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.
STL downtown at ground level is still bland IMO. Nice arch that's it and it's like so what after a bit.
P&L is doing fine it's always packed and continues to expand but I do believe the way it was funded cost the city money... The Plaza is nearing 100 years old it has nothing to do with P&L and it's doing awesome as well.
The 2 cities are very similar but I would choose KC for having an exceptionally better downtown with more night life, a larger art scene, and in my opinion much friendlier people which makes the city experience more enjoyable.
I can't believe I missed this thread. I'd have to go with STL and no I not hometown biased. It seems like a much bigger and dense city than KC with a lot more to do. I have been in KC and on the 2nd day it was hard to find something new and interesting to do. Plus I like STL's grittyness, culture, and history.
I guess if in one day you went the river market, plaza, crown center, the nelson, Negro league museum, kemper museum, Westport, toured the cities fountains, went to the local BBQ places, union station, saw the jazz museum, visited the liberty memorial and went to the WW1 museum, etc etc.... I can to on LOL.
But yeah that in one day then you must have been super bored by day 2 LOL. It doesn't even take into account the night life we have. The architecture to see, the festivals that go on every week. If you were bored then your boring... Can't blame KC for that.
Oh and KC people can enjoy with out the racial tension you see in STL. Sure we have are share of problems... but not near to the level that you will see in STL. I've only been to STL once, maybe twice where there wasn't someone from the area being racist to either people I know or just other people you'd see walking the streets.
Skrizzle,
Yes the arch is okay (actually more than okay) but KC and most other cities have nothing like it. It offers great sightlines.
The main business/entertainment district of St. Louis travels from downtown through Grand Center, the Central West End and on to Clayton.
Major art venues, museums, several universities, the symphony, zoo, Forest Park, clubs, entertainment venues and great restaurants are all located through this corridor.
I like KC but St. Louis is and has a larger and more cosmopolitan feel along with better amenities than KC. But I will add that KC has things that St. Louis and other cities certainly wish they had.
Skrizzle,
Yes the arch is okay (actually more than okay) but KC and most other cities have nothing like it. It offers great sightlines.
The main business/entertainment district of St. Louis travels from downtown through Grand Center, the Central West End and on to Clayton.
Major art venues, museums, several universities, the symphony, zoo, Forest Park, clubs, entertainment venues and great restaurants are all located through this corridor.
I like KC but St. Louis is and has a larger and more cosmopolitan feel along with better amenities than KC. But I will add that KC has things that St. Louis and other cities certainly wish they had.
I guess I really have never got the larger feel. I've been there plenty of times, but I don't get any feeling that it is larger. Perhaps i'm going to the wrong places?
Our urban areas which I consider from the Rivermarket through Downtown/Crossroads, midtown, westport, plaza, to Brookside and Waldo... seems like a much larger area to me. That area has several entertainment districts, art galleries, museums, parks, unique neighborhoods and shopping, water fountains galore, etc... Like I said maybe i've been to the wrong areas of STL, but my former roommate moved there for school, visited her and other friends several times, and I had fun.. but I didn't feel like I was in a different place in KC if ya know what I mean? That can be said about A LOT of cities in the US.
The arch is cool no doubt, but living there you gotta admit... if you've seen it once, thats it. Thats not knocking it there are a lot of places like that... or perhaps it's just my interpretation of it.
For example while I pointed out things KC had and mentioned Liberty Memorial and such... for me personally, i'm not much into sight seeing, i'm more about being immersed in the city. I've been over seas and completely skipped major tourist sights, because it's just not what gets my attention. Getting out and into the city gets my attention. Which is one of the things I like about KC...
Actually I guess it is sight seeing, I like the feeling of being downtown on our first fridays and its just a party in the street, I like going to the plaza and feeling like i'm in the middle of a work of art. Downtown looking up at our art deco buildings is amazing. It's things like this that make the city for me...
I can't say KC is the best city... we need to do a lot more here to improve on it, but we are getting there. It has issues with the KS side that hurts the urban core. We need rail (hopefully we will be getting street cars downtown soon).. I think our science city needs to be updated to have better attractions, etc.
But if you compare KC to STL, they really offer a lot of the same things, I agree with you that each city has amenities the other would like. I love the STL zoo.... KC zoo is hopefully improving and has a lot of plans, but I haven't been there in 5 years, and I wasn't impressed the last time I went.
So in all honesty I would just find it shocking for anyone to think STL or KC significantly offers more then the other. I can't say that one does over the other... but I prefer KC cuz it's my flavor. I like downtown life, I like the archetecture and layout of the city, I like the people, I like our history (you go the Union Station you can still see bullets in the wall from the KC massacre, the Pendergast era is extremely interesting along with KC never once supporting or enforcing prohibition)... and I can understand someone liking STL more for their own reasons too...
but I can't understand anyone saying "OMG STL is so much better then KC... KC has nothing I was bored!!"
Granted- Ballpark Village may not be a money pit. It's just a pit. But I'm kind of glad St. Louis didn't put so much money into Cordish's plans. Otherwise St. Louis would probably be paying off debts out of its own pocket. And Union Station is supposed to be revamped, so hopefully some new retail will come in there.
STL downtown at ground level is still bland IMO. Nice arch that's it and it's like so what after a bit.
P&L is doing fine it's always packed and continues to expand but I do believe the way it was funded cost the city money... The Plaza is nearing 100 years old it has nothing to do with P&L and it's doing awesome as well.
The 2 cities are very similar but I would choose KC for having an exceptionally better downtown with more night life, a larger art scene, and in my opinion much friendlier people which makes the city experience more enjoyable.
Downtown St Louis is very far from dead and is very impressive at ground level. It is totally different than it was 5 years ago when the only time it had activity was on a Sat night. Washington Ave has bars, shopping, and dining establishments running from the Landing all the way out to 20th street. Locust has improved and so has Olive with the new grocery store and a number of new restaurants. Add in the Cardinals and Blues when they are at home, concerts at Scottrade, Union Station, festivals, riverfront, and you have a lot of activity through most of the week.
I used to be able to walk around and see only a handful of people and now you are luck if you dont get bruched off the sidewalk. It will take some more time but its getting close to that 24/7 vibe.
Same day people in St Louis will admit or figure out that the two cities are very similar. They have about the same amout of attractions, museums, sports, amusement parks etc. The central urban cores of the cities are even layed out very similar, have similar populations and (employees and residents).
I just don't see much of a difference. Never have. But StL people just can't stand the idea that they are in the same league as KC. Just the thought of that freaks them out.
I know that Kansas City and St. Louis both have a lot to offer but I have not been to SL before. Which would you prefer for having better homes, architecture, a better urban core, nightlife, niceness of people, and activities. I obviously have to say KC because I have not been to SL. Have any of you been to SL and seen a lot there?
Other than Saint Louis having a higher crime rate...I'd say it's too close to call .
Same day people in St Louis will admit or figure out that the two cities are very similar. They have about the same amout of attractions, museums, sports, amusement parks etc. The central urban cores of the cities are even layed out very similar, have similar populations and (employees and residents).
I just don't see much of a difference. Never have. But StL people just can't stand the idea that they are in the same league as KC. Just the thought of that freaks them out.
Very true, St Louis likes to them of themselves as comparable to Chicago. Metro populations are about half a million in difference, not a million like St Louis likes to think.
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.
.
