Does St. Louis, Missouri feel like a big city to you? (St. Charles: living in, law)

[Metal To The Core]

St. Louis does have more of an East Coast flavor to it than other midwestern cities, but if you drive about 45 minutes west or south of the city it might get more hick-ish.

[MOforthewin]

Originally Posted by Metal To The Core

St. Louis does have more of an East Coast flavor to it than other midwestern cities, but if you drive about 45 minutes west or south of the city it might get more hick-ish.

Correct. You're in the transition zone in those places. Along US 50 mid MO and south of St. Louis. A mix of Midwest and south blend that gets more southern the more south you go until you're around Rolla and then it pretty much is southern south of Rolla. St. Louis is the southernmost big Midwest city that is just outside the transition zone.

[MOforthewin]

Originally Posted by Chicago76

I think that how people adjust to here generally says a lot more about their personality, expectations, and reasons for moving here than it does where they come from. For example, if someone comes here for an academic career, they'll probably adjust well. If only because they're going to an academic bubble that insulates them from a lot of the cultural differences between BOS, Denver, Atlanta, LA, etc and STL.

That said, all else equal, I do think it's easier for someone to come here if they expect a completely different cultural/city vibe and they are pleasantly surprised that there are some similarities. Good contenders in this group are NOLA, Baltimore, Boston, and Philly.

Someone is more likely to be frustrated if they overestimate the similarities and realize when they get here its not as similar as they initially thought. Columbus and Indy are much more socially open...probably because they're newer and growing a bit more with extra incomers. Same thing with upper v. lower Midwest. STL is an old city, so people coming from those areas may overestimate the similarities between STL and cities like Detroit, Cleveland, Milwaukee, and Chicago. STL isn't true lower Midwest, but it's very different than older Great Lakes cities. It has its own thing.

Interestingly, I know someone from STL who moved to Cincinnati and she absolutely hates it. The funny thing is, she hates it for all of the reasons that many transplants say they hate STL....stuck in its ways, socially closed/cliquish, she doesn't feel like she belongs because she didn't grow up there, etc. To me, Cincinnati is the most similar place I can find to St. Louis. She simply doesn't like being the transplant in a town very similar to hers.

If you move here from the West Coast and you're disappointed because the city isn't X to you, that's really on you.

St. Louis also is very similar to Baltimore and historically too. Both were border southern cities at one point. Today they're not but both have a bit of southern traces left in them still but not enough to be put in the transition zone. I'd say St. Louis is 90 percent Midwestern. Like myself and others have state there are some slight traces of it's past though. The stl area in general though is lower Midwestern but feels slightly different than most other places in the Midwest and lower Midwest. I think it's because it's just the state overall. Missouri is the most southern influenced Midwestern state as part of the state, the southern quarter is in the south and the other 25 percent is a mix. It certainly influences the entire state including the metro. Parts of the metro south of stl are in the transition zone. Otherwise it just seems a little off from the rest of the lower Midwest.

[Chicago76]

Originally Posted by MOforthewin

St. Louis also is very similar to Baltimore and historically too. Both were border southern cities at one point. Today they're not but both have a bit of southern traces left in them still but not enough to be put in the transition zone. I'd say St. Louis is 90 percent Midwestern. Like myself and others have state there are some slight traces of it's past though. The stl area in general though is lower Midwestern but feels slightly different than most other places in the Midwest and lower Midwest. I think it's because it's just the state overall. Missouri is the most southern influenced Midwestern state as part of the state, the southern quarter is in the south and the other 25 percent is a mix. It certainly influences the entire state including the metro. Parts of the metro south of stl are in the transition zone. Otherwise it just seems a little off from the rest of the lower Midwest.

St Louis is hard to pin down because it has stronger links to the Upper Midwest than cities of the Lower Midwest, but at the same time it also has stronger links to the South in some ways as well...part of that is the state in general and part of that is the closer commercial links via the river historically to places like New Orleans and Memphis. I like your percent breakdown idea, so I'm going to run with it using 4 cities I know very well:

Chicago: solidly Upper Midwest, but so large and international it's also a global city. 30% global, 70% Upper
Milwaukee: 100% Upper Midwest through and through.
Indianapolis: 15% Southern, 10% Upper Midwest, 75% Lower Midwest. It's not Upper geographically, but people don't understand how manufacturing intense Indiana is. IN's mfg share as a percent of GDP is higher than any other state. The city itself was never as manufacturing intense as STL, but still moreso than Columbus. There are also a lot of towns that are very manufacturing intense nearby (Kokomo, Lafayette, Richmond, Marion, Anderson, Muncie, etc)

St. Louis is the hard to pin down city. 10% Southern, 20% Upper, 40% Lower, 30% strangely St. Louis. Other older cities like Pittsburgh, NOLA, Baltimore, and to a lesser degree Cincinnati are others that have a "strangely" category. The strangely St. Louis part is the piece that is hard to pin down. It's an even mix of faux southern and faux Upper Midwest. Not "true" southern or Upper, but if I had to call it something other than "St. Louis" it would have to be that. I kind of think of this as the residual Upper Midwest and Southern influences that have blended over decades that have left behind their own separate and distinct St. Louis "stew". So if you add the "faux" pieces to the Southern and Upper pieces, St. Louis is a place that feels more Southern than Indy but also more Upper Midwest than Indy while still feeling more Lower Midwest than anything else.

