Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Missouri > St. Louis
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-19-2016, 07:08 PM
 
3,821 posts, read 3,251,431 times
Reputation: 2610

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by RisingAurvandil View Post
I have to disagree on this one, mostly because I lived down there. Tulsa is not similar to rest of Oklahoma. It reminds me a lot of a miniature Kansas City. The Plains/Midwestern influence is strong there. I wouldn't have known that before being there.

And that's a good thing. Tulsa was leaps above OKC. It's a bright spot in an otherwise depressed state.



Yeah, spot on for SW MO. Joplin felt more Midwestern than Springfield. Certainly a transitional area.



They're both unquestionably Midwestern. The following is a list of differences. I will say, though, I've never considered Indianapolis to be anything other than Midwestern. Sure, southern Indiana has southern influences, but that's irrelevant.

Waves of European immigration. The Great Migration. Strong union history, right-to-work. More liberal politics. More significant industrialization. Much more heavy industry, railroads, and port system. Location as a major rail and waterway hub. Larger, denser urban core that is more similar to Milwaukee, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Minneapolis, etc.

Oh, and Fox Sports Midwest
True, Indy is a lot more rural outside of it. Stl is also a very old city too. I'm amazed IN and MI became right to work though. Both once strong union states but hit hard by industries going to right to work states to the western and southern US or in many cases just going overseas. KY and MO IMO will be right to work within 5 years though. KY has democrats controlling their state house though which is why they can't get it passed in the house when the KY senate passed it, democrats blocked it. KY is odd how Democrats still control the state house while states like nearby MO have gone to big supermajority republican. Kentucky democrats, the rural ones are blue dog (Jefferson County MO type democrats), but where they differ with republicans is on labor issues. KY has a strong blue collar element to it, especially eastern KY with the coal mining which has taken a heavy hit. Lots of poverty.

Funny, but not all of eastern MO has FSMW. I don't know if it's the same still, but far SEMO like south of Sikeston get Fox Sports out of Nashville. If you live in the Bootheel you get the Predators. I don't know if it's like that still but years back I saw a coverage map and far SEMO is included in their market, not the Blues. Maybe it's changed now though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-19-2016, 07:42 PM
 
Location: Apex, NC
1,370 posts, read 1,054,555 times
Reputation: 1791
Quote:
Originally Posted by MOforthewin View Post
True, Indy is a lot more rural outside of it. Stl is also a very old city too. I'm amazed IN and MI became right to work though. Both once strong union states but hit hard by industries going to right to work states to the western and southern US or in many cases just going overseas. KY and MO IMO will be right to work within 5 years though. KY has democrats controlling their state house though which is why they can't get it passed in the house when the KY senate passed it, democrats blocked it. KY is odd how Democrats still control the state house while states like nearby MO have gone to big supermajority republican. Kentucky democrats, the rural ones are blue dog (Jefferson County MO type democrats), but where they differ with republicans is on labor issues. KY has a strong blue collar element to it, especially eastern KY with the coal mining which has taken a heavy hit. Lots of poverty.

Funny, but not all of eastern MO has FSMW. I don't know if it's the same still, but far SEMO like south of Sikeston get Fox Sports out of Nashville. If you live in the Bootheel you get the Predators. I don't know if it's like that still but years back I saw a coverage map and far SEMO is included in their market, not the Blues. Maybe it's changed now though.
They're included in the market for blackout purposes, but not for Fox Sports coverage from what I know. I have relatives in New Madrid, and they've never gotten anything but FSMW with the Blues and Cardinals going back over a decade.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2016, 08:49 PM
 
3,821 posts, read 3,251,431 times
Reputation: 2610
Quote:
Originally Posted by STL2006 View Post
They're included in the market for blackout purposes, but not for Fox Sports coverage from what I know. I have relatives in New Madrid, and they've never gotten anything but FSMW with the Blues and Cardinals going back over a decade.
I found a newer map it looks like and only Pemiscot county is excluded from FSMW coverage area now. Not like that many down there probably care about hockey anyways as the NHL is a very niche sport where teams are very regional. I see lots of Cardinals fans all over Missouri, but even in Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee and far southern MO and Iowa you will run into them too. Arkansas has lots of them because Stl used to be the closest major league team to them until the Royals and Rangers came along. I thought I read something about Bill Clinton used to listen to Cards games because they got them down in AR.

