What is really wrong with St. Louis? (Maplewood, California: insurance, house)

[green_mariner]

Originally Posted by U146

Cleveland doesn't have any more going for it than STL does. Cleveland is losing population both in the city and in its metro area. St. Louis is only losing population in the city. I personally don't think Cleveland looks any more modern than St. Louis does. Both cities are fairly evenly matched although Cleveland appears capable of supporting more sports teams than St. Louis can. Probably has to do with the fact that it has other cities like Akron, Canton, and Youngstown nearby.

Cleveland has these advantages over St. Louis

1) A big lake
2) Markedly lower murder rate

[MeetMeinSTL]

Originally Posted by mjtinmemphis

On the surface, 90% of St Louis is Black or White. I've noticed quite a few African, Bosnian and Russian immigrants.

Depending on where you live, you may find a small Latino, Asian or Middle Eastern community.

This is no L.A. or Oakland but there are opportunities to surround yourself in a diverse environment.

On the surface or off the surface, St. Louis is not a culturally diverse city.

[FrankMiller]

Originally Posted by MeetMeinSTL

Culturally diverse? As compared to other cities, no. As compared to my hometown, no. Just no.

The cost of living isn't cheap here especially considering what the city has to offer (or should I say what it DOESN'T have to offer).

Fabulous dining scene? Where? I just came from out West and returning to St. Louis
and seeing how bad and behind the food scene here is just sad. Out West, restaurants cater to those of us who eat gluten free and dairy free, for example. You can't find that in St. Louis. I'm used to being able to go to fine Italian restaurants with delicious food that cater to my way of eating. The food in St. Louis is just bad. I wouldn't expect you to know any different though because bad food is a part of the culture here.

Personally I'd stop short of saying St. Louis has a "great" dining scene, although it's certainly closer to NYC than, say, Caruthersville, so maybe people just draw boundaries in their own way. But, I don't think chasing stupid fads like "gluten free" is a good prerequisite to judge by.

[MeetMeinSTL]

Originally Posted by FrankMiller

Personally I'd stop short of saying St. Louis has a "great" dining scene, although it's certainly closer to NYC than, say, Caruthersville, so maybe people just draw boundaries in their own way. But, I don't think chasing stupid fads like "gluten free" is a good prerequisite to judge by.

I'm not just judging it by gluten free.

As compared to other cities, St. Louis not have a great dining scene.

[FrankMiller]

Originally Posted by MeetMeinSTL

On the surface or off the surface, St. Louis is not a culturally diverse city.

This is entirely dependent on how you define cultural boundaries, isn't it? Is it entirely accurate to lump Italians, Spaniards, French, Irish, Polish, Bosnians and Germans together as "white people" and say there's zero cultural diversity there? San Francisco is far less diverse than St. Louis, if you lump Asian people in with Whites, as some people are wont to do (believe it or not). And if that seems like a stupid notion to you, consider that people would've thought classifying the Irish as white was just a stupid, a hundred years ago. And, even today in England, Brexit was driven in part by the desire to rid the country of those dirty Polish. Note that London credits itself a very diverse city, with many ethnic enclaves that include the Irish, Polish, Germans, etc.

Originally Posted by MeetMeinSTL

I'm not just judging it by gluten free.

As compared to other cities, St. Louis not have a great dining scene.

I strongly doubt anyone on the forum thinks there are no other cities with better dining options than St. Louis.

[Mosep]

Originally Posted by MeetMeinSTL

I'm not just judging it by gluten free.

As compared to other cities, St. Louis not have a great dining scene.

As compared to what other cities? Sure, St. Louis won't come close to matching NYC or San Francisco, but compared to other Mid-Sized Midwestern cities, I think we are doing just fine.

Ian Froeb's STL 100 - The 100 Best Restaurants in St. Louis

This list is a good starting point. Which of these restaurants have you tried?

[U146]

Originally Posted by MeetMeinSTL

You clearly are too lazy to debate. You won't win anyway. I've lived in St. Louis since 2009. I've lived in several cities and small towns in America.

I know people in St. Louis get unnecessarily defensive when transplants share their genuine experiences about their city. Get over yourself.

I'm not too lazy to debate. Fine you want a debate you got it. I've lived here since 1986. I think I know a lot more about the city than you do. The Hill is nationally recognized as one of the top Italian neighborhoods for dining in the country as is the Delmar Loop. Blueberry Hill and Fitz's Root beer have gained national recognition. The CWE has fabulous restaurants as does Dogtown such as Seamus McDaniels, Felix's and Pat's. Our BBQ restaurant Pappy's has gained national recognition and Bogart's and Adam's Smokehouse are also fantastic restaurants. So when you say the dining here is bad, you're going directly against dining experts. I'm not unnecessarily defensive but dismissing St. Louis, a metro of 3 million people, as a city with nothing to offer, is being less than honest. There's your debate and I'd love to see you give specific examples of how St. Louis has nothing to offer. We have two great sports teams, great dining options contrary to your simplistic views, the largest outdoor theatre in the United States, The Muny, one of the top zoos in the country, Forest Park, one of the top botanical gardens in the world, one of the top 15 orchestras in the United States, home to one of the top universities in the U.S. as well as SLU and Webster, Six Flags, the Ozark Mountains nearby, the Arch, recreational activities on both the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers, etc. I agree we don't have as much to offer as a city like Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, or New York but to say we have nothing to offer and bad dining is a total and complete lie. There's your debate and you've clearly lost. Until you can address each one of the great things I've listed about our city as average you're not qualified to judge us. And if you hate the city that much, why have you stayed for 6 years? Why not take your negative and distorted views someplace else?

[U146]

Originally Posted by green_mariner

Cleveland has these advantages over St. Louis

1) A big lake
2) Markedly lower murder rate

Markedly Lower murder rate? Cleveland is one of the top ten cities in the country for murder, so I wouldn't say their murder rate is much better than our's.

[Book Lover 21]

Our perceptions are all based on our own experiences. Here is an example:


I moved to STL from Sacramento in 2009. In Sacto I worked in a group of mostly married women in their 50s. Nobody ever socialized outside of work. Very few of the people I worked with had college degrees. They discussed the Kardashians and crockpot recipes and went to church every week.


The group I joined in STL were all college educated guys in their 30s. They discussed the stock market and the latest 60 Minutes episode. They went out to happy hour together at least once a week. They were mostly atheist and cursed like sailors.


Am I to base my entire perception of STL and N Cal based on this narrow observation?

[green_mariner]

Originally Posted by U146

Low murder rate? lMAO Cleveland is one of the highest in the nation for murders.

St. Louis - 50 murders per 100,000
Cleveland - 16.2 murders per 100,000