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 07-20-2016, 02:50 PM
 
7,054 posts, read 16,632,857 times
Reputation: 3541

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by U146 View Post
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. 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.
I will not leave anything. I came in here to defend you belittling Louisville and bolstering STL.

Louisville is TECHNICALLY a larger city than STL. STL is twice the metro area in size. No, STL is NOT a big city compared to Louisville. Chicago, on the other hand, is TWICE as big as STL and Louisville combined.

So quit comparing yourself to Chicago. The OP asked, is STL a southern city? And the the answer is very much YES, it has southern parts, but it is mainly Midwestern.

Louisville and Cincinnati are relevant here, and were initially brought up by others. Why? Both straddle the mason dixon line, and Louisville's courthouse is ONE HALF MILE south of what is considered that line. So yes, these are all border cities!

MO, JUST LIKE KY, was a border state during the civil war. Tons of slaves in MO!

Do you see threads asking if Omaha or Chicago are southern? The reason is because STL is in a gray zone!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-20-2016, 03:01 PM
 
3,821 posts, read 3,251,431 times
Reputation: 2610
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.
Louisville will never compete with cities line Cincinnati, Nashville, Indy, or St. Louis. It's simply not a big enough city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2016, 03:02 PM
 
Location: Arch City
1,724 posts, read 1,838,373 times
Reputation: 846
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter1948 View Post
I will not leave anything. I came in here to defend you belittling Louisville and bolstering STL.

Louisville is TECHNICALLY a larger city than STL. STL is twice the metro area in size. No, STL is NOT a big city compared to Louisville. Chicago, on the other hand, is TWICE as big as STL and Louisville combined.

So quit comparing yourself to Chicago. The OP asked, is STL a southern city? And the the answer is very much YES, it has southern parts, but it is mainly Midwestern.

Louisville and Cincinnati are relevant here, and were initially brought up by others. Why? Both straddle the mason dixon line, and Louisville's courthouse is ONE HALF MILE south of what is considered that line. So yes, these are all border cities!

MO, JUST LIKE KY, was a border state during the civil war. Tons of slaves in MO!

Do you see threads asking if Omaha or Chicago are southern? The reason is because STL is in a gray zone!
St. Louis is not in a gray zone. It's firmly in the Midwest. I've had enough of your lies. Missouri unlike Kentucky is largely of German ancestry and politically is closer to purple, the vast majority of the state doesn't speak the Southern dialect, where as Kentucky is largely of American and English ancestry, is solidly red, and the Southern dialect range covers all of the state except Cincinnati's Northern Kentucky suburbs. Pre Civil War and Civil War I agree Missouri and Kentucky were similar. Post Civil War they are not very similar at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2016, 03:03 PM
 
3,821 posts, read 3,251,431 times
Reputation: 2610
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.
Most of the growth in the Stl metro is in St. Charles County now, and metro east. Personally I could never live in the state of IL side due to their insane gun laws.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2016, 03:04 PM
 
Location: Arch City
1,724 posts, read 1,838,373 times
Reputation: 846
Quote:
Originally Posted by MOforthewin View Post
Louisville will never compete with cities line Cincinnati, Nashville, Indy, or St. Louis. It's simply not a big enough city.
Agreed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2016, 03:24 PM
 
3,821 posts, read 3,251,431 times
Reputation: 2610
Quote:
Originally Posted by U146 View Post
St. Louis is not in a gray zone. It's firmly in the Midwest. I've had enough of your lies. Missouri unlike Kentucky is largely of German ancestry and politically is closer to purple, the vast majority of the state doesn't speak the Southern dialect, where as Kentucky is largely of American and English ancestry, is solidly red, and the Southern dialect range covers all of the state except Cincinnati's Northern Kentucky suburbs. Pre Civil War and Civil War I agree Missouri and Kentucky were similar. Post Civil War they are not very similar at all.
If depends how you are talking. Large super majorities of Republicans control both chambers in Missouri. In Kentucky Democrats still control the state house and the KY last governor was a democrat.