However it seems once you get about 100 miles away from St. Louis you see hardly any Blues paraphernalia or people wearing it unless they're from Stl of course, but I still see a lot of Cardinals gear.

Btw I'm a big Blues fan. Used to be a season ticket holder under they got too expensive about 3 years ago then I moved away last year. The killer though was city parking up to $20 and the beverages are too expensive now. I only would park in the city lot across from Scottrade since there are more police around there because since you can't ccw into the arena and with all the break ins as well.

I know a lot of people didn't even think the Blues would survive in St. Louis. They nearly didn't in 1983 and didn't even participate in the draft. Even though they couldn't have picked in the first two rounds due to trading the previous season, they could have selected Hasek in the third round some speculated. Imagine that. All those years of debating Blues goaltending might have never happened. Although Hasek wanted to play for the Blues in 2001 but it's said when they didn't resign Turgeon, Hasek passed on the Blues before they decided to sign Weight which turned out to be a big flop. With the defense the Blues had Hasek would have won them the cup!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2016, 10:45 AM
 
7,054 posts, read 16,632,857 times
Reputation: 3541
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieOlSkool View Post
Louisville has no pull for Yankees. Most of my Northern counterparts had no idea where it even is or what significance it has. Most people that move to Louisville are rural Kentuckians who want better opportunity away from a poor and depressed state. If anything the city gets more Southern with time.

Indiana is next door but Southern Indiana ESPECIALLY Jeffersonville, New Albany, and Clarksville identify with the South. Even people from other parts of Indiana don't see them as brethren.

Louisville is not seen as Midwest by neighboring cities. Indy people don't see Louisville as a fellow Midwest city. Cincy people don't either. They see it as the South. Louisville may have people who identify with the Midwest but the Midwest just looks at them funny.
Except you are WRONG. Unlike you shooting off the hip, I have data:

https://medium.com/migration-issues/...ec4#.lo11zzbi9

Louisville gains population from most of the "midwest" It has a great pull with "yankees" (I am from Chicago and have NEVER heard any friends or family refer to ourselves as Yankees). and this article shows Louisville does not gain alot of residents from rural KY. The fact is, many in Louisville get there and stay if they can. Why? Low cost of living and high quality of life. Those are statistical facts.

The amount of OH and MI transplants in NE Louisville alone is simply astounding.....even 10 years ago, Louisville gained most of its migrants from Cleveland...Chicago was not far behind!

http://usi.louisville.edu/wp-content...es-Sept-05.pdf


So, no one is buying the diatribe that you and U146 spew about Louisville. It is an old, Midwest/Southern hybrid industrial river city which has reinvented itself and is growing at its best rate in 100 years, and is growing with smart, urban infill growth to boot.

On point here, Louisville and STL are very similar cities, with also alot of differences. Besides pro sports and a baseball rivalry, Louisville and STL share more similarities than STL and Chicago (including being much closer in size)....that said, STL homers will never admit this since they are deathly afraid of being labeled "southern"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2016, 11:42 AM
 
4,797 posts, read 5,983,686 times
Reputation: 2720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter1948 View Post
Except you are WRONG. Unlike you shooting off the hip, I have data:

https://medium.com/migration-issues/...ec4#.lo11zzbi9
Your little map only proves that there isn't a great pull from North when compared to South. It attracts equally from both and at ridiculously small rates to affect local culture in any significant way. Did you see how many Southern states are in blue?

Quote:
Louisville gains population from most of the "midwest" It has a great pull with "yankees" (I am from Chicago and have NEVER heard any friends or family refer to ourselves as Yankees).
Ok why would someone from Chicago use a Southern tongue in cheek term around other Chicagoans? That makes no sense. Of course nobody in Chicago uses that term because it is as useful as calling yourself American in a room full of other Americans.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2016, 12:33 PM
 
Location: Arch City
1,724 posts, read 1,838,693 times
Reputation: 846
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter1948 View Post
Except you are WRONG. Unlike you shooting off the hip, I have data:

https://medium.com/migration-issues/...ec4#.lo11zzbi9

Louisville gains population from most of the "midwest" It has a great pull with "yankees" (I am from Chicago and have NEVER heard any friends or family refer to ourselves as Yankees). and this article shows Louisville does not gain alot of residents from rural KY. The fact is, many in Louisville get there and stay if they can. Why? Low cost of living and high quality of life. Those are statistical facts.

