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.
Maybe the Grove. Maybe the Hill and maybe Tower Grove South would be the tier one St Louis neighborhoods. The second downtown Clayton
Then after that Soulard. Midtown and various others would be next. But all of those neighborhoods are quite decent.
Downtown STL even has some nice pockets along Washington avenue and by the Arch but yeah sometimes St Louis feels like a developing country in the city limits.
I love living in St. Louis but this is a dumb comparison. St. Louis has a long way to go before it can be world class. Not saying you couldn't have a fantastic experience living or visiting the area. San Francisco isn't what it use to be judging by friends who live there. St. Louis has the least inviting downtown of top 100 msas. I would never judge a city's livability by its downtown. I have to see other neighborhoods that are thriving before judging. With that being said, San Francisco shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence as St Louis.
San Francisco is still a world city as it is an economic powerhouse but increasingly it is a very unappealing one.
SF was always wealthy but it was also a trend setting city especially in the social sphere. From the Love & Peace Hippie movement of the 60s to the gay movement of the 70s.........SF was always a leader for social reforms. This backed up by being an incredibly beautiful city made it the envy of the world. Now, it rotting from the inside out and the sad part is that it is completely self inflicted. From NIMYS on steroids stopping all new residential construction sending housing into the stratosphere causing the young and creative class to flee, to effectively legalizing theft, to a bureaucracy that has the mantra that you have to accept crime and streets ladened with human feces, to a City Hall that refuses to even acknowledge the problems.
People use to "leave their hearts in San Francisco" and now they are leaving because they have a heart. SF is a city whose best years are behind it and it will never become the jewel that it once was and everybody knows it, particularly San Franciscans themselves.
I love living in St. Louis but this is a dumb comparison. St. Louis has a long way to go before it can be world class. Not saying you couldn't have a fantastic experience living or visiting the area. San Francisco isn't what it use to be judging by friends who live there. St. Louis has the least inviting downtown of top 100 msas. I would never judge a city's livability by its downtown. I have to see other neighborhoods that are thriving before judging. With that being said, San Francisco shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence as St Louis.
This kind of thinking assumes history began in 1990 and we can't take anything that happened before into consideration. Imagine someone saying "St. Louis and San Francisco shouldn't be mentioned in same sentence" at any point between 1840-1990.
At the beginning of the 1900's, while San Francisco was supposedly a big deal because "banks", St. Louis was duking it out with Chicago for world events.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssiguy
San Francisco is still a world city as it is an economic powerhouse but increasingly it is a very unappealing one.
SF was always wealthy but it was also a trend setting city especially in the social sphere. From the Love & Peace Hippie movement of the 60s to the gay movement of the 70s.........SF was always a leader for social reforms. This backed up by being an incredibly beautiful city made it the envy of the world. Now, it rotting from the inside out and the sad part is that it is completely self inflicted. From NIMYS on steroids stopping all new residential construction sending housing into the stratosphere causing the young and creative class to flee, to effectively legalizing theft, to a bureaucracy that has the mantra that you have to accept crime and streets ladened with human feces, to a City Hall that refuses to even acknowledge the problems.
People use to "leave their hearts in San Francisco" and now they are leaving because they have a heart. SF is a city whose best years are behind it and it will never become the jewel that it once was and everybody knows it, particularly San Franciscans themselves.
You are correct that San Francisco's world class city status is solely based on corporate wealth.
They recently struck out for the third time with an Olympic bid, if you research that you'll see they weren't ready for prime time.
Its the fifth largest city in the western U.S. and the fourth largest metro.
I'll go ahead and dispute.
I was referring in regards to prominence and importance. San Francisco is definitely #2 behind Los Angeles.
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.
