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.
THE MASON-DIXON LINE IS THE OHIO RIVER, THE MARYLAND-PENNSYLVANIA BORDER, AND THE 36 DEGREE LATITUDE LINE STARTING FROM WHERE THE OHIO ENDS AT MISSOURI AND EXTENDING DUE WEST. THE OHIO RIVER HAS BEEN THE TRADITIONAL WAY TO DIVIDE THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH AND STILL VERY ACCURATELY DIVIDES IT. THE MASON-DIXON LINE ACROSS MISSOURI IS THE ONE CREATED BY THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE. FACT!!!! IF YOU CAN'T ACCEPT IT, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE MASON-DIXON LINE IS!!! I KNOW MISSOURI BETTER THAN ANYBODY IN THIS FORUM!!! IF IT IS NOT MIDWESTERN, THAN MOST OF ILLINOIS, INDIANA, OHIO AND KANSAS ARE NOT EITHER. BECAUSE MISSOURI IS FAR MORE LIKE THESE STATES THAN ANY SOUTHERN STATE. NO TRUE SOUTHERN CULTURE EXISTS HERE UNLESS YOU ARE AROUND AREAS WHERE MISSOURI TOUCHES OTHER SOUTHERN STATES.
Please stop shouting. Yes, the OH River is a traditional way to divide north from south, but that doesn't make it the Mason-Dixon Line.
I call that the Chicago vacuum. Chicago sucks the best and brightest and the thunder out of other Midwestern cities into itself. But no one knows why Chicago has a vacuum.
The vacuum consists of jobs combined with a vibrant urban city. For the typical college graduate today, the main concerns about choosing a place to live isn't about traffic or where you can raise kids with the most amount of space - instead, the goal is to get a great job in a city that's fun with tons of things to do and lots of other young people to do them with. That's why places such as Chicago, NYC, and LA continue to draw tons of educated young people despite the higher costs of living (and why "less congested" cities such as Milwaukee and St. Louis aren't drawing those people at the same rate). Then, when those same college grads grow up and want to settle down, they'll typically stay in that metro area by moving out to the suburbs. Meanwhile, a new crop of college grads moves into the city and the whole cycle starts over again. That's how cities and regions become strong and keep getting stronger.
So, while the East Coast offers a number of other vibrant urban cities other than NYC, such as Boston and Washington, and the West Coast has San Francisco and Seattle as urban alternatives to L.A., the Midwest doesn't have a true alternative to Chicago that has the same real urban feel (at least on the same scale as the other regions of the country). That's why it sucks up so many people from other states (for example, every Big Ten school seems to send legions of graduates here every year). Minneapolis is at least somewhat on the ascent as opposed to pretty much every other Midwestern city, but it has more of a suburban feel (not a bad thing for quality of life purposes, yet if you truly want an urban environment, that city won't satisfy that need).
On a side note, I always look at traffic issues with a more holistic point of view (if that's even possible). The only thing worse than a lot of traffic is not having traffic problems at all because that means no one wants to live or work there. Which would you rather have?
Please stop shouting. Yes, the OH River is a traditional way to divide north from south, but that doesn't make it the Mason-Dixon Line.
Fine. Even if it doesn't, it's a far more accurate way to divide the North and South then taking the Mason-Dixon line and extending it due west. That is a grossly inaccurate way to define the North and the South boundaries these days. I am not speaking just from opinion. I am speaking the facts. The North and South is defined using the Ohio River, the Mason-Dixon line, and the 36 degree latitude line established by the Missouri compromise. The North and South have always been divided by these definitions.
The sad thing is St. Louis had a big chance to be what Chicago is now 100 years ago and we blew it. First obstacle was we were running behind in getting a bridge put over the Mississippi to help our economy flow, and second the political fathers of the city didn't want to let it get big. And ever since then I think there has been a kind of snobbish attitude between Chicagoans and St. Louisans, kind of like between Milwaukee and Chicago. lol...Chicago may have gotten big but it didn't make too many friends along the way lol. I think people from St. Louis will always resent Chicago and people from Chicago will always look down on St. Louis. I dunno...that's the attitude I've notice the two cities have towards each other. Not to be stereotypical...just speaking from experience. I'm not one of these people by the way I am more than accomodating of both cities. My favorite two Midwestern cities: St. Louis and Chicago.
