Skyline Battle of Missouri......Kansas City vs Saint Louis (St. Louis: move, smog)

[STLCityMike]

While returning from the family over Christmas weekend, I decided to explore the new Page Ave extension on my drive into the city (OK - not so new, but as a city dweller I don't get that far west, much). I was shocked at the wonderful view of both Clayton and St. Louis skylines from around the 100000 bloack of Page. St. Louis and the arch clearly visible rising above the treeline in the front, and Clatyon off to the right. I should have stopped for a photo (would have been on a cell). Google maps doesn't not capture this. I guess I will have to get back out there. It was an impressive way out view of the city that isn't captured from many angles.

[kcmo]

Originally Posted by brewcrew1000

^ That site is owned by KCMO and i think he took all the pics, he does some beautiful work

Thanks. Those aerials looking east toward downtown StL are pretty old and are were not taken in the best of light or time of year.

I hope to get out there this summer and get new aerials of StL/Clayton and get some of those "sweet spot" photos of the city, it's so impressive from that vantage point.

[canyonvue]

Live in Kansas City now and been to both cities. St. Louis doesn't have much of a skyline at all without the Arch. The Arch is impressive and I think it's kind of neat that they've gone out of the way to never diminish its impressiveness with tall buildings, but an Arch doesn't make up for the lack of tall or interesting skyscrapers.

Kansas City, on the other hand, I've always considered has one of the best skylines in the U.S. and now that I live here (I'm from Salt Lake City) I've been able to see it from all angles and I still have that opinion. It's a big, beautiful skyline with a lot of interesting buildings, both tall and small. Kansas City really stands out in the architectural department against any city in the U.S.

So, Kansas City, by far. But I think Missouri should be proud of both cities. They both have a distinctive flavor and style.

[kcmo]

Originally Posted by canyonvue

Live in Kansas City now and been to both cities. St. Louis doesn't have much of a skyline at all without the Arch. The Arch is impressive and I think it's kind of neat that they've gone out of the way to never diminish its impressiveness with tall buildings, but an Arch doesn't make up for the lack of tall or interesting skyscrapers.

Kansas City, on the other hand, I've always considered has one of the best skylines in the U.S. and now that I live here (I'm from Salt Lake City) I've been able to see it from all angles and I still have that opinion. It's a big, beautiful skyline with a lot of interesting buildings, both tall and small. Kansas City really stands out in the architectural department against any city in the U.S.

So, Kansas City, by far. But I think Missouri should be proud of both cities. They both have a distinctive flavor and style.

Kc is also extremely photogenic while it's nearly impossible to get good shots of StL where the Arch is not the primary structure in the photo. Having said that, I think StL actually has a bigger skyline, but not by much. You just can't tell by most angles. But I agree with you on KC's architectgure. Very interesting and diverse/contrasting skyline, especially with the low rise structures (performing arts center, union station, sprint center etc in the forground).

Salt Lake City on the other hand? Des Moines, Omaha and Oklahoma City have better skylines than SLC, just no mountains as a backdrop.

[Caesarstl]

Originally Posted by canyonvue

Live in Kansas City now and been to both cities. St. Louis doesn't have much of a skyline at all without the Arch. The Arch is impressive and I think it's kind of neat that they've gone out of the way to never diminish its impressiveness with tall buildings, but an Arch doesn't make up for the lack of tall or interesting skyscrapers.

Kansas City, on the other hand, I've always considered has one of the best skylines in the U.S. and now that I live here (I'm from Salt Lake City) I've been able to see it from all angles and I still have that opinion. It's a big, beautiful skyline with a lot of interesting buildings, both tall and small. Kansas City really stands out in the architectural department against any city in the U.S.

So, Kansas City, by far. But I think Missouri should be proud of both cities. They both have a distinctive flavor and style.

Umm, I'm sorry but you are incredibly ignorant... While opinion and taste are fine, false representation of facts are not. Have you honestly been to both??? No tall buildings in St. Louis and no skyline without the Arch??? Compared to KC??? You sound like someone who has seen a pic of the Arch that is just aimed at showing off the Arch and not the city, and that's your only experience with it. Seriously, google the heights of buildings in Missouri... Here are the top ten:

1) Gateway Arch 630 ft (190 m). St. Louis, MO
2) One Kansas City Place 624 ft (190 m). Kansas City, MO
3) One Metropolitan Square 593 ft (181 m). St. Louis, MO
4) Town Pavilion 591 ft (180 m). Kansas City, MO
5) AT&T Center (St. Louis) 588 ft (179 m). St. Louis, MO
6) Thomas F. Eagleton United States Courthouse 557 ft (170 m). St. Louis, MO
7) Sheraton Kansas City Hotel at Crown Center 504 ft (154 m). Kansas City, MO
8) One US Bank Plaza 484 ft (148 m). St. Louis, MO
9) Kansas City Power and Light Building 481 ft (147 m). Kansas City, MO
10) 909 Walnut 471 ft (144 m). Kansas City, MO

[shindig]

Originally Posted by Caesarstl

Umm, I'm sorry but you are incredibly ignorant... While opinion and taste are fine, false representation of facts are not. Have you honestly been to both??? No tall buildings in St. Louis and no skyline without the Arch??? Compared to KC??? You sound like someone who has seen a pic of the Arch that is just aimed at showing off the Arch and not the city, and that's your only experience with it. Seriously, google the heights of buildings in Missouri... Here are the top ten:

