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.
Are you saying here that Kansas City is a peer of St. Louis?
I'm a Kansas Citian by birth and upbringing, and I wouldn't have said that until very recently. Despite having a number of institutions that match or even surpass their cross-state counterparts (like the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art vs. the St. Louis Museum of Art), Kansas City took a back seat to St. Louis overall up until about 1990.
My Midwest city tiers circa 1970 would have put St. Louis, Detroit, Cleveland, and the Twins on the same tier, a little ways below Chicago, Cincy, KC and Milwaukee on the next tier, and Indianapolis and Columbus on the tier below that. The tiers have been rearranged since then as the three legacy industrial cities in tier 2 have all faltered, Indy and Columbus have surged, KC has risen somewhat, and Cincy and Milwaukee have held their own. The Twins have also continued to grow, but not so much as to move them closer to Chicago — they simply remain the Midwest's No. 2 metropolis.
I'd say in modern times KC and St. Louis are peer cities. The latter is still a bigger metro. Considering what they each have to offer, they're getting close enough to where one can't seriously claim bragging rights over the other.
After Chicago, I'd say it's Detroit and then the Twin Cities.
St. Louis isn't terribly far behind the Twins and closely followed by all the others so my take isn't much different.
St. Louis has been stagnant with it's growth so it no longer stands out dramatically over those others.
Sure, it's quite a bit bigger than Memphis, but Chicago is pretty untouchable for St.L and the rest of the midwest cities.
For this thread, St. Louis is like a jumbo Memphis more than it is a mini-Chicago.
Not knocking it. I like all the cities in question to some extent for various reasons, and would be more likely to live in one of the smaller two over Chicago.
Other than population, what exactly makes Detroit better than the twin cities? Its suburbs?
I've always considered the Detroit and Twin Cities(MSP) areas, to be very similar in size. Like they both have about the same amount of shopping, scheduled airport flights, amenities, etc. to them. I guess the only difference I can see between those 2 is that the Twin Cities has a more diversified economy, vs. Detroit.
Other than population, what exactly makes Detroit better than the twin cities? Its suburbs?
Well, size kind of matters. Based on urbanized area, Detroit has more than 1 million more people than the Twin Cities. But culturally speaking, Detroit is far and away more influential than Minneapolis-St. Paul, there's just no contest.
Well, size kind of matters. Based on urbanized area, Detroit has more than 1 million more people than the Twin Cities. But culturally speaking, Detroit is far and away more influential than Minneapolis-St. Paul, there's just no contest.
Being influential is enough to be considered better? The twin cities at their core, are in a different league imo. Swaths of abandoned blocks, lack of infrastructure, crime rate, and a lack of vibrancy in the core is a huge reason to consider Detroit's ranks. And MSP is also much more urban. City limits shouldn't just be ignored imo. That's generally the focal point of a metro.
Being influential is enough to be considered better? The twin cities at their core, are in a different league imo. Swaths of abandoned blocks, lack of infrastructure, crime rate, and a lack of vibrancy in the core is a huge reason to consider Detroit's ranks. And MSP is also much more urban. City limits shouldn't just be ignored imo. That's generally the focal point of a metro.
Preferences are subjective, and I personally find Detroit a LOT more interesting than the Twin Cities. Just my opinion. I definitely appreciate that Mpls-StP have certain advantages, but I love Detroit and consider it superior in the categories that appeal to me.
Definitely Memphis and it's not even close. It would have been a more realistic question to substitute out Chicago with a smaller city to make the comparison more fair.
Status:
"See My Blog Entries for my Top 500 Most Important USA Cities"
(set 5 days ago)
Location: Harrisburg, PA
1,051 posts, read 976,625 times
Reputation: 1406
Memphis definitely, and it's not even close. Though it's really not a good comparison, it is still much better and closer than Chicago and St. Louis. I think Kansas City would be a far better peer though. Also Cleveland, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh and maybe even New Orleans or Baltimore would be peer cities of St. Louis, too.
Intermediate, but more towards Memphis if push came to shove.
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.
