Kansas City vs. St. Louis (live, best, better, crime rate)

[JoCo freak]

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?

[aaronstlcards]

I've lived here my entire life (15 years) but don't know too much about Kansas City, so I can't exactly give you the best answer. All I can really tell you is that St. Louis has a higher crime rate, has about 1,000,000 more people than KC, and has more successful sports franchises, KC seems to be less of of a black or white city though. You could just Wikipedia St. Louis or maybe go to the city website and compare the cities from there.

[JoCo freak]

Ya know, I will probably do that.

[grmasterb]

It's a draw for me. Architectually, St. Louis probably has an edge. That fact that it was a major river port of the Louisiana Purchase and you can see a lot of the French influence in St. Louis city probably gives it an edge. KC has a lot of nice stuff around the Plaza, however. St. Louis' zoo is world-renowned.

As for sports franchises, St. Louis really only has a big advantage in baseball. Still, KC's facilities are better than those in St. Louis. Also, KC BBQ > St. Louis BBQ.

[Colts]

I prefer Kansas City. The terrain is a bit more varied, and there seems to be more of a laid back vibe.

[ajf131]

Originally Posted by Colts

I prefer Kansas City. The terrain is a bit more varied, and there seems to be more of a laid back vibe.

The terrain is a bit more varied? I strongly disagree. St. Louis City and St. Louis County have very varied terrain, far moreso than Kansas City. But I guess it's all subjective. Include St. Louis County and you will see just how varied the landscape is. Kansas City has all of Jackson County...St. Louis City and St. Louis County have far more interesting topography...from the Ozark foothills on the southern edges to rolling hills to flat as a pancake to towering river bluffs. Kansas City can't match that.

[WiseOwlSaysHoot]

They are both great cities, but as a biased Kansas Citian, I vote KC.

I'll try to fairly break it down on based your categories.

Homes: that seems like a personal preference thing to me, so it is tough to answer. STL has some fine row houses, so I'll give it the edge.

Architecture: STL has older architecture, with more pre 1900 buildings, but KC has some of the best Art Deco buildings in the nation and more architectural diversity. KC also has some noteworthy modern architecture with the Bloch building and the under-construction Performing Arts Center, which will be an icon. KC also has the fountains and the boulevards. I'm going to give KC the nod on this one (I know others may not agree).

Urban Core: Both are rebounding nicely after years of decay. I'd say its a draw.

Nighlife: I don't know too much about STL nightlife, but the two cities seem pretty comprable.

Niceness of people: I've heard on several occasions that people in KC are nicer (this is coming from people from STL). I haven't noticed much of a difference personally, but I'd give the edge to KC.

Activities: Again, pretty similar. Obviously if you want your baseball team to win games, then STL would have then advantage. STL has the better zoo. I think KCs museums are better. It's not like either city has a beach or skiing.

Overall, I prefer KC. It's probably just because it's my hometown, but there is something about the "vibe" in KC that I like better. Oh, and Boulevard > Bud

[cottonwood2420]

Kansas City.

[STLCardsBlues1989]

I'd have to side with St. Louis. I'm sure Kansas City is fine, but St. Louis is just awesome in so many ways.

But I am tired of this argument.

[aaronstlcards]

There is a thread exactly like this in the Missouri forum that has over 130 replies:
//www.city-data.com/forum/misso...nsas-city.html