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.
Nobody ever said St. Louis remotely compares to NYC or is a place gay people dream of moving to
But the interesting thing is, St. Louis edges out New York on this survey of LGBT-friendlieness.
And despite the presence of one real blooper in the methodology (a metric criterion —LGBT support groups per 100k residents — is scored as a binary one), there are some areas where St. Louis trounces New York.
I think the presence of cost of living as a criterion may be one of the biggies throwing this list off the ones most posters here offer as what should be. Consider that all of MB1562's top five score low on that scale. #18 St. Louis had a far lower COL (82) than #19 New York (194) did, and that actually jibes with my impression of both.The stereotype is that gay men have loads of income that they can dispose on expensive stuff, from their houses (and lawns) on down. But the reality is that loads of gay men, not to mention lesbians and the others reflected in that LGBTQIA extended alphabet soup, don't have that kind of coin to drop on stuff, so when they make decisions on where to live, they may gravitate towards those with a lower cost of living and adequate LGBTQ services, clubs and so on.
Edited to add: BTW, LawnStarter puts out a bunch of clickbait surveys, but their explanation for putting out this one was cute:
Quote:
Why did LawnStarter rank the Most (and Least) LGBTQ-Friendly Cities? Green — our color — is a stripe in the rainbow flag.
Last edited by MarketStEl; 07-30-2022 at 11:26 PM..
I'm less interested in comparing one big, diverse city to another and more in picking out cities that are notably more gay-friendly than you'd think based on their location, demographics etc. Jackson, MS which someone just brought up is a good one. Salt Lake City is also commonly cited for this.
FWIW, I knew a bisexual woman once who moved to St. Louis from her small town in Oregon and was happy with the LGBTQ+ scene there (she eventually had to leave for unrelated reasons). Though in her case, being physically far from family was probably as big a factor as the city itself.
I'm less interested in comparing one big, diverse city to another and more in picking out cities that are notably more gay-friendly than you'd think based on their location, demographics etc. Jackson, MS which someone just brought up is a good one. Salt Lake City is also commonly cited for this.
FWIW, I knew a bisexual woman once who moved to St. Louis from her small town in Oregon and was happy with the LGBTQ+ scene there (she eventually had to leave for unrelated reasons). Though in her case, being physically far from family was probably as big a factor as the city itself.
We also have to consider many LGBTQ+ are starting families now in their 20s and 30s. St. Louis seems to be a much easier option than NYC plus there are many resources to tap in to for that.
But the interesting thing is, St. Louis edges out New York on this survey of LGBT-friendlieness.
And despite the presence of one real blooper in the methodology (a metric criterion —LGBT support groups per 100k residents — is scored as a binary one), there are some areas where St. Louis trounces New York.
I think the presence of cost of living as a criterion may be one of the biggies throwing this list off the ones most posters here offer as what should be. Consider that all of MB1562's top five score low on that scale. #18 St. Louis had a far lower COL (82) than #19 New York (194) did, and that actually jibes with my impression of both.The stereotype is that gay men have loads of income that they can dispose on expensive stuff, from their houses (and lawns) on down. But the reality is that loads of gay men, not to mention lesbians and the others reflected in that LGBTQIA extended alphabet soup, don't have that kind of coin to drop on stuff, so when they make decisions on where to live, they may gravitate towards those with a lower cost of living and adequate LGBTQ services, clubs and so on.
Edited to add: BTW, LawnStarter puts out a bunch of clickbait surveys, but their explanation for putting out this one was cute:
I'm sorry, but simple affordability does not put a third-tier regional city above the world's premiere mega-city and gay capital of the world.
I'm sorry, but simple affordability does not put a third-tier regional city above the world's premiere mega-city and gay capital of the world.
Sorry, but as a "gay capital," at least as commonly understood, New York plays second fiddle to San Francisco — which also topped LawnStarter's survey.
To offer you another suggestion for why New York placed where it did: Consider that many of those categories involved measurements of institutions, services, organizations and activities per 100,000 residents. Since New York City has nearly 8 million of those, even a large number of such LGBT groups and services will get diluted in a population that large, especially since I don't think NYC's LGBT population is proportionately larger than San Francisco's. San Francisco, with about 700,000 residents, will trounce New York on this score even if they have roughly equal numbers of LGBTQ residents and groups, activities and organizations serving them.
Meanwhile, a city of 350,000 like St. Louis should do well on that score given its significantly smaller population if it has a reasonable number of such groups and organizations. Were the city to have its 1950 peak population of 750,000, all else being the same, its standing on those metrics would drop.
Again, here, look at the most heavily weighted value under "Commumity Support": Same-sex households per 1,000 households. Now, I can already tell you the flaw in this metric: Many LGBTQ households consist of single individuals or unrelated individuals rooming together, and neither of these would be captured by a measurement of same-sex couple households (which I assume is what is being measured here). Just going on a hunch about how Midwest LGBTQ folk live, same-sex couple households may account for a larger share of all LGBTQ households in St. Louis, which would be consistent with St. Louis' #12 ranking vs. New York's #42 (and again, there are far more households in toto in New York than in St. Louis, which would further depress New York's ratio).
Contrary to popular understanding? You bet. Understandable based on the way LawnStarter measured things? Quite possibly.
To offer you another suggestion for why New York placed where it did: Consider that many of those categories involved measurements of institutions, services, organizations and activities per 100,000 residents. Since New York City has nearly 8 million of those, even a large number of such LGBT groups and services will get diluted in a population that large, especially since I don't think NYC's LGBT population is proportionately larger than San Francisco's. San Francisco, with about 700,000 residents, will trounce New York on this score even if they have roughly equal numbers of LGBTQ residents and groups, activities and organizations serving them.
