do you think st.louis' skyline is small (St. Louis, Liberty: neighborhood, estimates)

[skrazzle]

Originally Posted by AJohnston_STL

You are hilarious. You are "VERY" qualified because you have lived here (as a student, no less) for 6 months? First off, the very idea that height is so important to you is the first sign that you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to urbanity. Big tall buildings are great, but that does not make a great city. Get off your pedestal. I would suggest you get out and explore city neighborhoods before you, a twenty-something (if that) college student come on here acting like you know what you are talking about.

I personally think he nailed it. I don't think HEIGHT means much (tho its nice) for the skyline, but density of the buildings downtown. For example Helsinki and Stockholm are amazing, dense historic cities, but they don't have height.

St. Louis doesn't have either... it's downtown does really look pitiful, and it's blight is horrible. I've never lived there, but i've been there tons... i've got friends who have lived there for years who i visit and they know the places to go, etc... am I qualified? Who knows... but if qualifications means you have to live in a city for several year to know whether its good, then count me out... the impression a city gives it's visitors is just important, and visually St. Louis is unappealing.

There is still plenty to do there and its a fun city... I prefer KC, but prob for the same reason people in STL prefer it... it's where they are from.

[Brickmama]

^Your statements are false. The density of DT STL is much higher than most cities its size. Believe it or not it is more dense than KC's.

I have one question for you. Have you been to Downtown STL in the past 3 years other than the Landing? Have you been to Wash Ave or Olive St downtown? If you could answer those questions I would appreciate it.

[AJohnston_STL]

Originally Posted by skrazzle

I personally think he nailed it. I don't think HEIGHT means much (tho its nice) for the skyline, but density of the buildings downtown. For example Helsinki and Stockholm are amazing, dense historic cities, but they don't have height.

St. Louis doesn't have either... it's downtown does really look pitiful, and it's blight is horrible. I've never lived there, but i've been there tons... i've got friends who have lived there for years who i visit and they know the places to go, etc... am I qualified? Who knows... but if qualifications means you have to live in a city for several year to know whether its good, then count me out... the impression a city gives it's visitors is just important, and visually St. Louis is unappealing.

There is still plenty to do there and its a fun city... I prefer KC, but prob for the same reason people in STL prefer it... it's where they are from.

No, sorry, you're wrong
Downtown is very dense, and much of the "blight" you are talking about are probably abandoned buildings you saw 10 years ago that have now been converted in to $300,000 lofts.. If you haven't been here in the last 10 years (which by the way, you haven't, and I'm right...so don't argue) then you need not speak. Downtown is very dense and urban. Sorry, you're wrong.

[STLCardsBlues1989]

Originally Posted by skrazzle

St. Louis doesn't have either... it's downtown does really look pitiful, and it's blight is horrible. I've never lived there, but i've been there tons... i've got friends who have lived there for years who i visit and they know the places to go, etc... am I qualified? Who knows... but if qualifications means you have to live in a city for several year to know whether its good, then count me out... the impression a city gives it's visitors is just important, and visually St. Louis is unappealing.

Wow. You are just so off-base.

The only really "blighted" building I can think of Downtown is Powell Square, and that is NOT a representation of Downtown. Blight is really only horrible in some city neighborhoods, mostly on the North Side. Although even some North City neighborhoods have good density. Some buildings are currently empty, or going through rehab. Blight? Not at all. Downtown does not look pitiful. Maybe 10 years ago it did. Not now. Even browsing Street View you can tell Downtown does not look horrible. 10,000 people live Downtown. Many more work Downtown. If it were that bad people wouldn't pay to live there.

Try checking out these links:
Built St. Louis: Historic Downtown
Built St. Louis: 405 Washington Avenue

Unfortunately, there have been many grievous demolitions by inconsiderate and stubborn city leaders and developers, but this city still has density. And those links should show you that this city has improve A LOT.

Your post just spews ignorance.

Keep in mind, Downtown is a neighborhood, not the whole city.

[st. louie louie]

Skrazzle's post is off but not completely.
St. Louis' downtown could use more people, more glass towers, more shopping, more restaurants, etc.
Washington Ave is okay but other parts need more than they offer.
The old architecture is great. The density of bldgs is better than many cities. Gateway mall is great and will be even better with the sculpture park. The arch is fantastic.
But...The riverfront is pathetic. The access to the arch from downtown is an embarrassment. Ballpark village...the politicians were suckers and they're still being screwed over meaning us citizens pay the price.
Downtown is way better than it was a few years ago and it's getting better but it could certainly use more improvements.

