Is St. Louis a Southern city? (Joplin, Ladue: coastal, culture, limit)

[MUTGR]

Originally Posted by Chicago76

As someone who moved from Chicago to STL, I would argue the opposite. It took me quite a bit of time to feel at home here. I think the difference is that STL doesn't experience the same degree of resident churn you find in Chicago. People are more reserved here than Chicago...and most of the Upper Midwest for that matter. People are pleasant here. They just aren't as obviously friendly. I would tell my wife this and she just didn't see it for quite a while. She's also a workaholic that doesn't put as much emphasis on her social life. She isn't shy or antisocial. She can take it or leave it though. When we went back up to visit this summer and took our kids around to the same types of things we do here (festivals, random playgrounds, walking down the street) she noticed a lot more random conversations between us and total strangers who were city residents.

People here tend to be more comfortable in their already established bubbles while people in Chicago tend to be more in a state of open social flux. The city is more urban and dense, so maybe people who move there are selecting themselves into a situation where they need to interact more on a daily basis and are therefore more outgoing/outwardly friendly by nature? Kind of like how my friends in DC complain because It is by its nature a very political city and the personalities of many people there reflect that. Or maybe it's the churn? Or maybe STL doesn't share as much with older industrial cities of the Upper Midwest as people might think...because I get more of that outwardly friendly vibe in Milwaukee, Cleveland, Detroit too. Or maybe the weather is so awful up there that people are ridiculously happy on a 75 degree sunny day in June.

I don't think this necessarily makes the city Midwestern or Southern, but it is perceptibly different. Growing up in the Heartland portion of the MW, going to school in STL, living in the Upper Midwest for 12 years and now back in STL for a few, I can see some southernisms here that I didn't on my first go around. I wouldn't call STL southern, but I do see hints of it.

Chicago is a world class mega alpha city. St. Louis is not.

That said, both are midwestern. Both are significant, one much more so (Chicago) one much less so although obviously significant to the 3 million that live in the metro. One is the alpha midwestern city and the other a much smaller rust belt cousin who maybe once had bragging rights until the other grew up a long time ago.

It's really not that big of deal. Chicago's awesome, I would rather live here. I'd love to hear the hints of "southernisms" you get in St. Louis. I spent several days in Cleveland not that long ago and came away with the impression it was St. Louis on a Lake instead of river with a different accent.

[Cryptic]

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

This excludes Black Protestant denominations.

Louisville

Protestant: 391,272
Catholic: 161,598

Thanks for the good information. As we can see, Louisville, for an upper south city, does have a large percentage of Catholics. Thus, its earned (at least somewhat) reputation as a Catholic influenced city.

[PerseusVeil]

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

This excludes Black Protestant denominations.

St. Louis

Protestant: 684,764
Catholic: 555,744

Cincinnati

Protestant: 480,547
Catholic: 401,960

Louisville

Protestant: 391,272
Catholic: 161,598

Baltimore

Protestant: 493,048
Catholic: 452,262

Philadelphia

Protestant: 909,690
Catholic: 1,997,829

Chicago

Protestant: 1,408,025
Catholic: 3,236,794

New York

Protestant: 1,595,222
Catholic: 7,216,151

Boston

Protestant: 352,162
Catholic: 2,021,038

Even when accounting for the Black Protestant denominations being left out, where is everyone else? St. Louis' number is less than half the metro area. St. Louis isn't full of enough Jews, Muslims, atheists, or Orthodox Christians to account for the discrepancy.

It's true for the other cities as well.

[EddieOlSkool]

Originally Posted by Chicago76

As someone who moved from Chicago to STL, I would argue the opposite. It took me quite a bit of time to feel at home here. I think the difference is that STL doesn't experience the same degree of resident churn you find in Chicago. People are more reserved here than Chicago...and most of the Upper Midwest for that matter. People are pleasant here. They just aren't as obviously friendly. I would tell my wife this and she just didn't see it for quite a while. She's also a workaholic that doesn't put as much emphasis on her social life. She isn't shy or antisocial. She can take it or leave it though. When we went back up to visit this summer and took our kids around to the same types of things we do here (festivals, random playgrounds, walking down the street) she noticed a lot more random conversations between us and total strangers who were city residents.