The amount of OH and MI transplants in NE Louisville alone is simply astounding.....even 10 years ago, Louisville gained most of its migrants from Cleveland...Chicago was not far behind!

http://usi.louisville.edu/wp-content...es-Sept-05.pdf


So, no one is buying the diatribe that you and U146 spew about Louisville. It is an old, Midwest/Southern hybrid industrial river city which has reinvented itself and is growing at its best rate in 100 years, and is growing with smart, urban infill growth to boot.

On point here, Louisville and STL are very similar cities, with also alot of differences. Besides pro sports and a baseball rivalry, Louisville and STL share more similarities than STL and Chicago (including being much closer in size)....that said, STL homers will never admit this since they are deathly afraid of being labeled "southern"
You're the only one not buying the "diatribe" the two of us are saying. Have you looked around and seen anyone else besides you arguing with us on that matter? It's you and you alone. Louisville and St. Louis are not VERY similar at all. The two have little to nothing in common from a modern standpoint. And St. Louis has far more in common with Chicago than Louisville culturally, linguistically, and demographically. You are trying your hardest to make Louisville Midwestern by Southernizing other Midwest cities. The truth is Louisville does not have very much in common from a modern standpoint with either St. Louis or Cincinnati culturally and linguistically. Give it a rest already. Louisville is a SOUTHERN city. St. Louis is not. To suggest St. Louis has more in common with a Southern city like Louisville than a Midwestern city like Chicago is being dishonest. You're just angry that you lost the Louisville is Midwestern argument, now you're trying to drag down other Midwest cities with it. We're not deathly afraid of being labeled Southern...we're just not going to admit to something that isn't true. Your mission objective here is that Louisville is either Midwestern, or if it's not, none of the Lower Midwest is either. Ridiculous. Louisville is not a hybrid city either. It leans Southern. It is not part of the Midwest and never has been. And despite its so called growth, it's not a big city like St. Louis or Cincinnati either, so it's not better. No major league sports franchises, no highly rated zoos or orchestras or museums, nothing. Your Louisville homerism blinds you. Louisville can hardly compete with Nashville or Indianapolis, and you compare it to a metro like STL which is nearly twice its size. I can't wait for you to start saying Louisville can compete with Chicago, DC, or New York...that's not too far away.

Last edited by U146; 07-20-2016 at 12:48 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2016, 01:18 PM
 
3,821 posts, read 3,251,431 times
Reputation: 2610
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter1948 View Post
Except you are WRONG. Unlike you shooting off the hip, I have data:

https://medium.com/migration-issues/...ec4#.lo11zzbi9

Louisville gains population from most of the "midwest" It has a great pull with "yankees" (I am from Chicago and have NEVER heard any friends or family refer to ourselves as Yankees). and this article shows Louisville does not gain alot of residents from rural KY. The fact is, many in Louisville get there and stay if they can. Why? Low cost of living and high quality of life. Those are statistical facts.

The amount of OH and MI transplants in NE Louisville alone is simply astounding.....even 10 years ago, Louisville gained most of its migrants from Cleveland...Chicago was not far behind!

http://usi.louisville.edu/wp-content...es-Sept-05.pdf


So, no one is buying the diatribe that you and U146 spew about Louisville. It is an old, Midwest/Southern hybrid industrial river city which has reinvented itself and is growing at its best rate in 100 years, and is growing with smart, urban infill growth to boot.

On point here, Louisville and STL are very similar cities, with also alot of differences. Besides pro sports and a baseball rivalry, Louisville and STL share more similarities than STL and Chicago (including being much closer in size)....that said, STL homers will never admit this since they are deathly afraid of being labeled "southern"
That makes sense still moving from places like OH and MI. Both states are not that far away.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2016, 02:14 PM
 