Since 1980 Bill Clinton is the only democrat presidential candidate to be elected in Missouri, but we can thank Ross Perot for giving us slick willie for taking all the votes away from Bush and Dole and giving us Hillabeast now

I would say Missouri is red now. Certainly not tilting the other way like Virginia and Florida are for example. Many are predicting Georgia might go blue in 2020 due to immigration and transplants.

Also you have to remember in the past some of those rural seats were held by blue dog democrats in Missouri too who were socially conservative, pro gun but seats have since been replaced by Republicans.

Jefferson County MO is a good example. Their democrats generally always pro gun, pro life, anti gay, but they differ on the labor factor and are pro labor, working class. However those seats have now flipped to republican too. The remaining democraps are now mostly in St. Louis and Kansas City which they're the liberal fruit loop varieties, Nancy Pelosi like, and not the rural, conservative type democrats of the old. I wont bash them all because those blue dog democrats helped pass conceal carry in Missouri and helped on the veto override.

If St. Louis, and parts of KC, Jackson county were not a part of Missouri the state would be deep red.

Even Boone County, MO is evenly split close to 50/50 now.

Last I heard 65 seats in the Missouri house this election have no democrat opponent against them.

A real purple state is here in Florida but is titling to blue probably.

Here in FL we luck out because our governor and state offices election are held during mid term elections which has allowed Rick Scott to barely win and get re-elect here. During a presidential year he would have lost by at least a couple points due to higher voter turnout in those years.

Down here they're saying the FL house might swing democrat because of the redistricting that was just done that is now expected to heavily favor democrats which is scary to think about. If Democrats get control of the general assembly here in FL I will look at Missouri again because I can't stand the modern, liberal democratic part controlling my laws and attempt to pass anti gun trash.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2016, 03:32 PM
 
3,821 posts, read 3,251,431 times
Reputation: 2610
Quote:
Originally Posted by U146 View Post
St. Louis is not in a gray zone. It's firmly in the Midwest. I've had enough of your lies. Missouri unlike Kentucky is largely of German ancestry and politically is closer to purple, the vast majority of the state doesn't speak the Southern dialect, where as Kentucky is largely of American and English ancestry, is solidly red, and the Southern dialect range covers all of the state except Cincinnati's Northern Kentucky suburbs. Pre Civil War and Civil War I agree Missouri and Kentucky were similar. Post Civil War they are not very similar at all.
Just to point out during the civil war KY was pretty pro union. It was after the civil war that they favored the Confederate cause. KY lawmakers were also pro union pretty much but their governor was neutral, to southern leaning, but nothing like Claiborne Jackson who was very open and fanatic about taking MO out of the union. Sadly him being so vocal about it is what caused our lawmakers, and governor to go on the run when the union army under general Lyon invaded Missouri. Jackson should have laid low instead of taking such a hard on approach.

That is why after the civil war Missouri basically was a victim of reconstruction at the state level with the Drake constitution that cause a lot of former confederates to leave the state. Kentucky didn't have this problem and since there was no real form of state level of reconstruction in KY many former Confederates moved to Kentucky hence why they joined the Confederacy after the civil war as people say.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2016, 03:33 PM
 
Location: Arch City
1,724 posts, read 1,838,373 times
Reputation: 846
Quote:
Originally Posted by MOforthewin View Post
If depends how you are talking. Large super majorities of Republicans control both chambers in Missouri. In Kentucky Democrats still control the state house and the KY last governor was a democrat.

Since 1980 Bill Clinton is the only democrat presidential candidate to be elected in Missouri, but we can thank Ross Perot for giving us slick willie for taking all the votes away from Bush and Dole and giving us Hillabeast now

I would say Missouri is red now. Certainly not tilting the other way like Virginia and Florida are for example. Many are predicting Georgia might go blue in 2020 due to immigration and transplants.

Also you have to remember in the past some of those rural seats were held by blue dog democrats in Missouri too who were socially conservative, pro gun but seats have since been replaced by Republicans.

