaukee (metro), so there’s a start. Not to mention the historic rivalry between STL and Chicago that defined the trajectories of both cities dating back to the 1860s, and i don’t mean Cubs vs. Cards. The interrelations between the two run long and deep.
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.
