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.
And LA also has perfect weather 350 days a year and they don't get freezing temps, high humidity etc. regularly like we do in StL. They have 2 MLB teams. Could you imagine how blown everyone's mind would be in StL if they had 2 baseball teams to visit on the weekends before crawling back to their cozy, insular, vanilla burbs for the weekdays? LA is a world class city with world class amenities and destinations. To compare it to Stl, which is an overrated city in a fly over state, is just asinine. There's an old saying, "You get what you pay for." Couldn't be any truer for that comparison between StL and LA.
Money isn't the reason I don't live in California, it's politics. Their gun laws and state politics are absurd and every little thing is micromanaged by the overgrown government. They don't call it commiefornia for nothing. If you could take that aspect away, it would be a no brainer. CA has better weather, outdoor activities, access to high quality food often grown locally, better economics, better looking women etc. Unfortunately, it's not that easy in the world today.
I think you missed my point about rail transit. The metrolink in StL is essentially useless, unless you're the type that likes to roll the dice. Somebody gets shot, robbed or assaulted on it damn near every week. A 14 year old got jumped and robbed just a couple days ago. The security that's supposed to check tickets and keep the riff raff out, is either nonexistent or incompetent. When I used to ride the blue/red line in Chicago, I never saw groups of punks just milling about at the stations, 20 deep, looking for somebody to rob. I regularly saw police/security at stations and on trains. Something I've never seen in StL. Not only that, but the metrolink is really slow compared to Chicago and NYC transit.
Except that the premise of this thread was trying to discern if StL seems like a big city. So, it's natural that during that discourse topics of comparison would come up between known big cities such as Chicago, especially when they are in the same region as StL.
For the record I'm a native St. Louisan and have lived in the region for 2/3rds of my life. I would say that StL does NOT feel like a big/major city. It's clearly a tier below the big boys. St. Louisans, for whatever reason, have some sort of complex where they think StL is bigger and better than it actually is. I've had the privilege of living in other cities and traveling all over this planet. StL is a joke compared to the real world class cities of the world.
Having said that it's not all bad. I actually enjoy the state of Missouri quite a bit. The state parks and conservation areas are a real gem and I think most Missourians take them for granted cause they don't realize it. It's centrally located, so it's easy to travel around. Others have already discussed how the cost of living is low, especially compared to other cities/states. I've already said this but you get what you pay for. For the cost of living, Missouri is one of the best places in the country. Just don't expect all the finer amenities of the modern world and big attractions. Lucky for me, I'm more of the old soul, nature lover, enjoys the simple things in life type. So, Missouri is a nice, natural fit for me and almost all of my friends and family live in the region, so that's nice. You won't see me trying to defend StL though. I'm more apt to defend the state of MO before I'd ever try to defend StL versus the real big cities out there.
That is true CA gun laws are terrible. Did you know the latest Brady Foundation Rankings ranks Missouri tied for 48th for lack of gun laws since Permit less concealed carry passed? Only Mississippi ranks lower than Mo. basically, MO now is the best state for gun rights in the nation!
Missouri also has a lot of nice gun ranges and the stl area has a lot of nice gun shops like Mid America Arms, Denny Dennis, Dunn's etc.
Hopefully repeal gun free zones and Missouri then beats out MS! With Greitens calling these special sessions in he should call a special session on guns and demand gun free zones be repealed.
Missouri is deep red the last few years. The house and senate hold monster super majorities, and Trump trounced Hillary by 18 points. Outside of KC and Stl Missouri is deep red.
I think you missed my point about rail transit. The metrolink in StL is essentially useless, unless you're the type that likes to roll the dice. Somebody gets shot, robbed or assaulted on it damn near every week. A 14 year old got jumped and robbed just a couple days ago. The security that's supposed to check tickets and keep the riff raff out, is either nonexistent or incompetent. When I used to ride the blue/red line in Chicago, I never saw groups of punks just milling about at the stations, 20 deep, looking for somebody to rob. I regularly saw police/security at stations and on trains. Something I've never seen in StL. Not only that, but the metrolink is really slow compared to Chicago and NYC transit.
You live in Wentzville? Do you use Metrolink daily? You do understand that Wentzville isn't going to give the urban experience of Chicago? Right?
It seems dumb to do a city vs city comparison of St Louis and Chicago. But I'm calling B.S. on the safety issue you've brought up. The El has had numerous issues of people being stabbed to death in broad daylight in front of passengers on the redline and other violence. The El isnt any safer then Metrolink. I took the El daily for more then half the time living in Chicago and it didn't feel safer then Metrolink and yes I did see people in dangerous situations on the trains more often then what I see on Metrolink. I think you know better.
As far as the system being slow? Do you understand the difference between LRT and HRT? Do you understand why St. Louis and similar size cities don't have a system like Chicago?
