Is the City of St. Louis really that dangerous? (Kirkwood: safe neighborhoods, public schools)

[Dawn10am]

Originally Posted by wlw2009

American cities aren't all equal. St.Louis, along with Detroit, are definitely a nightmare compared to prosperous cities (San Fran, Seattle, Minneapolis, Boston to name a few). Personally, growing up in STL, I hate it. Sure you can go out to Kirkwood or Des Peres and everything is new and nice, but for the actual city itself, stay away. So many thugs it is unbelievable. STL is in dire need of billions of dollars of investments in order to ever be okay again. I dont think it is going to happen.

Yeah PARTS of the City I stay away from and are overrun with thugs but other parts are awesome. I live in the CWE and love it. There's bad parts in every city. Making a blanket statement that the whole City of St. Louis is awful elicits a big "LOL" from me. I'd also hardly say that everything in Kirkwood is new.

[glamatomic]

Exactly what Dawn10am said! ^^

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by glamatomic

Exactly what Dawn10am said! ^^

I echo that. We paid our first visit last year and can't wait to go again. We had a wonderful time and never felt ill at ease. We've also been city dwellers in the past and know when and how to keep or wits abut us. But that goes for any city.

[RunTheDistance476]

Sure, it goes for "any" city...but when your city in particular has 3-5x the national crime rate and is often considered THE (or one of the most) dangerous cities in America, I think you become pretty notable among the rest.

Let's not confuse the word city with the metro area. The metro area of STL is mostly pretty nice, but the city (as in, city limits) is pretty rotten, speaking to about 60-70% of it. I don't think that anyone can deny that.

I also always love the "oh the Eastside makes us look bad" statements. Most of the time, the crime rate is calculated NOT including East STL, which is another nightmare in and of itself.

Again, there is a reason that STL's population is declining where other cities are receiving a heavy influx of new college grads and investments.

Sorry about the facts of life.

I think Missouri in general struggles, though. Springfield (for whatever reason) has been declining for years now. It use to be very nice, but the crime rate is approaching that of much larger cities.

[zach_33]

Originally Posted by wlw2009

SThe metro area of STL is mostly pretty nice, but the city (as in, city limits) is pretty rotten, speaking to about 60-70% of it. I don't think that anyone can deny that.

I actually think this is kind of true.. seems to apply to most cities maybe with the few exceptions you noted. But you gotta admit that the people not looking to commit any crimes (which are still the vast majority of people in any city, including St. Louis) are noticeably more friendly and approachable here in the Lou than those you would encounter in "less dangerous" places like lower Manhattan and downtown San Francisco. Perhaps Seattle also suffers from the snob factor I am describing, but I have spent some time is Seattle and I find the people there to be much more grounded than they are in Soho or Nob Hill. Plus, Seattle's south side is pretty darn gritty.

[RunTheDistance476]

I don't know. I think that cities like Seattle and San Francisco are much more enjoyable (for most parts of the city) as the areas enjoy much, much lower violent crime rates than STL. Yeah, they have some homeless, but most of which are harmless.

Seattle's southside is the most ethnically diverse and the most rough for sure. Though, Seattle is a city with a lot of investments, if you notice, Seattle (the city) is going through gentrification, rather than most of the burbs, because it is becoming so exclusive to live in the city limits. For example, there are certain areas that use to have the highest crime in the city that are being are experiencing this and crime is down 80%.

Thats why I have hope in the expensive cities like Seattle and San Fran. While it sucks that they are expensive, the thugs are being forced out, either to the cheaper suburbs or to other cities. San Jose, while not perfect, experiences the lowest crime rate of any major city (800,000) because of this. So, I definitely wouldn't say it is a bad thing.

But, overall, Seattle's downtown is fairly new and nice and there are normally a lot of police patrolling the area. But, yeah, there are some parts of downtown and to the south that will eventually need to be taken care of (most of which are at this point).

The major difference is that Seattle doesn't have a lot of run-down empty and decaying buildings like STL and the violent crime rate is less than half of STL's. That is a HUGE difference.

I think one of the main factors is that 35% of St.Louis city resident are below the poverty line, compared to 12% of Seattle's.

Im not necessarily "hating" on STL, but when someone asks if it is really that dangerous, for the actual city itself, the answer is YES...SO DONT LIVE IN THE CITY.

[glamatomic]

for the actual city itself, the answer is YES...SO DONT LIVE IN THE CITY.

There are only parts of the city which are 'dangerous'. There are parts of all cities which are 'dangerous'. Saying not to live in the city AT ALL shows a high level of unfamiliarity with St. Louis City as a whole. You're evidently caught up in the typical county denizen naysayer hype. There are plenty of wonderful, safe areas, especially parts of South City- sure, there's some property crime, but you'll find that almost everywhere you go.

I agree with you that Seattle is a wonderful city- but I'm not the biggest fan of San Francisco (alright for a vacation but I wouldn't want to live there). I'd take St. Louis over it any day of the week. Plus, I've honestly felt more 'unsafe' (uncomfortable is a better word, I don't scare easily) in parts of San Fran than I ever have in St. Louis, including the East Side and North City.

[RunTheDistance476]

Parts of south city? hahaha. I said 60-70% of the city is a slum. "Parts of south city" do not constitute more than that total, so we agree there. Again, people may try, but there is no denying that MOST of STL is a slum.

[Dawn10am]

Originally Posted by wlw2009

Parts of south city? hahaha. I said 60-70% of the city is a slum. "Parts of south city" do not constitute more than that total, so we agree there. Again, people may try, but there is no denying that MOST of STL is a slum.

What's beyond denial is that you've probably never spent much time in the City.

[RunTheDistance476]

Except I went to WashU for four years, more than enough for me to know that it isn't somewhere I would consider a dream location.