1) Gateway Arch 630 ft (190 m). St. Louis, MO
2) One Kansas City Place 624 ft (190 m). Kansas City, MO
3) One Metropolitan Square 593 ft (181 m). St. Louis, MO
4) Town Pavilion 591 ft (180 m). Kansas City, MO
5) AT&T Center (St. Louis) 588 ft (179 m). St. Louis, MO
6) Thomas F. Eagleton United States Courthouse 557 ft (170 m). St. Louis, MO
7) Sheraton Kansas City Hotel at Crown Center 504 ft (154 m). Kansas City, MO
8) One US Bank Plaza 484 ft (148 m). St. Louis, MO
9) Kansas City Power and Light Building 481 ft (147 m). Kansas City, MO
10) 909 Walnut 471 ft (144 m). Kansas City, MO

I find it "convenient" for your argument you stopped at the top 10. It's split 50/50 between KC and STL, and the arch is NOT an office tower. If you would have continued, you would have discovered that the next 4 out of 6 tallest buildings are in KC, with 1 in STL and the other in Clayton. Talk about false representation of facts...

Kansas City City Hall445 ft (136 m).Kansas City, MO[11]1201 Walnut427 ft (130 m).Kansas City, MO[12]Commerce Tower421 ft (128 m).Kansas City, MO[13]The Plaza in Clayton409 ft (125 m).Clayton, MO[14]City Center Square404 ft (123 m).Kansas City, MO[15]Laclede Gas Building401 ft (122 m).St. Louis, MO[16]

[Caesarstl]

Originally Posted by shindig

I find it "convenient" for your argument you stopped at the top 10. It's split 50/50 between KC and STL, and the arch is NOT an office tower. If you would have continued, you would have discovered that the next 4 out of 6 tallest buildings are in KC, with 1 in STL and the other in Clayton. Talk about false representation of facts...

Kansas City City Hall445 ft (136 m).Kansas City, MO[11]1201 Walnut427 ft (130 m).Kansas City, MO[12]Commerce Tower421 ft (128 m).Kansas City, MO[13]The Plaza in Clayton409 ft (125 m).Clayton, MO[14]City Center Square404 ft (123 m).Kansas City, MO[15]Laclede Gas Building401 ft (122 m).St. Louis, MO[16]

You find it convenient do you? I find it rather sad that you threw out accusations and insults of false representation of facts when you missed the entire point of my post... Maybe read it a little slower or be less emotional perhaps?

So why did you stop at 20? Who has the 50th tallest building??? I have to know! Actually I don't, because it is completely irrelevant to my point... KC could have 1 million buildings with the same height of the 20th tallest, it'd be quite impressive but it would also be irrelevant to my point. Have you found my point yet? It wasn't to say which is better, or bigger either for that matter... The other poster said St. Louis didn't have tall buildings and it's just the arch. This is factually incorrect which I proved, I used the top ten because the point was only about height and it shows how comparable they are, aka St. Louis is not short compared to KC. Heck, I didn't even need the top ten, just a couple prove my point... Having the Arch's (thanks for the obvious fact that it isn't an office tower...) height included also disproves his other claim as you can see its height relative to the buildings. Again, my post was not to say which one was better; furthermore, if you want to continue the list STLCityMike already said (in post 51) the following:

" Counting the number of buildings each city has in the downtowns only ...

Number of bldgs over 100 meters: 9 each
Number of Bldgs over 80 meters: St. Louis 19, Kansas City 17"

So, get it yet?

[glamatomic]

Easily St. Louis! The Arch is beautiful. Mind you, KC does have a nice skyline too... but it's not as unique as St. Louis's

[imbored198824]

Both cities suck we prefer little rock or Tulsa in southern mo

[shindig]

Originally Posted by Caesarstl

You find it convenient do you? I find it rather sad that you threw out accusations and insults of false representation of facts when you missed the entire point of my post... Maybe read it a little slower or be less emotional perhaps?

So why did you stop at 20? Who has the 50th tallest building??? I have to know! Actually I don't, because it is completely irrelevant to my point... KC could have 1 million buildings with the same height of the 20th tallest, it'd be quite impressive but it would also be irrelevant to my point. Have you found my point yet? It wasn't to say which is better, or bigger either for that matter... The other poster said St. Louis didn't have tall buildings and it's just the arch. This is factually incorrect which I proved, I used the top ten because the point was only about height and it shows how comparable they are, aka St. Louis is not short compared to KC. Heck, I didn't even need the top ten, just a couple prove my point... Having the Arch's (thanks for the obvious fact that it isn't an office tower...) height included also disproves his other claim as you can see its height relative to the buildings. Again, my post was not to say which one was better; furthermore, if you want to continue the list STLCityMike already said (in post 51) the following:

" Counting the number of buildings each city has in the downtowns only ...

Number of bldgs over 100 meters: 9 each
Number of Bldgs over 80 meters: St. Louis 19, Kansas City 17"

So, get it yet?

Talk about throwing out accusations, you accused the other poster of never visiting STL when in his post he stated he had, so I assume you are calling him a liar???? And btw, I don't think you have a point or clue.

Got it yet?