[linicx]

I've lived in Chicago, and spent time in St. Louis and lived a couple of hours from Kansas City. I would not compare KC with St. Louis in any way to Chicago or to each other. St. Louis is a beautuful city, but if you really want to see another side - the one I really enjoy - is late at night. It's awesome. So are your pix!

[linicx]

Hey! Forget the Arch. and the small skyline. St. Louis has a heart and it braggin' rights to something NO other midwestern city has - including Chicago, Detroit, Minnepolic, Indianapolis, Little Rock, KC, Dallas or Denver. St. Louis is home to Barnes-Jewish Hospital - the only Top 25 ranked US hospital in the midwest. St. Louis has COSCO and Trader's Joe's - big plus for anyone from the western states moving your way. And don't forget St. Louis is one of the primary homes to the famous Budweiser horses, the famous St. Louis Cardinals, the St. Louis Blues and a lot of other things. And I think Ozzie 'back flip' Smith has a steak house near the new ball park. You'ff find world class doctors, upscale dining, shopping and a whole lot more in the Crown Jewel City of the Show Me state. As much as I personally like KC its offerings pale in comparison to what St. Louis has to offer.

[en08]

Originally Posted by AJohnston_STL

You are hilarious. You are "VERY" qualified because you have lived here (as a student, no less) for 6 months? First off, the very idea that height is so important to you is the first sign that you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to urbanity. Big tall buildings are great, but that does not make a great city. Get off your pedestal. I would suggest you get out and explore city neighborhoods before you, a twenty-something (if that) college student come on here acting like you know what you are talking about.

Number 1: I have explored the ENTIRE city and metro area of St. Louis. I probably have driven on every safe street in the city-- for the purpose of exploration-- and I have been to a majority of all the suburbs too-- again for the purpose of exploration. I have seen it all. I am qualified to make a judgement, especially when I wake up to the skyline every day.

Second, Kansas City has a metro area of about 2-2.5 million people, depending on who you talk to. STL claims to have about 2.8 million, HOWEVER I must say I dispute that figure because that includes JeffCo-- which in my opinion is detached from STL and some of the eastern counties. I consider metro STL the city and the county, St. Charles county, and parts of East STL. The STL Metro Council takes a different approach, and that is what is reflected in the census.

Third, St. Louis is VERY blighted. Almost all of north county, a vast majority of north city, parts of south county/city, and parts of St. Charles county are all vast ghettos. Let's not forget America's most infamous ghetto: East St. Louis-- I won't even get into that craphole. And blight pervades downtown. It pervades north grand, it pervades midtown, and it most certainty pervades downtown. While there are some nice lofts/condos down there, there are great mixes of ghetto throughout.

But back to the main argument. I wake up every day to the "backside" of the skyline. I happen to have an apartment around the Central West End, so I see all these "buildings" you are talking about. And if I look far enough, I can see Clayton in the opposite direction. Regardless, STL for a city of supposedly 2.8 million people has a skyline worse than Tulsa, OK.

[60'sGal]

Great pictures. I love St. Louis. Been gone for many, many years, but it is still and always will be home. Others may have bigger and better skylines, but none of them have the Arch.

[OA 5599]

Originally Posted by en08

But back to the main argument. I wake up every day to the "backside" of the skyline. I happen to have an apartment around the Central West End, so I see all these "buildings" you are talking about. And if I look far enough, I can see Clayton in the opposite direction. Regardless, STL for a city of supposedly 2.8 million people has a skyline worse than Tulsa, OK.

I disagree. While Tulsa has a impressive skyline for a city of its size (the metro area is slightly less than 1 million), St. Louis has more tall buildings, with 33 over 200 feet versus 17 for Tulsa [STL: List of tallest buildings in St. Louis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Tulsa: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...dings_in_Tulsa ]. Both have the same number of structures (this includes the Arch) over 400 feet, and Tulsa does have one tall skyscraper at nearly 700 feet, but overall St. Louis is a much denser city with a much better skyline than Tulsa, especially with the Arch, which nothing in Tulsa can hold a candle to.

I think that for a city of its size the skyline in St. Louis is rather small...especially compared to somewhere like Denver which has a slightly smaller metro area but more skyscrapers, but it is certainly better than Tulsa's.

I disagree with your definition of blight, and am wondering what areas of St. Charles county you find to be blighted. Just because the buildings are older does not mean an area is blighted. St. Louis is an old city which has much more in common with places like Baltimore and Pittsburgh than western cities like KC, Denver, and Tulsa and has a much older housing stock as a result. Sure, East St. Louis is very blighted (although it is slowly turning into an "urban prairie"), and a lot of north St. Louis is also blighted, but the area as a whole is not blighted. If large portions of the area were actually "vast ghettos" the city certainly wouldn't have the population it actually does.