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 feel your pain man .
St Louis is a fantastic city, great historic areas etc. But you gotta admit, for a city that is nearly 50% larger than KC, it doesn't really offer much more, if any...
St Louis has more suburbs. That's really the only difference. God knows KC doens't need more suburbs, especially on the Kansas side.
St Louis has more suburbs. That's really the only difference. God knows KC doens't need more suburbs, especially on the Kansas side.
The amount of land in/around St. Louis that could be considered urban is at least 2X as populous in not really any larger of an area, which includes "urban" suburban areas with good school districts and takes into consideration population loss in areas that have declined. Lots more apartment buildings and the houses are often too close together to even drive a car between (a good thing to me), even in my quasi-suburban neighborhood. This would be the deepest inner city in KC. There are also lots of areas in KC considered "urban" that are actually very suburban, so I would imagine that ratio to be even higher.
The people are friendlier in KC, but there are proportionally more people in the metro who could care less about the urban core.
Theres lots of hipsters in KC, almost more it seems, but seemingly many fewer late twenties, thirty, (forty, fifty, etc) somethings investing blood, sweat, and tears into old neighborhoods with potential.
KC has better dive bars - maybe because there's far, far fewer boring beer and shot corner bars to weed through (KC isn't a corner bar town, at least not anymore).
St. Louis is extremely random in what you will see/experience/who you will meet, KC is much more predictable but sometimes that's satisfying.
St. Louis is 4.5 hours by car to Chicago, 5.25 hours by train (fun) when you need a big city weekend escape.
KC is 4 hours by car to...St. Louis.
KC is twice as far from the geological heart of the Ozarks when you need to escape from it all for a weekend.
St. Louis takes itself too seriously.
KC doesn't take itself seriously enough. I lost a little respect for KC as a city when I realized there were so many people from there rooting for the Cardinals at the I-70 Series.
KC lacks some key, basic level urban experiences like: riding rail transit, attending an urban baseball game, an NHL franchise, quality urban parkspace.
Yet, if Kansas City had light rail, more urban heft and interest, and a little more pride, I'd probably live there because of the people and the better arts scene. St. Louis doesn't cast that big of a shadow over KC. No, not like the shadow looming across that giant Illinois cornfield.
Last edited by CoffeeAndBeer; 08-03-2009 at 07:51 PM..
I haved lived in both cities....I find them to be very much unlike each other in many ways other than they both cross two state lines and their urban cores both happen to be in the same state....just barely in both cases......does this make one better than the other? It just depends upon what you as an individual prefer.....KC has a more 'west coast' feel and STL has a more 'east coast' feel. Even their geography is different. Driving into the KC Metro and driving into the STL Metro are two very different experiences.
I agree that STL, in general, cares not about KC, but KC, in general, seems to usually be in a 'huff' about STL....
I haved lived in both cities....I find them to be very much unlike each other in many ways other than they both cross two state lines and their urban cores both happen to be in the same state....just barely in both cases......does this make one better than the other? It just depends upon what you as an individual prefer.....KC has a more 'west coast' feel and STL has a more 'east coast' feel. Even their geography is different. Driving into the KC Metro and driving into the STL Metro are two very different experiences.
I agree that STL, in general, cares not about KC, but KC, in general, seems to usually be in a 'huff' about STL....
Wonder if that is a similar kinda huff that some/many StL folk may feel on occasion regarding its larger 'sibling', Chicago?
Yea, it's funny that StL would try to ignore a true sibling of itself (KC) and even attempt to act like Chicago and StL are even on the same planet. Compared to Chicago, KC and StL are identical twins and both would barely pass as a large suburb as far as Chicago goes.
Ask Milwaukee.
Having said that, the urban core of StL and KC are so comparable it's not even funny and that is a bit sad considering the metro area of StL is much larger. Again, StL has a much larger suburban population.
But the area from CWE to the river is the same as the area in KC from the Plaza to the river. Culture, arts, attractions, urban housing, amusement parks, even airports are about the same.
Outside both city's urban linear cores is where the cities are much different. Metropolitan StL feels like and is a much larger urban area than metro KC is. But it's only 700k more than KC. It's like many many MILLIONS less than Chicago.
The only thing Chicago and StL have in common is the NHL and MLB rivalries. And Cards fans can be about the most un-urban, un-sophisticated people ever. Trust me, they can make stl look pretty hick.