Why would you come to a St. Louis thread and complain about it not being like Chicago? Given the topic of discussion, I could see an honest comparison of the pros and cons or expressing a preference for a Chicago type of city. But your comments are not honest and I dont think you want them to be.
Last edited by mjtinmemphis; 06-28-2017 at 06:48 AM..
I can't believe the part about income though. You got all those rich people in LA and the jobs in general pay much higher than St. Louis or anywhere here in Florida.
And LA also has perfect weather 350 days a year and they don't get freezing temps, high humidity etc. regularly like we do in StL. They have 2 MLB teams. Could you imagine how blown everyone's mind would be in StL if they had 2 baseball teams to visit on the weekends before crawling back to their cozy, insular, vanilla burbs for the weekdays? LA is a world class city with world class amenities and destinations. To compare it to Stl, which is an overrated city in a fly over state, is just asinine. There's an old saying, "You get what you pay for." Couldn't be any truer for that comparison between StL and LA.
...
Except that the premise of this thread was trying to discern if StL seems like a big city. So, it's natural that during that discourse topics of comparison would come up between known big cities such as Chicago, especially when they are in the same region as StL.
See bolded lines. You're contradicting yourself.
But I can imagine how broken most St. Louisans would be if they had no disposable income and no chance at financial security. I don't have anything against LA, but I'm using it to highlight the strengths of StL. Other posters have done enough to highlight the weaknesses.
And I absolutely agree: you get what you pay for. That doesn't mean folks can comfortably afford it.
Regardless, many refuse to pay for such amenities and loss of financial freedom. Different strokes for different folks.
You live in Wentzville? Do you use Metrolink daily? You do understand that Wentzville isn't going to give the urban experience of Chicago? Right?
It seems dumb to do a city vs city comparison of St Louis and Chicago. But I'm calling B.S. on the safety issue you've brought up. The El has had numerous issues of people being stabbed to death in broad daylight in front of passengers on the redline and other violence. The El isnt any safer then Metrolink. I took the El daily for more then half the time living in Chicago and it didn't feel safer then Metrolink and yes I did see people in dangerous situations on the trains more often then what I see on Metrolink. I think you know better.
As far as the system being slow? Do you understand the difference between LRT and HRT? Do you understand why St. Louis and similar size cities don't have a system like Chicago?
Why would you come to a St. Louis thread and complain about it not being like Chicago? Given the topic of discussion, I could see an honest comparison of the pros and cons or expressing a preference for a Chicago type of city. But your comments are not honest and I dont think you want them to be.
The problem also even if the ban on carrying firearms on mass transit was lifted is that the metro runs over to IL too. That would be a problem for people carrying in Missouri if it crosses into the communist state of IL which if caught would be going to prison over there. As IL doesn't have constitutional concealed carry like Missouri does and they don't honor any other ccw permits even if you have one from MO or AZ for example. Only can use an IL permit.
And LA also has perfect weather 350 days a year and they don't get freezing temps, high humidity etc. regularly like we do in StL. They have 2 MLB teams. Could you imagine how blown everyone's mind would be in StL if they had 2 baseball teams to visit on the weekends before crawling back to their cozy, insular, vanilla burbs for the weekdays? LA is a world class city with world class amenities and destinations. To compare it to Stl, which is an overrated city in a fly over state, is just asinine. There's an old saying, "You get what you pay for." Couldn't be any truer for that comparison between StL and LA.
Money isn't the reason I don't live in California, it's politics. Their gun laws and state politics are absurd and every little thing is micromanaged by the overgrown government. They don't call it commiefornia for nothing. If you could take that aspect away, it would be a no brainer. CA has better weather, outdoor activities, access to high quality food often grown locally, better economics, better looking women etc. Unfortunately, it's not that easy in the world today.
I think you missed my point about rail transit. The metrolink in StL is essentially useless, unless you're the type that likes to roll the dice. Somebody gets shot, robbed or assaulted on it damn near every week. A 14 year old got jumped and robbed just a couple days ago. The security that's supposed to check tickets and keep the riff raff out, is either nonexistent or incompetent. When I used to ride the blue/red line in Chicago, I never saw groups of punks just milling about at the stations, 20 deep, looking for somebody to rob. I regularly saw police/security at stations and on trains. Something I've never seen in StL. Not only that, but the metrolink is really slow compared to Chicago and NYC transit.
Except that the premise of this thread was trying to discern if StL seems like a big city. So, it's natural that during that discourse topics of comparison would come up between known big cities such as Chicago, especially when they are in the same region as StL.
For the record I'm a native St. Louisan and have lived in the region for 2/3rds of my life. I would say that StL does NOT feel like a big/major city. It's clearly a tier below the big boys. St. Louisans, for whatever reason, have some sort of complex where they think StL is bigger and better than it actually is. I've had the privilege of living in other cities and traveling all over this planet. StL is a joke compared to the real world class cities of the world.
