Does St. Louis, Missouri feel like a big city to you? (Chesterfield: income, safer)

[FrankMiller]

Originally Posted by STLgasm

I don't think population alone tells the whole story. St. Louis was a top 10 city from 1850-1960, which is a stature that the vast majority of American cities have not and will never achieve. That legacy makes the city feel much more urban and seasoned than a lot of the new Sunbelt cities like Austin, Houston, Phoenix, etc that kind of feel like amateurs in comparison (in my opinion anyway).

One example: when it was built, St. Louis Union Station was the busiest train station in the world, with 100,000 passengers and 400 trains daily.

[Hazel W]

True, and a shopping mall that made me wish I lived here at that time. When I mention it today, almost no one even remembers it. But those are in the past. What about today? I saw in a business journal the other day that seven new hotels are planned for downtown. Wherever will they put seven new hotels downtown? And, can they fill them on a regular basis, not just when conventions come to town?

I always have to add this. A lot of cities call themselves "tree city" but St Louis really is - unless you want to call it a "forest city". St Louis has beautiful trees, literally forests of them. Most cities cut down the trees when they start developing but St Louis did not do that.

[STL1980]

"St. Louis was a top 10 city from 1850-1960"

This is so true and I wish more people would understand this. Nashville, Denver, Austin, etc. will NEVER have the historic building density, the parks, the grand street layout design the way St. Louis was built. St. Louis was BUILT to be a BIG city. Look at Union going north from Lindell. It's almost on par with NYC! that's right! Now STL should keep focus on reconnecting Soulard to Downtown, Downtown to Downtown West through Midtown, Grove, up north from CWE to Wellston etc. and heavily focus on redeveloping and saving structures in north city!

[Blazin65]

I lived there from 1993-2000. I always felt like it was big city. And I miss a big city. I always comment to people that once you live in a big city other cities are not as appealing.

This is just me personally. I live in B'ham Alabama, the largest city in Alabama, and there's no comparison to what St. Louis has to offer in terms of things to do.

[Chicago76]

Originally Posted by STLgasm

I don't think population alone tells the whole story. St. Louis was a top 10 city from 1850-1960, which is a stature that the vast majority of American cities have not and will never achieve. That legacy makes the city feel much more urban and seasoned than a lot of the new Sunbelt cities like Austin, Houston, Phoenix, etc that kind of feel like amateurs in comparison (in my opinion anyway).

I'd agree with that. There are institutions and a certain type of built environment that go with older cities that makes them feel bigger. I'm not sure this will continue on for much longer, however. There's a lot of infill in places like the three cities you mentioned, Denver, etc. that will make those cities feel much larger when you're walking through their cores in the next 20 years. St. Louis will undoubtedly have some of that too, but in a slow growth city, it will be more limited.

[edsg25]

Chicagoan here. Let me say this about your city, St. Louis: no city anywhere in the Midwest seems to have retained the historic feel of St. Louis. I think StL is more connected to our nation's rich past than anywhere else in the mid-continent. You can feel the history.

Boston was once down, actually for a good part of the 20th century, but look at it today. StL, in some ways, IMHO, is kind of like the Boston of the Midwest (ok....I realize not as rich as Boston, but still....).

I've visited StL on 2 or 3 occasions, and I definitely feel it has a sense of place.

[Chicago76]

Originally Posted by edsg25

Chicagoan here. Let me say this about your city, St. Louis: no city anywhere in the Midwest seems to have retained the historic feel of St. Louis. I think StL is more connected to our nation's rich past than anywhere else in the mid-continent. You can feel the history.

Boston was once down, actually for a good part of the 20th century, but look at it today. StL, in some ways, IMHO, is kind of like the Boston of the Midwest (ok....I realize not as rich as Boston, but still....).

I've visited StL on 2 or 3 occasions, and I definitely feel it has a sense of place.

I think that's a pretty fair assessment. Having lived in 3 Midwestern cities and having been to all of them:

-Chicago: definite sense of place. On another level compared to other Midwestern cities. A lot of the history has been removed with all of the new development. The Twin Cities are similar in terms of the latter.
-Detroit: more of an automobile era city. Far less of it has a 19th Century feel and far more of it has the 1930s to 50s feel you get in areas of STL like southwest city.
-Milwaukee and Cleveland: feel like smaller versions of STL. The historic feel is different though because both have far less brick/stone architecture, which is something we associate with large older urban areas.
-KC/Columbus/Indy: different feel altogether. They are "newer". One (Indy) less urban than the other 2.

-STL/Pittsburgh/Cincinnati: the trio that feel more connected to their past to me. Pittsburgh is sorta MW. Has less of the brick thing, but is more dense. The neighborhoods definitely feel as if you stepped back in time.

Same with Cincinnati. Smaller than STL, and they have more modern infill, but not so much that it takes away from the historic qualities. It's smaller than STL, but in some ways it has a more comprehensive old urban feel. The didn't lose as much in the core of the city itself (think their equivalent of Downtown to CWE), so those areas tend to blend together better and feel more "complete". Over the Rhine and its surrounding areas IMO feel more old/East Coast than any other neighborhood in the MW.

There are valid reasons that any of those 3 could be called more historic/older in feeling than the other 2.

[STL1980]

Boston was once down, actually for a good part of the 20th century, but look at it today. StL, in some ways, IMHO, is kind of like the Boston of the Midwest (ok....I realize not as rich as Boston, but still....).

This is why Bostonians that move to St. Louis actually seem to like it here the most, more than any other city's transplants, from what I heard from someone that works on resettlement/ transplants here. They love the old urban feel, old neighborhoods, the history, etc. They aren't intimidated by the "what high school" question, because they're used to people attending elite boarding schools to public schools in southie, etc.
It seems to be people from newer cities that move here that don't like it the most: Indy, Columbus, Seattle, etc. Or people from old cities that get coerced into moving to west county etc..

[Chicago76]

Originally Posted by STL1980

This is why Bostonians that move to St. Louis actually seem to like it here the most, more than any other city's transplants, from what I heard from someone that works on resettlement/ transplants here. They love the old urban feel, old neighborhoods, the history, etc. They aren't intimidated by the "what high school" question, because they're used to people attending elite boarding schools to public schools in southie, etc.
It seems to be people from newer cities that move here that don't like it the most: Indy, Columbus, Seattle, etc. Or people from old cities that get coerced into moving to west county etc..

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.

[goat314]

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.

What's so strange is that I've found that people that like St. Louis the most are from the East Coast. Many other Midwesterns and Sunbelters don't like St. Louis at at all. Sunbelters feel the city is old and stagnant, Midwesterners say they might as well have stayed in the city they are from, but East Coasters seem to always be presently surprised that it isn't as "hick" as they originally conceptualized a city in Missouri would be. In fact, I've heard more East Coasters say that they are shocked how beautiful the city is and said many East Coasters would be flocking to St. Louis if they knew they could get a "brownstone" for next to nothing. I guess it is a matter of perception.