I agree. St. Louis missed the boat. I used to live there. It had lots of potential, but a lot of bad luck and bad city management has led to its stagnation. First of all, it was the rapids just north along the MIssissippi that really screwed up a lot of potential trade routes in St. Louis. The boats just couldnt get through very well. Then the huge blow was the choice of the transcont railroad to go through Chicago over St. Louis. St. LOuis at the turn of the 20th century was the 4th largest city in the nation.
Other blows that St. Louis did to itself was ignoring the surrounding area, there was a point in time where the surrounding suburbs wanted to be anexed by St. Louis. St. Louis denied them at the time. Now they are a stand alone city, they had an opportunity once upon a time to join St. LOuis county, but decided to fly solo, and now even if they wanted to join, St. Louis county may not want ST. Louis anymore.
Having said all that, St. Louis still does have its charm and character. I think it's a nice MSA of 2.7 million people that has very characteristic and entertaining neighborhoods.
Their Italian neighborhood is top notch, also known as the "THe Hill"
Their chinese district along Olive Blvd. boasts one of the country's most inexpensive chinese bakeries and bbq.
The "central west end" is excellent for out door eating and urban living.
THe Loop offers alternative/retro/eclectic places.
WAshington University in St. Louis is a top 11 national university with its own offerings.
IN the suburbs is an Alpine themed village at Westport.
And downtown's Wash Ave. Loft district is making a comeback.
Their French quarters also offers unique experiences as well.
This is a city with character, enriched with history, and also with lots of hidden neighborhood treasures that outsiders may not necessarily know about. It is much different than the "New American Cities" that boasts many more strip malls/capita and more post-modernist architecture. However, my preferences are for modern, hence my living in the Metroplex, however, I do feel that St. Louis is a nice place to live, especially for people who desire 4 seasons, cheap cost of living, good air access with the American airline hub there, and a more historical feel with character. I do suggest if you visit St. Louis to talk to someone from there to get the inside scoop on all these neat areas to visit.
But in the 21st century, St. Louis is no Chicago. IT must be compared to the likes of Cleveland, OH, Cincinatti, OH, Pittsburgh, PA, Denver, CO, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Tampa/St. Petersburg. These are all cities of similar size.
But for Midwestern cities: I still give the edge to Chicago.
My rankings of MSA's (my preferences only):
1) Chicago
2) St. Louis
3) Kansas City MSA
4) Minneapolis/St. Paul
5) Indianapolis
6) Cleveland
7) Milwaukee
8) Columbus
9) Cincinatti
10) Detroit
Note these are MSA's of 1million or more people
Not included that would rank high otherwise:
Omaha, NE
Des Moines, IA
Sioux Falls, SD
Appleton, WI
Racine/Kenosha area (conveniently close to Chicago and Milwaukee)
Springfield/Branson
I agree. St. Louis missed the boat. I used to live there. It had lots of potential, but a lot of bad luck and bad city management has led to its stagnation. First of all, it was the rapids just north along the MIssissippi that really screwed up a lot of potential trade routes in St. Louis. The boats just couldnt get through very well. Then the huge blow was the choice of the transcont railroad to go through Chicago over St. Louis. St. LOuis at the turn of the 20th century was the 4th largest city in the nation.
Other blows that St. Louis did to itself was ignoring the surrounding area, there was a point in time where the surrounding suburbs wanted to be anexed by St. Louis. St. Louis denied them at the time. Now they are a stand alone city, they had an opportunity once upon a time to join St. LOuis county, but decided to fly solo, and now even if they wanted to join, St. Louis county may not want ST. Louis anymore.
Having said all that, St. Louis still does have its charm and character. I think it's a nice MSA of 2.7 million people that has very characteristic and entertaining neighborhoods.
Their Italian neighborhood is top notch, also known as the "THe Hill"
Their chinese district along Olive Blvd. boasts one of the country's most inexpensive chinese bakeries and bbq.
The "central west end" is excellent for out door eating and urban living.