7,054 posts, read 16,632,857 times
Reputation: 3541
Quote:
Originally Posted by U146 View Post
You're the only one not buying the "diatribe" the two of us are saying. Have you looked around and seen anyone else besides you arguing with us on that matter? It's you and you alone. Louisville and St. Louis are not VERY similar at all. The two have little to nothing in common from a modern standpoint. And St. Louis has far more in common with Chicago than Louisville culturally, linguistically, and demographically. You are trying your hardest to make Louisville Midwestern by Southernizing other Midwest cities. The truth is Louisville does not have very much in common from a modern standpoint with either St. Louis or Cincinnati culturally and linguistically. Give it a rest already. Louisville is a SOUTHERN city. St. Louis is not. To suggest St. Louis has more in common with a Southern city like Louisville than a Midwestern city like Chicago is being dishonest. You're just angry that you lost the Louisville is Midwestern argument, now you're trying to drag down other Midwest cities with it. We're not deathly afraid of being labeled Southern...we're just not going to admit to something that isn't true. Your mission objective here is that Louisville is either Midwestern, or if it's not, none of the Lower Midwest is either. Ridiculous. Louisville is not a hybrid city either. It leans Southern. It is not part of the Midwest and never has been. And despite its so called growth, it's not a big city like St. Louis or Cincinnati either, so it's not better. No major league sports franchises, no highly rated zoos or orchestras or museums, nothing. Your Louisville homerism blinds you. Louisville can hardly compete with Nashville or Indianapolis, and you compare it to a metro like STL which is nearly twice its size. I can't wait for you to start saying Louisville can compete with Chicago, DC, or New York...that's not too far away.
Dude, there is nothing "world class" in STL. Louisville zoo and museums are just as nice, albeit different. Louisville has more per capita tourism, and will see much more in the coming with the bourbon boom and several urban distilleries located downtown. Louisville DOES have highly rated orchestra, and all the professional performing arts. Even STL has nothing like the Humana festival of Plays and the longest running free Shakespeare program in the USA. Louisville gets all the same Broadway tours as STL. You've proved nothing. STL is like Louisville yet with less growth, more decay, and bigger suburbs which of course allow for pro sports and a few nicer retail outlets. But it is nothing like a Chicago!

I don't want Louisville to be anything. But saying it is totally different than STL is just lying. Regardless of size....even Evansville, IN is very similar to STL (or Louisville), only 25% the size!

STL IS a partly southern city. That is not dragging it down. You should want to be part of the south which is BOOOMING while STL only makes the news for losing its NFL franchise and ferguson thugs.

Pro sports mean nothing. Louisville and Austin are two of the coolest cities in the USA and do not have them. On a smaller scale, small towns like Madison, WI are substantially more attractive to most millennials (and most best move to places) than a STL.

So if anyone is bolstering, it is you. Louisville is a mid sized city. So is STL, although you could argue it is in the medium large category due to its metro size. It still is MUCH closer in size, culture, and really everything to a Louisville or Kansas City, or heck, even Memphis, than it is to Chicago! You want SO bad for STL to be a major Midwestern city like Chicago and it is only getting passed. It won't be long until Nashville has the importance in the USA that STL had 50 years ago.

When it comes to river cities growing, STL is dead LAST! STL is a major metro area with alot to offer. But quit trying to compare yourself to a metro FOUR TIMES your size in Chicago when you do not want to be compared to one 45-50% of your size in Louisville.

Last edited by Peter1948; 07-20-2016 at 02:23 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2016, 02:41 PM
 
Location: Arch City
1,724 posts, read 1,838,693 times
Reputation: 846
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter1948 View Post
Dude, there is nothing "world class" in STL. Louisville zoo and museums are just as nice, albeit different. Louisville has more per capita tourism, and will see much more in the coming with the bourbon boom and several urban distilleries located downtown. Louisville DOES have highly rated orchestra, and all the professional performing arts. Even STL has nothing like the Humana festival of Plays and the longest running free Shakespeare program in the USA. Louisville gets all the same Broadway tours as STL. You've proved nothing. STL is like Louisville yet with less growth, more decay, and bigger suburbs which of course allow for pro sports and a few nicer retail outlets. But it is nothing like a Chicago!

I don't want Louisville to be anything. But saying it is totally different than STL is just lying. Regardless of size....even Evansville, IN is very similar to STL (or Louisville), only 25% the size!

STL IS a partly southern city. That is not dragging it down. You should want to be part of the south which is BOOOMING while STL only makes the news for losing its NFL franchise and ferguson thugs.

Pro sports mean nothing. Louisville and Austin are two of the coolest cities in the USA and do not have them. On a smaller scale, small towns like Madison, WI are substantially more attractive to most millennials (and most best move to places) than a STL.

So if anyone is bolstering, it is you. Louisville is a mid sized city. So is STL, although you could argue it is in the medium large category due to its metro size. It still is MUCH closer in size, culture, and really everything to a Louisville or Kansas City, or heck, even Memphis, than it is to Chicago! You want SO bad for STL to be a major Midwestern city like Chicago and it is only getting passed. It won't be long until Nashville has the importance in the USA that STL had 50 years ago.