[RisingAurvandil]

The most telling characteristic is the accent. Native St. Louisans have a definitive Midwestern accent, stronger than most anywhere else in Missouri. It is particularly evident in people who were raised inside of the 270 loop. And it continues in the young folks.

The reason southern-esque accents are heard in St. Louis is because of regional migration. This is the closest major metro to derelict towns across Southern MO/IL, Arkansas, and Kentucky. A ton of folks have migrated from these areas, especially after they finish college. Their kids usually acquire a Midwest accent.

[FrankMiller]

Originally Posted by RisingAurvandil

The most telling characteristic is the accent. Native St. Louisans have a definitive Midwestern accent, stronger than most anywhere else in Missouri. It is particularly evident in people who were raised inside of the 270 loop. And it continues in the young folks.

The reason southern-esque accents are heard in St. Louis is because of regional migration. This is the closest major metro to derelict towns across Southern MO/IL, Arkansas, and Kentucky. A ton of folks have migrated from these areas, especially after they finish college. Their kids usually acquire a Midwest accent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midlan...Louis_Corridor

[MOforthewin]

Originally Posted by RisingAurvandil

The most telling characteristic is the accent. Native St. Louisans have a definitive Midwestern accent, stronger than most anywhere else in Missouri. It is particularly evident in people who were raised inside of the 270 loop. And it continues in the young folks.

The reason southern-esque accents are heard in St. Louis is because of regional migration. This is the closest major metro to derelict towns across Southern MO/IL, Arkansas, and Kentucky. A ton of folks have migrated from these areas, especially after they finish college. Their kids usually acquire a Midwest accent.

The southern accent overall has been slowly dying across the south.

When I was in Branson a few years ago in early May I heard a ton of southern accents. I mean, being from St. Louis you stick out. This was before season began and they get influx of non natives. However, that is a rural area. Especially the bigger cities in the south you hear the accent less.

The transition zone starts just outside of town and is very gradual. Being St. Louis is close to the transition zone I think has a tad influence too.

Even in the transition zone the northern half of southern Missouri which extends to highway 50 you will hear some southern accents, more of them as you get closer to the southern quarter of Missouri which IS fully southern as most of us have concluded on here.

Also, just north of that line in places like Lexington, Higginsville you will see some southern influences there too as those areas were in Little Dixie and still retain a few influences as well.

Overall the 50 percent Midwestern, 25 percent transition zone and 25 percent Dixie rule is a pretty good fit for Missouri. Most have agreed to that.

The Dixie line is only about 90 miles south of St. Louis which isn't far. Once you hit Cherokee Pass it becomes pretty much southern and the transition zone ends and south begins. Then take that line over to Cape Girardeau and westward ending just south of Joplin. Or If going down I55, Jackson is the first southern town you hit. Actually as THB says Jackson is actually more Southern than Cape.

[MOforthewin]

Originally Posted by MargeInnovera

St. Louis holds up well? Then why are so many leaving?
I leave for Omaha, a lot more money and a safer and healthier life in October and cannot wait. I just hope we can finish our commitment here without getting shot or robbed.

Until then why not just carry a concealed firearm? Missouri does not require a permit to carry one like Nebraska does.

If more people who owned firearms carried them, robbery and carjackings and such will drop, which in fact it seems to be working since Jan 1 when permit less carry started in Missouri. Already has been a number of self defense shootings in the St. Louis metro area this year where the victim was packing and had an armed response waiting for them. I think a few weeks ago there was a self defense shooting at a gas station in the city where the victim defended themselves.

[RuralTownLover]

I grew up in Chesterfield/O'fallon/Breckenridge. Back then, it felt very small.

I moved to Missoula, Montana for two years and now St. Louis seems massive. Missoula is the second biggest city in the state and it only has one major interstate (I-90) and it's only a 2 lane at that.

[PerseusVeil]

Originally Posted by MOforthewin

Until then why not just carry a concealed firearm? Missouri does not require a permit to carry one like Nebraska does.

If more people who owned firearms carried them, robbery and carjackings and such will drop, which in fact it seems to be working since Jan 1 when permit less carry started in Missouri. Already has been a number of self defense shootings in the St. Louis metro area this year where the victim was packing and had an armed response waiting for them. I think a few weeks ago there was a self defense shooting at a gas station in the city where the victim defended themselves.

I wonder how many Missouri firearm owns have gotten in trouble in other states due to the lack of need for a permit. I know some of the Metro East counties are starting to come down on people crossing the river with their guns.

I could be mistaken, but ending up with a conviction for violating another state's gun laws could also mess up one's ability to have a gun at all.