Kansas City vs. St. Louis (Better tourist destination) (living, most dangerous)

[skrizzle]

I think it depends on what you want

KC has a better nightlife scene, quite a few great areas and wide variety of what we offer here. STL has the better touristy stuff though.

If your into art, as others said KC definitely will win, especially nice if you can make it for first fridays. Also great food here, especially BBQ. If you happen to come during one of the festivals going on its a blast.... Frige Festival will be going on this weekend

KC Fringe Festival July 23 - August 1, 2010 (http://www.kcfringe.org/Version2010/index.php - broken link)

But regardless... both are good, I think STL does have more to offer if your looking for the touristy things to do.

[skrizzle]

Originally Posted by pdm_ad

St. Louis and it's not even close.

STL averages 4 million more visitors per year than KC. There is a reason for that, much more to do in STL. Here are the numbers:

//www.city-data.com/forum/city-...s-america.html

Here is a good list of things to do in STL:

St. Louis travel guide - Wikitravel

Much of the visitors have to do with the arch... but once you've seen it, its like.. meh... its an arch

[skrizzle]

It should also be noted, there is enough to do in STL that there is really no reason to divert a day to visiting KC either... you won't run out of things to see there as a tourist.

[moorlander]

Originally Posted by skrizzle

KC has a better nightlife scene, quite a few great areas and wide variety of what we offer here.

To be fair, the nightlife in both cities is comparable. One could have a great time in both areas.

I know several KC transplants, including my girlfriend, and that's the general take. Both fun cities but St. Louis has several more options as far as number of entertainment districts.

[kcmo]

At least in StL, you don't have to deal with Johnson County people all over the place acting like they own the place. .

It's a tie I think. If I have never been to either, I would say StL first, then KC. But they really are pretty close.

[stlcitygirl]

Originally Posted by skrizzle

I think it depends on what you want

KC has a better nightlife scene, quite a few great areas and wide variety of what we offer here. STL has the better touristy stuff though.

Sorry, it so does NOT have a better nightlife scene. Again, from your posts you have not spent near enough time in STL to know what you are talking about, but what else is new.

I'm not saying KC doesn't have a fun nightlife, I have had many a great weekend visiting, but it is not better.

On any given weekend in STL we decide between (Downtown, Soulard, South Grand, Lafayette Square, Central West End, The Loop, Westport and Midtown)

[moorlander]

^ Downtown Clayton and Downtown Kirkwood are pretty lively too. Old town St. Chuck is certainly deserving too.

[Smtchll]

Originally Posted by moorlander

^ Downtown Clayton and Downtown Kirkwood are pretty lively too. Old town St. Chuck is certainly deserving too.

At night too? I've been there during the lunch hour several times and it was always very lively. Never been there at night though.

[stlcitygirl]

Originally Posted by moorlander

^ Downtown Clayton and Downtown Kirkwood are pretty lively too. Old town St. Chuck is certainly deserving too.

I forgot those districts, I have no idea how I forgot Clayton. Clayton definitely has a scene at night. Saint Charles Main Street is full of Lindenwood students. I haven't been out in the downtown Kirkwood area at night, but I have friends that hang out there.

[skrizzle]

I've been to STL several times.... disagree if you want... bar/club/dining options I think we have more variety and better quality... and I feel a vibrant downtown goes a long way, statistically ours is growing faster, is much larger, has more to do, and is more dense then STL downtown.... there is always more to do downtown KC then in downtown STL...