Having said that it's not all bad. I actually enjoy the state of Missouri quite a bit. The state parks and conservation areas are a real gem and I think most Missourians take them for granted cause they don't realize it. It's centrally located, so it's easy to travel around. Others have already discussed how the cost of living is low, especially compared to other cities/states. I've already said this but you get what you pay for. For the cost of living, Missouri is one of the best places in the country. Just don't expect all the finer amenities of the modern world and big attractions. Lucky for me, I'm more of the old soul, nature lover, enjoys the simple things in life type. So, Missouri is a nice, natural fit for me and almost all of my friends and family live in the region, so that's nice. You won't see me trying to defend StL though. I'm more apt to defend the state of MO before I'd ever try to defend StL versus the real big cities out there.
Define big city. If your definition is NY, Chicago, LA, obviously not. Since you're a world traveler, throw in London, Paris, Berlin, whatever. By the way, most of us on this forum have been in those cities too.
Yes, St. Louis is not on a par with those cites. WHO SAID IT WAS? WHO WANTS IT TO BE?
Who cares. I'm glad it's not. Life is quite good here for most of us. I drive 15-20 minutes to work, live in a leafy green inner ring suburb with good schools (public and private), parks, recreation, and services, and little crime. I can walk to my church, a local farmer's market and my favorite tavern (not necessarily on the same trip). My kids can walk to their schools. I make a decent income and my wife stays home with the kids, but I couldn't recreate this in NY, Chicago, LA, although I interact with those professionals on almost a daily basis with my job. I'd be out in some far distant burb with a smaller house commuting an hour plus each way. I know for a fact most of them make more than I do nominally but in real terms I'm not so sure.
I agree that the quality of life that can be afforded in St. Louis is much higher for many than somewhere like Los Angeles would be.
For instance, in my husbands line of work, the average person of his profession in LA earns only $5000 more than the average person in his profession in St. Louis. There is no way we could afford the same QOL on just $5000 more. The housing cost would kill us to begin with, and I definitely couldn't afford to stay home with the kids, let alone afford any little extras.
That is true CA gun laws are terrible. Did you know the latest Brady Foundation Rankings ranks Missouri tied for 48th for lack of gun laws since Permit less concealed carry passed? Only Mississippi ranks lower than Mo. basically, MO now is the best state for gun rights in the nation!
Missouri also has a lot of nice gun ranges and the stl area has a lot of nice gun shops like Mid America Arms, Denny Dennis, Dunn's etc.
Hopefully repeal gun free zones and Missouri then beats out MS! With Greitens calling these special sessions in he should call a special session on guns and demand gun free zones be repealed.
Missouri is deep red the last few years. The house and senate hold monster super majorities, and Trump trounced Hillary by 18 points. Outside of KC and Stl Missouri is deep red.
Yep, MO is very red right now and pro guns. Unless, of course, you live in one of the liberal cesspools that they call cities on the extreme western and eastern legs of the state. They're packing em in there nice and tight like sardines and they're blowing up on each other like powder kegs daily. StL has one of the highest homicide/crime rates in the country and people are more concerned in arguing about a monument that almost nobody even knew was there, lol. I'm glad I left the city life behind. It's not worth the hassle anymore and I'm still young and I already think that way!
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtinmemphis
You live in Wentzville? Do you use Metrolink daily? You do understand that Wentzville isn't going to give the urban experience of Chicago? Right?
It seems dumb to do a city vs city comparison of St Louis and Chicago. But I'm calling B.S. on the safety issue you've brought up. The El has had numerous issues of people being stabbed to death in broad daylight in front of passengers on the redline and other violence. The El isnt any safer then Metrolink. I took the El daily for more then half the time living in Chicago and it didn't feel safer then Metrolink and yes I did see people in dangerous situations on the trains more often then what I see on Metrolink. I think you know better.
As far as the system being slow? Do you understand the difference between LRT and HRT? Do you understand why St. Louis and similar size cities don't have a system like Chicago?
Why would you come to a St. Louis thread and complain about it not being like Chicago? Given the topic of discussion, I could see an honest comparison of the pros and cons or expressing a preference for a Chicago type of city. But your comments are not honest and I dont think you want them to be.
I don't ride Metrolink daily anymore but I sure did when I went to college, when I commuted between Scott AFB and Lambert and when I had season tickets for the Cards, Blues and Rams. I'm glad I don't ride it anymore though cause based on all the negative press it gets, it's sure gone downhill since I quit. Let me reiterate that I've never seen a cop on a Metrolink train or at a station, any of the times I've been on it. In Chicago, in my experience, I've seen a plethora of cops.