THe Loop offers alternative/retro/eclectic places.
WAshington University in St. Louis is a top 11 national university with its own offerings.
IN the suburbs is an Alpine themed village at Westport.
And downtown's Wash Ave. Loft district is making a comeback.
Their French quarters also offers unique experiences as well.
This is a city with character, enriched with history, and also with lots of hidden neighborhood treasures that outsiders may not necessarily know about. It is much different than the "New American Cities" that boasts many more strip malls/capita and more post-modernist architecture. However, my preferences are for modern, hence my living in the Metroplex, however, I do feel that St. Louis is a nice place to live, especially for people who desire 4 seasons, cheap cost of living, good air access with the American airline hub there, and a more historical feel with character. I do suggest if you visit St. Louis to talk to someone from there to get the inside scoop on all these neat areas to visit.
But in the 21st century, St. Louis is no Chicago. IT must be compared to the likes of Cleveland, OH, Cincinatti, OH, Pittsburgh, PA, Denver, CO, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Tampa/St. Petersburg. These are all cities of similar size.
But for Midwestern cities: I still give the edge to Chicago.
My rankings of MSA's (my preferences only):
1) Chicago
2) St. Louis
3) Kansas City MSA
4) Minneapolis/St. Paul
5) Indianapolis
6) Cleveland
7) Milwaukee
8) Columbus
9) Cincinatti
10) Detroit
Note these are MSA's of 1million or more people
Not included that would rank high otherwise:
Omaha, NE
Des Moines, IA
Sioux Falls, SD
Appleton, WI
Racine/Kenosha area (conveniently close to Chicago and Milwaukee)
Springfield/Branson
I would put Minneapolis/St. Paul and Columbus ahead of Kansas City. Kansas City does not have a very vibrant downtown area at all and mainly just consists of boring, bland, and beige suburbs. Jackson County Missouri also has a lot of urban decay and job declines the past several years. At least Minneapolis/St.Paul and Columbus have slightly more vibrant downtown areas with more younger people and greater amounts of entertainment options. KC only has the Plaza area which is not in the downtown core area, but is further south. Des Moines and Omaha are fairly strong regional centers that suck large amounts of people out of the surrounding rural counties. Des Moines and Omaha are both solid smaller metros. Sioux Falls metro has one of the STRONGEST economies in the Dakotas region that attracts many people from a large area. Fargo North Dakota also has a very strong economy right now as well and I would rank it near the top of the smaller metros. Springfield/Branson should not be considered part of the Midwest AT ALL. Branson is practically on the Arkansas border.
Springfield and Branson are far more tied to the South I think than the Midwest. They shouldn't even be considered part of Missouri I think because they have over twice as much in common with Arkansas and the South, and they geographically are barely even in Missouri. St. Louis may have missed out on its opportunity to become the capital of the Midwest, but I still think it is one of the most important cities in the Midwest anyway. Only Chicago, Minneapolis/Saint Paul, and Detroit I think are bigger driving forces in the Midwest than St. Louis. Cleveland I'd say ties St. Louis for importance. i'm a little curious why you picked Columbus Plains10....I'm just curious because it's not that large, is not as big of a business center as Chicago, Minneapolis/Saint Paul, Detroit, St. Louis, Cleveland, or Cincinnati. I'm not attacking your choices...just wondering why you picked Columbus over cities like Cleveland and St. Louis.
I agree. St. Louis missed the boat. I used to live there. It had lots of potential, but a lot of bad luck and bad city management has led to its stagnation. First of all, it was the rapids just north along the MIssissippi that really screwed up a lot of potential trade routes in St. Louis. The boats just couldnt get through very well. Then the huge blow was the choice of the transcont railroad to go through Chicago over St. Louis. St. LOuis at the turn of the 20th century was the 4th largest city in the nation.
Other blows that St. Louis did to itself was ignoring the surrounding area, there was a point in time where the surrounding suburbs wanted to be anexed by St. Louis. St. Louis denied them at the time. Now they are a stand alone city, they had an opportunity once upon a time to join St. LOuis county, but decided to fly solo, and now even if they wanted to join, St. Louis county may not want ST. Louis anymore.
