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.
I am not originally from Missouri. I spent most of my life elsewhere. However, I went to Mizzou for college (right in the middle of both cities), and I recently relocated from Atlanta to KC with my company for a promotion.
I have been to STL too many times to count. And as I said, I live in KC since 2011.
St. Louis is good city. Great history, ethnic diversity, and the Cards are world champions 11 times over. Some refer to it as a city of neighborhoods. I think its more a city of many "micro-suburbs". Lots and lots and lots of those. In my personal experience, people from STL very often come across and extremely proud of their home (sometimes delusionally/obnoxiously). But that's alright, I like it when locals stick up for the city loud and proud . There seems to be a lot of old money. Sometimes I get the feel that STL is a bit too pretentious for my liking. And the whole "what highschool you went to?" thing pisses me off immensely.
But I always felt that it is a city whose best days are behind it. Once upon a time, STL was probably one of the Top 10-15 best cities in America. Today, when you speak of cities around the country, or even in the Midwest to look out for in the next 5 - 10 years, STL sure as hell ain't one of them. I classify it in the same boat as Cleveland, Detroit (Baltimore and Milwaukee to a certain extent too). Cities that are big enough to take seriously, with so much cultural and historical significance that you can't write them off.
However, with nearly 3 million people in its metro area, STL punches below its weight, which is disappointing. Instead of taking the Pittsburgh route (Rust Belt city on the upswing with a bright future), STL seems to have plateued for very a long time. Perhaps stagnation is the better way to describe it. Now, it's definitely not in free fall like Detroit, but to me, it doesn't feel like the wheels of progress are turning much in St. Louis.
Oh, and lets not forget the fact that MASSIVE swathes of the city are violent ghetto. Embarrisingly, some of the worst in the entire country. And don't use that excuse that those locations aren't really part of STL. If STL claims the entire 3 million people in its metro, then it claims all of the good, all of the bad, and all of the straight up hideous as well. You cannot pick and choose. And to me, that inner city problem is highly concerning. STL is not a Washington DC, which has so much good going on for it, that it can outshine the bad that goes on in DC's horrendous ghettos.
KC on the other hand has about 1 million people less than STL. It is a younger city. And it is geographically further from other large Midwestern cities. Yet, I feel that nowadays it is on equal footing with STL in most categories, which is saying a lot. KC is a city that clearly punches above its weight. It's best days are ahead of it. One of the most impressive downtown re-births in the nation this decade. Healthy population growth and economic standing. And a culture that makes it relevant on the national stage (Very strong artscene, superior BBQ cuisine, Jazz Music, etc)
All in all, the two cities aren't bad places to live. They are actually good places to call home. They share some similarities, but remain individually unique enough to differenciate themselves from being called sister cities. STL is a Midwestern city with some "Eastern" characteristics. KC is a Midwestern city with some "Great Plains" characteristics. I know it gets under St. Louisians' skin when their city is pegged with with KC when so many of them so desperately want to be grouped with Chicago or Minneapolis St. Paul. On the other hand, a lot of KCitians have an inferiority complex going on with STL due to decades of being "Missouri's 2nd city status" "cowtown comments", "flyover country" and my favorite zinger of them all "big city wannabees".
So when comparing STL to KC, crime shouldn't even be brought up as a negative for STL. STL has small city limits, KC has very large city limits, so looking at the metro crime rankings makes more sense because the actual cities are not comparable
So when comparing STL to KC, crime shouldn't even be brought up as a negative for STL. STL has small city limits, KC has very large city limits, so looking at the metro crime rankings makes more sense because the actual cities are not comparable
Once again, twisting numbers and making delusional claims here. STL has the Top 3 highest murder rate in the nation, along with Flint MI and Detroit MI. KC wasn't even in the Top 10. It's not an opinion, it's just a fact. Engage your city leadership to deal with the problem rather than lying about it to save face.
St. Louis is worse. Don't kid yourself. It's nationally known for it's murder problem.
They're the same to me. I'd no sooner set foot in most of KC east of Troost than I would north STL. I think a lot of people would agree. Throwing stones at STL for their crime problem from KC strikes me as stupid for this reason.
Once again, twisting numbers and making delusional claims here. STL has the Top 3 highest murder rate in the nation, along with Flint MI and Detroit MI. KC wasn't even in the Top 10. It's not an opinion, it's just a fact. Engage your city leadership to deal with the problem rather than lying about it to save face.
How am I twisting numbers? We're talking about metros here, and I simply posted statistics that show that metro KC has a higher crime rate than metro STL.
The cities are set up differently, so they're hard to compare. STL is 60 square miles and completely urban; KC is 316 sq miles with a lot of annexed suburban areas, so of course KC is going to come out as safer. If STL annexed 256 more sq miles of STL County, it would statistically be as safe as KC, no doubt. If you combine STL city+county+East St. Louis, the murder rate is lower than KC, and the population density is still higher. So that area is easily comparable to KC, but you choose to only look at the city limits
I'm not from St. Louis btw and I don't live there.
I'd rather live in Kansas City. Too much crime in St. Louis. From Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowed
"With a crime rate of 105 per one thousand residents, St. Louis has one of the highest crime rates in America compared to all communities of all sizes - from the smallest towns to the very largest cities. One's chance of becoming a victim of either violent or property crime here is one in 10. Within Missouri, more than 100% of the communities have a lower crime rate than St. Louis.In fact, after researching dangerous places to live, NeighborhoodScout found St. Louis to be one of the top 100 most dangerous cities in the U.S.A.Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowed
Each time I have visited St. Louis, I have been underwhelmed. Don't know why; there is just nothing about it that impresses me at all.
They should just annex a two inch wide corridor between the two cities and merge.
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.
. There seems to be a lot of old money. Sometimes I get the feel that STL is a bit too pretentious for my liking. And the whole "what highschool you went to?" thing pisses me off immensely. 