As of 2005, NYC had the second lowest LGBTQ+ population among large US cities at 4.5%, below places like Nashville, Las Vegas, and Indianapolis. SF was the highest at 15.4%.
I'm guessing NYC's real percentage was higher and was being deflated by immigrants from conservative countries not being honest (or not being fully sure their answers were anonymous), but still, there's no comparison here.
Sorry, but as a "gay capital," at least as commonly understood, New York plays second fiddle to San Francisco — which also topped LawnStarter's survey.
To offer you another suggestion for why New York placed where it did: Consider that many of those categories involved measurements of institutions, services, organizations and activities per 100,000 residents. Since New York City has nearly 8 million of those, even a large number of such LGBT groups and services will get diluted in a population that large, especially since I don't think NYC's LGBT population is proportionately larger than San Francisco's. San Francisco, with about 700,000 residents, will trounce New York on this score even if they have roughly equal numbers of LGBTQ residents and groups, activities and organizations serving them.
Meanwhile, a city of 350,000 like St. Louis should do well on that score given its significantly smaller population if it has a reasonable number of such groups and organizations. Were the city to have its 1950 peak population of 750,000, all else being the same, its standing on those metrics would drop.
Again, here, look at the most heavily weighted value under "Commumity Support": Same-sex households per 1,000 households. Now, I can already tell you the flaw in this metric: Many LGBTQ households consist of single individuals or unrelated individuals rooming together, and neither of these would be captured by a measurement of same-sex couple households (which I assume is what is being measured here). Just going on a hunch about how Midwest LGBTQ folk live, same-sex couple households may account for a larger share of all LGBTQ households in St. Louis, which would be consistent with St. Louis' #12 ranking vs. New York's #42 (and again, there are far more households in toto in New York than in St. Louis, which would further depress New York's ratio).
Contrary to popular understanding? You bet. Understandable based on the way LawnStarter measured things? Quite possibly.
Agreed, but STL’s peak pop in 1950 was 857k, not 750k.
Sorry, but as a "gay capital," at least as commonly understood, New York plays second fiddle to San Francisco — which also topped LawnStarter's survey.
To offer you another suggestion for why New York placed where it did: Consider that many of those categories involved measurements of institutions, services, organizations and activities per 100,000 residents. Since New York City has nearly 8 million of those, even a large number of such LGBT groups and services will get diluted in a population that large, especially since I don't think NYC's LGBT population is proportionately larger than San Francisco's. San Francisco, with about 700,000 residents, will trounce New York on this score even if they have roughly equal numbers of LGBTQ residents and groups, activities and organizations serving them.
Meanwhile, a city of 350,000 like St. Louis should do well on that score given its significantly smaller population if it has a reasonable number of such groups and organizations. Were the city to have its 1950 peak population of 750,000, all else being the same, its standing on those metrics would drop.
Again, here, look at the most heavily weighted value under "Commumity Support": Same-sex households per 1,000 households. Now, I can already tell you the flaw in this metric: Many LGBTQ households consist of single individuals or unrelated individuals rooming together, and neither of these would be captured by a measurement of same-sex couple households (which I assume is what is being measured here). Just going on a hunch about how Midwest LGBTQ folk live, same-sex couple households may account for a larger share of all LGBTQ households in St. Louis, which would be consistent with St. Louis' #12 ranking vs. New York's #42 (and again, there are far more households in toto in New York than in St. Louis, which would further depress New York's ratio).
Contrary to popular understanding? You bet. Understandable based on the way LawnStarter measured things? Quite possibly.
Again, you can make the argument that New York's raw numbers in the gay community puts it above even San Francisco. And yes, I believe sheer size of things makes far more of a community than proportion of that size. You can argue NYC and SF legitimately because they have such large populations with very active and established sectors of LGBT culture in so many facets of life. You can't argue places like Providence, Richmond, or St. Louis in the same breath because it's like comparing the winner of the Little League World Series to the MLB World Series.
MarketStreetEl, you and I have spent many a night in the Gayborhood in Philly. Even a city like Philadelphia, not in the same league as a New York or SF or LA, easily beats a city like St. Louis because raw numbers matter in creating a greater range of options for a greater amount of and more diverse set of people.
Again, you can make the argument that New York's raw numbers in the gay community puts it above even San Francisco. And yes, I believe sheer size of things makes far more of a community than proportion of that size. You can argue NYC and SF legitimately because they have such large populations with very active and established sectors of LGBT culture in so many facets of life. You can't argue places like Providence, Richmond, or St. Louis in the same breath because it's like comparing the winner of the Little League World Series to the MLB World Series.
MarketStreetEl, you and I have spent many a night in the Gayborhood in Philly. Even a city like Philadelphia, not in the same league as a New York or SF or LA, easily beats a city like St. Louis because raw numbers matter in creating a greater range of options for a greater amount of and more diverse set of people.
I actually don't dispute that at all, and that's why you still find most LGBTQ people who feel the need to go somewhere else to truly be themselves flocking to the Meccas and the second-tier cities like Philadelphia.
I was just pointing out the reasons why this survey produced dramatically different results. And I think they might be useful still in pointing out that it's now possible to live comfortably as an out LGBTQ person in many more cities now. Sheesh, everything was still under the radar in my hometown of Kansas City, Mo., when I was growing up there, and I don't think that, even if I were fully conscious of my sexuality then, I would have felt comfortable coming out there (even though I did meet some out gay men through my performance in summer stock theater there). I would say that things are much, much different, and better, in KC now, and a young person in, say, a small town in Kansas might find living an out life there now quite acceptable. (Or, for that matter, an LGBTQ kid in Topeka, 60 miles to Kansas City's west, if only because the Westboro Baptist Church cult is located in Topeka.)
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.