Having said all that, St. Louis still does have its charm and character. I think it's a nice MSA of 2.7 million people that has very characteristic and entertaining neighborhoods.
Their Italian neighborhood is top notch, also known as the "THe Hill"
Their chinese district along Olive Blvd. boasts one of the country's most inexpensive chinese bakeries and bbq.
The "central west end" is excellent for out door eating and urban living.
THe Loop offers alternative/retro/eclectic places.
WAshington University in St. Louis is a top 11 national university with its own offerings.
IN the suburbs is an Alpine themed village at Westport.
And downtown's Wash Ave. Loft district is making a comeback.
Their French quarters also offers unique experiences as well.
This is a city with character, enriched with history, and also with lots of hidden neighborhood treasures that outsiders may not necessarily know about. It is much different than the "New American Cities" that boasts many more strip malls/capita and more post-modernist architecture. However, my preferences are for modern, hence my living in the Metroplex, however, I do feel that St. Louis is a nice place to live, especially for people who desire 4 seasons, cheap cost of living, good air access with the American airline hub there, and a more historical feel with character. I do suggest if you visit St. Louis to talk to someone from there to get the inside scoop on all these neat areas to visit.
But in the 21st century, St. Louis is no Chicago. IT must be compared to the likes of Cleveland, OH, Cincinatti, OH, Pittsburgh, PA, Denver, CO, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Tampa/St. Petersburg. These are all cities of similar size.
But for Midwestern cities: I still give the edge to Chicago.
My rankings of MSA's (my preferences only):
1) Chicago
2) St. Louis
3) Kansas City MSA
4) Minneapolis/St. Paul
5) Indianapolis
6) Cleveland
7) Milwaukee
8) Columbus
9) Cincinatti
10) Detroit
Note these are MSA's of 1million or more people
Not included that would rank high otherwise:
Omaha, NE
Des Moines, IA
Sioux Falls, SD
Racine/Kenosha area (conveniently close to Chicago and Milwaukee)
Springfield/Branson
St. Louis was also the largest Midwestern city pretty much throughout the whole 19th century....only Cincinnati may have been as big. It was the biggest economic center west of Pittsburgh for a very long time. Chicago caught up with it after the Civil War and passed it around the turn of the 19th to the 20th century. You also forgot to mention that St. Louis County has its own suburban downtown, Downtown Clayton, which plays sort of the same role as Akron does with Cleveland and Evanston, Illinois does with Chicago. Downtown Clayton is one of the largest suburban skylines in the United States. St. Louis also is the headquarters of many distinct companies...not like Chicago by any sense, but in terms of corporate cities in the Midwest St. Louis is certainly in the top five.
Springfield and Branson are far more tied to the South I think than the Midwest. They shouldn't even be considered part of Missouri I think because they have over twice as much in common with Arkansas and the South, and they geographically are barely even in Missouri. St. Louis may have missed out on its opportunity to become the capital of the Midwest, but I still think it is one of the most important cities in the Midwest anyway. Only Chicago, Minneapolis/Saint Paul, and Detroit I think are bigger driving forces in the Midwest than St. Louis. Cleveland I'd say ties St. Louis for importance. i'm a little curious why you picked Columbus Plains10....I'm just curious because it's not that large, is not as big of a business center as Chicago, Minneapolis/Saint Paul, Detroit, St. Louis, Cleveland, or Cincinnati. I'm not attacking your choices...just wondering why you picked Columbus over cities like Cleveland and St. Louis.
I picked Columbus because the city has done a good job at redefining itself, and probably has one of the best economies in Ohio right now. The metro area is not as large in terms of square miles, but it is a fairly big city. It is the capitol city of Ohio as well as the home of Ohio State University. This adds to the diversity and youthful energy of the area. Delaware County north of Columbus is probably one of the wealthiest suburban counties in the entire country. Columbus also has been experiencing decent amounts of economic growth and population growth compared with Cleveland, which is losing population very fast. Also, the downtown area is doing very well with many walkable neighborhoods, entertainment, and cultural activities. Kansas City does not have as good of an urban downtown with things to do compared with parts of Columbus.