I would go as far as saying that Metrolink is by far the least safe transit that I've ever been on in any city. When on it, I would regularly see hordes of punks/thugs milling about like a pack of rabid wolves. Saying things to other riders like, "What da fuq you lookin' at?!" or "Bisch I'm bout da get me dat ass!" These are preludes to robberies/assaults and possibly sexual assaults for females. Apparently I'm not the only one that's had the ghetto/punked out metro experience cause Stenger, Krewson and their committees are actively researching ways to curb the crime epidemic. They've been discussing putting barriers up around the platforms and trying to centralize police command on the line. Let me also say that if you only ride metro during peak hours, like morning rush or to Cards games, that's not the typical metro experience. Try riding it after work hours or at night when there is no Cards/Blues game in town regularly if you want to know the true colors of metro. I'll never forget one time I rode it at night, it smelled like weed so strong, I got a contact high. This is on top of countless other times I saw people smoking cigarettes/rellos or drinking on it, even though that's clearly forbidden in the rider rules.
As to your comment about me living in Wentzville and not knowing StL, lol. I'm a native St. Louisan and I've lived in the city or St. Louis County for 2/3rds of my life. Plus I went to college in the city and have extensive experience patronizing the entertainment establishments throughout the area. You've transplanted from Memphis or Chicago or whatever. If you truly love the city, then good for you. I got to a point where I didn't want to be around so many criminals, frat boys, homeless and hipsters on a daily basis. I still go to the city but I love my exurb StL experience now. You enjoy all the sinkholes, protests, carjackings, assaults, robberies and shootings. I'll sleep well at night. Oh and the Cards are gonna suck for the next 4 or 5 seasons due to the irrevocable damage Johnny Mo has done. So there's no reason for most suburbanites to even go to the city anymore, unless they work or go to school there.
But I can imagine how broken most St. Louisans would be if they had no disposable income and no chance at financial security. I don't have anything against LA, but I'm using it to highlight the strengths of StL. Other posters have done enough to highlight the weaknesses.
And I absolutely agree: you get what you pay for. That doesn't mean folks can comfortably afford it.
Regardless, many refuse to pay for such amenities and loss of financial freedom. Different strokes for different folks.
I think there are great reasons for comparing StL to Chicago, especially for a thread of this topic. Hell most of you guys in the StL subforum regularly compare StL to other regional cities, such as, KC, Memphis, Nashville, Milwaukee, Cincinnati etc. why not also Chicago? To compare StL to LA is really far-fetched IMO. You're taking a middle of the pack Midwestern city and comparing it to the alpha West Coast city. If you want to argue that comparing StL to Chicago is unfair based on size, then I could see that but at least StL and Chicago are in the same region and in adjacent states. Otherwise, I respect your opinions and I can see some benevolence in trying to highlight a strength of StL against one of the true big boys in LA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MUTGR
Define big city. If your definition is NY, Chicago, LA, obviously not. Since you're a world traveler, throw in London, Paris, Berlin, whatever. By the way, most of us on this forum have been in those cities too.
Yes, St. Louis is not on a par with those cites. WHO SAID IT WAS? WHO WANTS IT TO BE?
Who cares. I'm glad it's not. Life is quite good here for most of us. I drive 15-20 minutes to work, live in a leafy green inner ring suburb with good schools (public and private), parks, recreation, and services, and little crime. I can walk to my church, a local farmer's market and my favorite tavern (not necessarily on the same trip). My kids can walk to their schools. I make a decent income and my wife stays home with the kids, but I couldn't recreate this in NY, Chicago, LA, although I interact with those professionals on almost a daily basis with my job. I'd be out in some far distant burb with a smaller house commuting an hour plus each way. I know for a fact most of them make more than I do nominally but in real terms I'm not so sure.
Flame all you want, I don't care.
So does StL feel like a big city to you? That was the topic of this thread, the question posed by the OP. I'm a native St. Louisan and world traveler and I say StL doesn't feel like a big city. It feels like an average Midwestern city to me, that can hold its own only against other average Midwestern cities and to a lesser degree national and world cities. Is StL even the best city in the state of MO? I'm pretty sure people have debated that very topic on this forum before. The fact that people would even consider that argument shows just how average and vulnerable StL is. I don't hate Stl. I was born here and have lived most of my life in the metro area, I just don't feel a need to defend it against superior cities the way most of you other St. Louisan posters do.
...Saying things to other riders like, "What da fuq you lookin' at?!" or "Bisch I'm bout da get me dat ass!". These are preludes to robberies/assaults and possibly sexual assaults for females.
This tells me all that I need to know about you. I will never respond to another one of your post.
Last edited by mjtinmemphis; 06-30-2017 at 11:36 AM..
St. Louis feels like what it is, a stagnant and established city rich in history. If you spend a little time at the airport or in "rush hour" traffic it doesn't take very long to realize that its a small town.
Why do you feel like St. Louis is a small town based on one parameter (transportation)?
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.
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.