BTW, I lived in StL for many years, half my family still lives there and I know the city better than most people that live there. Most people in StL live and stay out in the county and other suburban areas, yet have a "fake" St Louis hard core urban attitude, yet wouldn’t know how to get to Soulard if they actually had to go there.
StL, with a population approaching 3 million should have a skyline similar to Minneapolis or Denver, instead it's more in line with KC. And StL doesn't have a StPaul or Denver Tech Center in its metro either. So one would think the skyline should be even larger than Denver or Minneapolis. It's no wonder they "try" to act like KC doesn't exist or compare to them. Hang on to that local saying... "we were bigger than Chicago back in 1850"! That will usually be told to you after people there ask you what high school you went to and you tell them you didn't grow up in StL County.
KC was once bigger than a lot of cities too. Time to accept reality StL, you are now just another mid-sized midwestern city that is pretty much ignored on a national scale, just like KC.
It's tough. I've lived in both. St. Louis is a noticeably bigger metro (2.8 million vs 2.0 million in the KC metro). I generally prefer a large city with a strong urban core. St. Louis, although larger, has an unimpressive downtown for its size. It seems that unless there's a sporting event of some kind at night, St. Louis turns into a giant doughnut with many of the suburbanites afraid to venture into the center.
Kansas City, on the other hand, has a rebounding urban core. The central business district area, inside that loop of interstates, is really growing on me. Also nearby you have the Crossroads District, the City Market area, Westport, and the Plaza. The suburbs of KC (and I tend to not be a big fan of suburbs) are fairly bland and depressing, although I do kind of like the Parkville area. St. Louis has some inner-ring suburbs with high population density and walkability which I enjoy a lot...U City and especially the Clayton area, for example.
In my opinion St. Louis has better suburbs, and I also like the bigger metro. KC has a really interesting and vibrant urban core with really bland suburbs (although there are a few great little neighborhoods sprinkled around). So, for the city and/or downtown environment, KC. For a generally larger metro with a few more ways to entertain yourself, St. Louis.
I love StL. But I have never understood that lack of life in the Downtown area. With light rail, three stadiums (all with major league tenants), a very popular national monument, downtown casinos etc, yet the place is a ghost town outside of the Washington Street corridor (the only real loft district in StL) and the Market Street Corridor (the main drag for the tourist attractions), and of course the Landing / Arch area (again, tourists).
There is so much building stock and parking lots all around downtown, the stadiums have generated very little residential or retail. You have to get clear out west of SLU before you really start seeing signs of an area where a lot of people live or are moving to.
I would think by now, they would have condos all around Busch Stadium, sort of like the LoDo area of Denver, but there is nothing but parking for blocks and a couple of bars. Ballpark village is still dirt.
Downtown St Louis has so much potential, it just needs a LOT more residential development. There are a LOT of great urban neighborhoods in StL City OUTSIDE of downtown/midtown though.
I lived in the Kansas City area for over twenty years while saying, "I will never live in Saint Louis". Well, for personal reasons, I am now in Saint Louis. As I look at the two cities, I can only say this. While KC is more "laid back" (don't ask), Saint Louis is also a very friendly place to live - in the suburbs, of course. I am near Crestwood and love it. Beautiful area. Downtown is absolutely no place to try to get around in. It is still just as it was many years ago when I started saying, "I will never live in Saint Louis".
Saint Louis may be larger in area. They tell me it is. But I "feel" more closed in here. I cannot explain it but Kansas City seems to have more space, more openness, more spread out - if that is important to you.
The biggest adjustment I had to make (and still have not) is the new and strange (to me) brands of foods in the grocery stores. How can two Missouri cities have such different selections?
And, that is not important. So, the answer is: Spend a week in each area and then decide. See how each city "feels" to you. I know you have more concrete questions than how a city feels but I've long since learned that that really is important. Atmosphere counts.
It's tough. I've lived in both. St. Louis is a noticeably bigger metro (2.8 million vs 2.0 million in the KC metro). I generally prefer a large city with a strong urban core. St. Louis, although larger, has an unimpressive downtown for its size. It seems that unless there's a sporting event of some kind at night, St. Louis turns into a giant doughnut with many of the suburbanites afraid to venture into the center.
Kansas City, on the other hand, has a rebounding urban core. The central business district area, inside that loop of interstates, is really growing on me. Also nearby you have the Crossroads District, the City Market area, Westport, and the Plaza. The suburbs of KC (and I tend to not be a big fan of suburbs) are fairly bland and depressing, although I do kind of like the Parkville area. St. Louis has some inner-ring suburbs with high population density and walkability which I enjoy a lot...U City and especially the Clayton area, for example.