I agree. St. Louis missed the boat. I used to live there. It had lots of potential, but a lot of bad luck and bad city management has led to its stagnation. First of all, it was the rapids just north along the MIssissippi that really screwed up a lot of potential trade routes in St. Louis. The boats just couldnt get through very well. Then the huge blow was the choice of the transcont railroad to go through Chicago over St. Louis. St. LOuis at the turn of the 20th century was the 4th largest city in the nation.
Other blows that St. Louis did to itself was ignoring the surrounding area, there was a point in time where the surrounding suburbs wanted to be anexed by St. Louis. St. Louis denied them at the time. Now they are a stand alone city, they had an opportunity once upon a time to join St. LOuis county, but decided to fly solo, and now even if they wanted to join, St. Louis county may not want ST. Louis anymore.
Having said all that, St. Louis still does have its charm and character. I think it's a nice MSA of 2.7 million people that has very characteristic and entertaining neighborhoods.
Their Italian neighborhood is top notch, also known as the "THe Hill"
Their chinese district along Olive Blvd. boasts one of the country's most inexpensive chinese bakeries and bbq.
The "central west end" is excellent for out door eating and urban living.
THe Loop offers alternative/retro/eclectic places.
WAshington University in St. Louis is a top 11 national university with its own offerings.
IN the suburbs is an Alpine themed village at Westport.
And downtown's Wash Ave. Loft district is making a comeback.
Their French quarters also offers unique experiences as well.
This is a city with character, enriched with history, and also with lots of hidden neighborhood treasures that outsiders may not necessarily know about. It is much different than the "New American Cities" that boasts many more strip malls/capita and more post-modernist architecture. However, my preferences are for modern, hence my living in the Metroplex, however, I do feel that St. Louis is a nice place to live, especially for people who desire 4 seasons, cheap cost of living, good air access with the American airline hub there, and a more historical feel with character. I do suggest if you visit St. Louis to talk to someone from there to get the inside scoop on all these neat areas to visit.
But in the 21st century, St. Louis is no Chicago. IT must be compared to the likes of Cleveland, OH, Cincinatti, OH, Pittsburgh, PA, Denver, CO, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Tampa/St. Petersburg. These are all cities of similar size.
But for Midwestern cities: I still give the edge to Chicago.
My rankings of MSA's (my preferences only):
1) Chicago
2) St. Louis
3) Kansas City MSA
4) Minneapolis/St. Paul
5) Indianapolis
6) Cleveland
7) Milwaukee
8) Columbus
9) Cincinatti
10) Detroit
Note these are MSA's of 1million or more people
Not included that would rank high otherwise:
Omaha, NE
Des Moines, IA
Sioux Falls, SD
Appleton, WI
Racine/Kenosha area (conveniently close to Chicago and Milwaukee)
Springfield/Branson
(My ranking list)
Best large metros in the Midwest/Plains:
1) Chicago
2) Minneapolis/St. Paul
3) St. Louis
4) Indianapolis
5) Columbus
6) Kansas City
7) Milwaukee
8) Cincinatti
9) Cleveland
10) Detroit
Best smaller metros in the Midwest/Plains:
1) Madison
2) Fargo
3) Sioux Falls, SD
4) Iowa City
5) Des Moines
6) Omaha
7) Ann Arbor
8) Rochester, MN
9) Appleton
10) Grand Rapids
I pretty much agree with your lists, plains10, except on the large metro list, I'd switch rankings between St. Louis and Milwaukee. I lived in Milwaukee for a couple years in college and have been to St. Louis several times, as we have firends there. Like it a lot, but MKE's better.
On the small metro list I'd put Iowa City at #2, move Omaha to #3, throw out Rochester (I know, I know, everyone's supposed to like Rochester--it's too sterile for me), and in its place put Duluth (how come you didn't place Duluth?). As for Ann Arbor & Grand Rapids, I've never been to them so will reserve judgement! I also like Bismarck, so potentially a #9 or #10, depending on how I like GR and AA.
Last edited by Ben Around; 05-02-2007 at 11:38 AM..
Reason: etc
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.
My rankings of Midwest cities