Jefferson County MO is a good example. Their democrats generally always pro gun, pro life, anti gay, but they differ on the labor factor and are pro labor, working class. However those seats have now flipped to republican too. The remaining democraps are now mostly in St. Louis and Kansas City which they're the liberal fruit loop varieties, Nancy Pelosi like, and not the rural, conservative type democrats of the old. I wont bash them all because those blue dog democrats helped pass conceal carry in Missouri and helped on the veto override.

If St. Louis, and parts of KC, Jackson county were not a part of Missouri the state would be deep red.

Even Boone County, MO is evenly split close to 50/50 now.

Last I heard 65 seats in the Missouri house this election have no democrat opponent against them.

A real purple state is here in Florida but is titling to blue probably.

Here in FL we luck out because our governor and state offices election are held during mid term elections which has allowed Rick Scott to barely win and get re-elect here. During a presidential year he would have lost by at least a couple points due to higher voter turnout in those years.

Down here they're saying the FL house might swing democrat because of the redistricting that was just done that is now expected to heavily favor democrats which is scary to think about. If Democrats get control of the general assembly here in FL I will look at Missouri again because I can't stand the modern, liberal democratic part controlling my laws and attempt to pass anti gun trash.
Missouri over its history has been a purple state. Kentucky over its history has been solidly red. I agree Missouri leans closer to red but it has a Democrat for a governor. And St. Louis and KC are a part of Missouri so to call the state solidly red is a lie.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2016, 03:48 PM
 
3,821 posts, read 3,251,431 times
Reputation: 2610
Quote:
Originally Posted by U146 View Post
Missouri over its history has been a purple state. Kentucky over its history has been solidly red. I agree Missouri leans closer to red but it has a Democrat for a governor. And St. Louis and KC are a part of Missouri so to call the state solidly red is a lie.
In the past KY elected democrats nationally still. After the civil war it was a mix. Also remember Democrats 70 years ago were not like the far lefties like Obama and Hillary we have today unless they were from the northeast. Even Kennedy who was a northerner won a number of southern states, but even Kennedy was not a far left liberal, but more moderate compared to what we have today. He wasn't that bad of a democrat at all.

I try to look at more modern times now because the two party system is a lot different.

Nixon also isn't a far left liberal until his last couple years he's a lame duck and trying to appease to get a national appointment. Nixon supported conceal carry as atty general immediately appealed to the MO Supreme Court when that stupid judge put that injunction on it.

Chris Koster also is not really liberal other than on labor issues. He's generally pro gun, and also said he wants to expand gun rights recently.

A Democrat running on a Nancy Pelosi platform wont win as governor in Missouri. KY last democrat governor was also similar to Nixon as well and more moderate than the typical democrat nationally.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2016, 05:07 PM
 
7,054 posts, read 16,632,857 times
Reputation: 3541
Quote:
Originally Posted by MOforthewin View Post
Louisville will never compete with cities line Cincinnati, Nashville, Indy, or St. Louis. It's simply not a big enough city.


I am just not buying this argument. All are top 35 regions. You could maybe make an argument, if STL ever grows and crosses the 3 million CSA, then it is a "big city" . But the rest of these cities are all peers in one degree or another. They compete especially for conventions, but also for business, tourism, etc.

here are the CSA rankings.

I think most people would group CSAs in the 1-3 million range in the same general class. You could potentially argue that within that class, there are the Cincinnati and Indianapolis which are in a higher economic stratosphere.

Yet, when it comes to day to day living, you notice VERY little difference in any of these cities! I have either lived or spent extensive time in all 4.



35 Louisville/Jefferson County–Elizabethtown–Madison, KY-IN Combined Statistical Area 1,504,559 1,459,911

31 Nashville-Davidson–Murfreesboro, TN Combined Statistical Area 1,951,644 1,788,434

28 Cincinnati-Wilmington-Maysville, OH-KY-IN Combined Statistical Area 2,216,735 2,174,110

26 Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie, IN Combined Statistical Area 2,372,530 2,266,569

20 St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, MO-IL Combined Statistical Area 2,916,447 2,892,497
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