In my opinion St. Louis has better suburbs, and I also like the bigger metro. KC has a really interesting and vibrant urban core with really bland suburbs (although there are a few great little neighborhoods sprinkled around). So, for the city and/or downtown environment, KC. For a generally larger metro with a few more ways to entertain yourself, St. Louis.
In sum, I've gotta say it's a toss-up.
KC residents are always very impressed with the urban core of St. Louis (at least beyond downtown) when I show them around, and always tell me they are impressed with how clean, vibrant, and healthy vast swaths of the Southside are. True, STL has more messed up areas than KC, but its also has a boatload of good urban neighborhoods that you would be hard pressed to get to in one day, very unlike KC. I think you are selling the urban core of St. Louis way short, or at least your impressions are dated. I'm glad you at least appreciate the urban core of KC, for what its worth.
Last edited by CoffeeAndBeer; 12-09-2009 at 05:30 PM..
Yea, it's funny that StL would try to ignore a true sibling of itself (KC) and even attempt to act like Chicago and StL are even on the same planet. Compared to Chicago, KC and StL are identical twins and both would barely pass as a large suburb as far as Chicago goes.
Ask Milwaukee.
Having said that, the urban core of StL and KC are so comparable it's not even funny and that is a bit sad considering the metro area of StL is much larger. Again, StL has a much larger suburban population.
But the area from CWE to the river is the same as the area in KC from the Plaza to the river. Culture, arts, attractions, urban housing, amusement parks, even airports are about the same.
Outside both city's urban linear cores is where the cities are much different. Metropolitan StL feels like and is a much larger urban area than metro KC is. But it's only 700k more than KC. It's like many many MILLIONS less than Chicago.
The only thing Chicago and StL have in common is the NHL and MLB rivalries. And Cards fans can be about the most un-urban, un-sophisticated people ever. Trust me, they can make stl look pretty hick.
BTW, I lived in StL for many years, half my family still lives there and I know the city better than most people that live there. Most people in StL live and stay out in the county and other suburban areas, yet have a "fake" St Louis hard core urban attitude, yet wouldn’t know how to get to Soulard if they actually had to go there.
StL, with a population approaching 3 million should have a skyline similar to Minneapolis or Denver, instead it's more in line with KC. And StL doesn't have a StPaul or Denver Tech Center in its metro either. So one would think the skyline should be even larger than Denver or Minneapolis. It's no wonder they "try" to act like KC doesn't exist or compare to them. Hang on to that local saying... "we were bigger than Chicago back in 1850"! That will usually be told to you after people there ask you what high school you went to and you tell them you didn't grow up in StL County.
KC was once bigger than a lot of cities too. Time to accept reality StL, you are now just another mid-sized midwestern city that is pretty much ignored on a national scale, just like KC.
Doesn't Clayton count as an urban satellite downtown???
There's a lot of county residents that come into the city, the folks who live in Webster/Kirkwood/Richmond Heights, etc are very good about that.
And doesn't the vast swath of South St. Louis count for anything? Its not the cultural backwater it has been, its increasingly a very relevant component of the cultural scene in St. Louis, and its big and its urban...lay just South City over the urban core of Kansas City and see what that looks like. Honestly, compare urban neighborhoods one on one between KC and St. Louis, and see how it shakes down...St. Louis won't look so bad. You will find people take their neighborhoods very seriously here and invest a lot of themselves into them. Theres no reason to say how "sad" you think St. Louis is, unless you are ready to say Kansas City is "sad" too.
St. Louis is much too inward focused to be comparing itself with Chicago, other than P-D opinion writers constantly smarting how "we aren't Chicago," when it comes to mass transit, as if progressive cities our size don't exist.
Personally I prefer St. Louis, its a good fit for me to participate in urban revitalization at the neighborhood level. I enjoy the small neighborhood level business districts and businesses, and prefer the generally higher density. I'm glad nobody is "dissing" my Tower Grove South, cause then I'd be angry. Sadly, I'm used to people jumping on the St. Louis City sucks bandwagon.
Anyway, sounds like the West County D-Bag squad has done a number on some of you KC folks...its too bad, because St. Louis can't afford to push people away, even from visiting. That's only one component of our weird social fabric, and unfortunately the loudest, especially at Mizzou.
Last edited by CoffeeAndBeer; 12-09-2009 at 06:26 PM..
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.
.
Sadly, I'm used to people jumping on the St. Louis City sucks bandwagon.