People here tend to be more comfortable in their already established bubbles while people in Chicago tend to be more in a state of open social flux. The city is more urban and dense, so maybe people who move there are selecting themselves into a situation where they need to interact more on a daily basis and are therefore more outgoing/outwardly friendly by nature? Kind of like how my friends in DC complain because It is by its nature a very political city and the personalities of many people there reflect that. Or maybe it's the churn? Or maybe STL doesn't share as much with older industrial cities of the Upper Midwest as people might think...because I get more of that outwardly friendly vibe in Milwaukee, Cleveland, Detroit too. Or maybe the weather is so awful up there that people are ridiculously happy on a 75 degree sunny day in June.

I don't think this necessarily makes the city Midwestern or Southern, but it is perceptibly different. Growing up in the Heartland portion of the MW, going to school in STL, living in the Upper Midwest for 12 years and now back in STL for a few, I can see some southernisms here that I didn't on my first go around. I wouldn't call STL southern, but I do see hints of it.

What are these Southernisms?

Please don't say "the Black people sound country"

[EddieOlSkool]

Originally Posted by Cryptic

Thanks for the good information. As we can see, Louisville, for an upper south city, does have a large percentage of Catholics. Thus, its earned (at least somewhat) reputation as a Catholic influenced city.

Still shows that when compared to St. Louis and Chicago, it is significantly less Catholic and to say that St. Louis is more like Louisville because of Catholics is quite dishonest.

[EddieOlSkool]

Originally Posted by Peter1948

Now we agree. I think Louisville has gotten more "southern" as time goes on. For one, many o the rural kentuckians which move dot Ohio or Michigan before for jobs...they now move to Louisville....or Nashville.

Louisville is historically, at its core, a Midwest, industrial, river city made into a large city by German and Irish Catholic immigrants. Louisville declined in 1937 after a massive flood, worse than Katrina in New Orleans, and never gained its status again as the south's second city. The rise of Dallas, Atlanta, Houston and Miami made sure of that.

But the city has seen a massive renaissance lately, and it is nothing short of impressive. You still see much of this midwest culture, mixed with the southern one.

I guess being from the Great Lakes I don't see the Midwest culture. What exactly is it?

[Bass&Catfish2008]

Originally Posted by JohnnyMN

I've been to STL a few times and I can say that it has a very strong Southern vibe. When I was there, I felt like I was in the South. Being from Minnesota, I can say that STL did not feel Midwestern at all to me.

BTW, I do believe that east and southern Missouri are a part of the South. Missouri doesn't seem all that Midwestern to me and it feels much like its Southern neighbors than it's northern ones, at least to me. As a whole, I do consider Missouri to be a Southern state.

Plus, MO allowed slavery in the civil war. That to me makes it full blown Dixie country.

This is a joke right?

[RisingAurvandil]

Originally Posted by PerseusVeil

Even when accounting for the Black Protestant denominations being left out, where is everyone else?

Probably "non-religious," or at least "non-denominational." Times have changed. Religion, especially organized religion, isn't as prominent as it once was.

When I first departed StL, for Southern Missouri, I was stunned at how strong religion was down there. Up here, you don't see religious billboards everywhere, church invitations are rare, and public displays of faith are almost non-existent.

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by DubbleT

The Appalachian Regional Commission is based on poverty and politics, not anything cultural. Have you ever really looked at the map? They include counties in north MS, almost over to the AR border, for pete's sake, how are they remotely appalachian?

It is based on a defined Appalachian geographic area as well, although some outer locations like NE Ohio are a bit of a stretch. NE Mississippi is similar to Appalachian areas of south-central Tennessee as well. The cultural influence of Appalachia definitely impacts and influences the Ohio Valley region to a degree as well, particularly the smaller river cities with local industries that attracted in-migration of people in the past.

[U146]

Originally Posted by EddieOlSkool

I guess being from the Great Lakes I don't see the Midwest culture. What exactly is it?

I don't see it either. Louisville may have some Midwestern influences like Germans and Catholics, but it also has a very high amount of Southern Baptists. And it is placed squarely in the Southern dialect range. Culturally it is unquestionably Southern. It is best described as a Southern city with Midwest influences.