Spoiled by Saint Louis. (St. Louis, Washington: appointed, neighborhoods, living in)

[mjtinmemphis]

I have a hard time visiting other mid-sized cities and having to pay for attractions. I hear locals brag on their parks, food and neighborhoods and I leave kind of disappointed. The only cities that can impress me with their stuff are the larger world class cities like NYC, San Francisco and Chicago. I love Cincinnati and KC as well.

Is it just me over doing my St. Louis-ism or does anyone else feel the same way especially visiting Sunbelt cities?

[SnazzyB]

Well, we are CERTAINLY spoiled by Forest Park, and everything in it. The zoo, which is world class and FREE, the Art Museum, the Museum of Natural History, The Jewel Box, and the acres and acres of lovely lawns and greenery. We're really blessed to have that.

[silibran]

I live in Vancouver, WA, after a lifetime living in St. Louis County. I wanted to like the Portland, OR Art Museum, I really did. But it is not anything as great as SLAM. And, worse, it is a nightmare to get to. Portlanders love their zoo, but it is not laid out as nicely, or as nice in general, as St. Louis Zoo. It is easier to reach, but not as accessible as Forest Park.

And then, there is the Muny and MOBOT.

There are plenty of good things here in the PNW, don’t get me wrong. The natural environment is more beautiful than MO, and the climate is less severe. People who live here are often chill, and easy going as well.

But I do agree that living in St. Louis does spoil you a bit.

(I do prefer seeing medical personnel here, as opposed to in St. Louis.)

[mjtinmemphis]

Originally Posted by silibran

(I do prefer seeing medical personnel here, as opposed to in St. Louis.)

You just hit a nerve. Would you say that Vancouver Washington has better medical care? This is a major issue as I get older and decide on my retirement years.

[goat314]

St. Louis' cultural offerings are hard to beat for a city it's size. My problem with St. Louis is just the really bad presentation and lack of regional cohesiveness. Many cities serve up subpar cultural offerings but package their cities so well. St. Louis has world class cultural offerings but the region really has done an abysmal job with marketing and creating a unified presentation. A perfect example is downtown and the riverfront. How could you have some of the best architecture in the country and world renowned monument on your front door, but have a total lack of beautification, streetscapes from the 60s, and an obvious lack of planning. When you go to cities like Charlotte, Nashville, Austin etc. The first thing you notice is that these cities obviously have strong civic leadership that is invested in their cities at least appearing to be first rate. That is so not the case with St. Louis.

[mjtinmemphis]

Originally Posted by goat314

St. Louis' cultural offerings are hard to beat for a city it's size. My problem with St. Louis is just the really bad presentation and lack of regional cohesiveness. Many cities serve up subpar cultural offerings but package their cities so well. St. Louis has world class cultural offerings but the region really has done an abysmal job with marketing and creating a unified presentation. A perfect example is downtown and the riverfront. How could you have some of the best architecture in the country and world renowned monument on your front door, but have a total lack of beautification, streetscapes from the 60s, and an obvious lack of planning. When you go to cities like Charlotte, Nashville, Austin etc. The first thing you notice is that these cities obviously have strong civic leadership that is invested in their cities at least appearing to be first rate. That is so not the case with St. Louis.

That is the biggest drawback with this city. There is so much potential just sitting there. Too many don't want the city to succeed. When the St. Louis region comes together and develop a plan for the metro, this area would be unstoppable. Until then, we will be stagnant.

[silibran]

Originally Posted by mjtinmemphis

You just hit a nerve. Would you say that Vancouver Washington has better medical care? This is a major issue as I get older and decide on my retirement years.

Both DH and I got excellent medical care in STL. I had some issues with my internist, but overall, we had good care all around. I prefer seeing medics here because the offices are much less stressed. The people I deal with are easier to deal with. They tend to find ways to help, as opposed to finding reasons why it is hard to help.

DH had initial cataract surgery in St. Louis County. The large outer office was packed, and the staff literally shouted names for people to go back for surgery. It felt very chaotic and stressful. When I had my surgery here, the office was calm. People spoke in quiet voices. DH came in to the waiting area with me, before my surgery. It was totally different than in the St. Louis office. And this is just one example.

Here, all the different offices communicate with each other electronically, and we get written summaries of our visits and our instructions. Possibly this is done now in STL, but all of this was new to me when I moved here 10 years ago.

My experience with mammograms is much easier than it was in STL as well.