When it comes to river cities growing, STL is dead LAST! STL is a major metro area with alot to offer. But quit trying to compare yourself to a metro FOUR TIMES your size in Chicago when you do not want to be compared to one 45-50% of your size in Louisville.
St. Louis is NOT a partly Southern city where are these lies coming from? St. Louis is nothing like Chicago? LMAO that's why it has the NCVS, similar demographics and industrial history, etc. St. Louis isn't nearly as Southern as Louisville. The two once again have nothing in common culturally or linguistically...you're the only one in this thread who has said St. Louis is partly Southern...all St. Louis natives have told you it's not Southern yet you, a non native, think you know more. You're also lying about the ratings of your institutions they don't make any official list. Louisville is a small city. St. Louis is a big one. Louisvilles orchestra and zoo and museums pale in comparison to St. Louis'. St. Louis also has better universities than Louisville does. All you care about are your personal views and no one else's. The facts all contradict what you are saying. I've never seen anyone so backed into a corner and still refuses to admit defeat. I honestly can't believe you just said Louisville and St. Louis are similar in size. Have you looked at MSA statistics? Louisville is 1.5 million St. Louis is 3 million. And the metro area IS growing. So what if Louisville is growing? It's still a small city with very little to offer in comparison to St. Louis. Leave this thread please. This thread is about St. Louis not Louisville. And don't even start comparing Louisville to Austin...Louisville doesn't offer nearly as much as Austin. St. Louis closer to Memphis in culture than Chicago? LMBO!!!!!! St. Louis is not culturally similar to Southern cities. Your opinions are stand alone in this forum. You're lying about visiting St. Louis and it's obvious. Either that or you don't know what Southern is which is why I suspect you think Louisville is so Midwestern. Nobody who has actually visited here would ever compare it to a Southern city. St. Louis is nothing like Memphis and almost nothing like Louisville. It has 5 times more in common with Chicago Indianapolis Cincinnati and Kansas City than with any Southern city. I think I'm done arguing with you. You're so determined to Midwesternize Louisville you'll make other cities like St. Louis partly Southern to justify it.

Last edited by U146; 07-20-2016 at 02:54 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2016, 02:43 PM
 
7,054 posts, read 16,632,857 times
Reputation: 3541
Quote:
Originally Posted by MOforthewin View Post
I have to agree about rural KY. Last year when we moved to FL on our way down we spent the night somewhere in the Jackson Purchase area of KY. Don't remember the town or county but it was a but south of Paducah in between Murray and Benton areas, maybe just under a half hour from KY Lake. The town was very depressing, a lot of abandoned hotels/motels and small strip malls. You could tell the economy was bad around there, little factory work or industry and the roads were in terrible shape as well. Simply no Tax Revenue being generated to fix the infrastructure obviously and it was a dry county and they were trying to vote to end it though. Locals were nice though and didn't run into any rude people but it was sad seeing how little infrastructure and money them people have.

Would you say it's as bad as Missouri where people from KC and Stl think the southern Missouri Ozarks and the Bootheel are a totally different planet? Many people look down on the bootheel and the Ozarks as being rednecks and hicks that belong with Arkansas. heck it was like that are the start of the civil war between Stl and rural MO.

I'm not shocked about the bordering counties in IN you listed are pretty southern. Just like southern IL around the Ohio river around Cairo, and Metropolis is pretty Southern as well and not Midwestern. Indiana is second behind Missouri for most southern influenced Midwestern state. Missouri is the only Midwestern state that some people still ask if it's southern or Midwest as we see the debates on city data for years now. We don't see that with Kansas or Indiana being asked if it's a southern or Midwestern state. Then again IN wasn't a slave state, border state, never claimed by the Confederacy or has 25 percent of the state that is truly in the South like Missouri is. I'd say IN maybe 5-10 percent of it is pure southern and 20 percent transition zone while MO is 25 percent Southern and 25 percent transition zone which means 50 percent of the state overall is either located in the south or within the transition zone. While IN might have those counties listed that are pretty southern, none of the counties in IN can compare to the Missouri Bootheel though.
And is southern MO any better? How about rural TN? This is rural america folks. It is like that everywhere. You should check out S. Illinois if you want to see some decaying old river and railroad towns.

Paducah itself is actually a beautifully restored, very artsy small town, certainly much nicer than any small town in S. IL or S. MO

Cairo, Illinois? There is no where worse than that! Try driving Sycamore street there. It is beyond depressing
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Missouri > St. Louis
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top