St. Louis Saturday in September (pics)

[IraGlacialis]

Pics were taken 9/20/08

Soulard














Riverfront & Downtown


















STL Zoo










The Loop

[Midtownkid]

Cool, thanks for sharing.  Maybe STL isn't that bad.

[KCMax]

I think St. Louis gets unfairly bashed on this board. It's downtown may not be that great, but it has a number of really historic, eclectic and cool neighborhoods within its city limits that it has maintained quite nicely. Soulard is among my favorites.

[chrizow]

STL is awesome.  there really isn't any reason for people from KC to bash STL.  it has incredible architecture and density, interesting history, good restaurants, lots of attractions (many of which are downtown), a bona fide urban park, a kickass (and free) zoo, etc.  other than some stupid ill-defined "rivalry" because we share a state with STL, KC should be glad that such an amazing, urban city is only 4 hours away. 

[GRID]

St Louis seems well respected on this board, it's one of the only places that actually knows more about StL than the Landing, Arch and Union Station.

I like StL slightly better than KC.  If I were not living in KC, I would probably choose StL over KC.  That's not a slam on KC.  StL is just more of a "big city" in my opinion.  KC is like five small cities.

[kman]

STL is awesome.  there really isn't any reason for people from KC to bash STL.  it has incredible architecture and density, interesting history, good restaurants, lots of attractions (many of which are downtown), a bona fide urban park, a kickass (and free) zoo, etc.  other than some stupid ill-defined "rivalry" because we share a state with STL, KC should be glad that such an amazing, urban city is only 4 hours away. 

and don't forget the world renowned university (Washington University) they have there as was evidenced just this past week.

[en08]

St Louis seems well respected on this board, it's one of the only places that actually knows more about StL than the Landing, Arch and Union Station.

I like StL slightly better than KC.  If I were not living in KC, I would probably choose StL over KC.  That's not a slam on KC.  StL is just more of a "big city" in my opinion.  KC is like five small cities.

You obviously haven't been here for more than 3 weeks. I go to college here, and I can assure you, that's dead wrong (I also have some impressions of STL to discuss):

(1) St. Louisians divide their metro into 1) The Actual City, 2) North County (they consider "trashy people" with lower-middle class incomes), 3) West County (The richer area of St. Louis-- in my oppinion is NOTHING like Johnson County or Ward Parkway in terms of mass of affluence), and 4) South County (middle class area). Then, you have St. Charles which is debatably part of the Metro (St. Louisians tend to consider them part of their metro when the census comes around, but otherwise they consider them "provinical" and St. Charlesians didn't even vote to extend their metro-link line to St. Charles-- again showing them how integrated into the mainstream ST. Louis Metro they are) and Illinois (which St. Louisians consider not even part of their metro despite the fact that the census says it is).

Anyway, people from those "three division" areas all judge each-other by what high-school they go to and tend to keep to themselves-- very similar to KC's "five reigons"-- actually seven reigons-- Northland, Urban Corridor, The Dotte, JoCo, South KC, and E-Jac.

(2) St. Louis DOES NOT feel like a "big city" with the exception of it's downtown (which, in reality to me feels like a big ghetto). True, they have some, very vibrant neighborhoods outside of their downtown (The Loop, CWE, South Grand, Soulard, Clayton), but for the most part those neighborhoods are in the urban core or very near to it.

(3) While St. Louis does have some nice areas, it's blighted-to-prosperity ratio is way too off. For every 1 square miles of "nice areas" there are 1.5 or 2 square miles of pure blight. If you look at the center city, everything north of Washington Blvd is pure blight, and south of Market St everything is blight with some nice areas sprinkled in.

(4) Their downtown is DEAD except during a Cardinal's/Rams/Blues game and/or the business hours (even though most businesses have located to the suburbs). The downtown sports venues haven't really helped the city out at all. I went downtown on a Friday night around 12 and it was dead. I went to KC's about a week later and it was ALIVE with people-- normal non, shady people-- at 1:00 in the morning.

Also, their skyline for a city of 2 million+ people-- sucks. If you go on I-64  and descend downtown (or HW 40 as they call it), St. Louis has four tall buildings and an arch. Go on 169 South from the Northalnd in KC, and you see a HUGE skyline that makes KC look larger than it actually is. Even so, go to wikipedia, and type in Missouri Skyscrapers. You will see there are 16 buildings listed. 10 of those buildings are in KC, 5 are in St. Louis, and 1 is in Clayton (and that includes the Arch). 

(5) The metro area of St. Louis IS NOT larger than the metro area of KC. Despite what everyone thinks, I have driven around St. Louis mulitple times-- cruised the street grid of and used maps to see if they are truly larger than KC's metro is. And I came up with the conclusion-- NO they aren't-- at all. While the cenus defines metros, I have found those definitions to be way off. For example, they include 8 missouri counties in the St. Louis MSA, when in reality, St. Louisians (and even people in those respective counties) only inclue St. Louis City, St. Louis County, St. Charles County (debatably) and the fringes of those counties when they talk about areas included in "Metro St. Louis". The Illinois Side is usually "chopped off" in their minds-- and even in the minds of residents of the non-immediate suburbs in Illinois (except East STL, Cahokia, Bellville, Shiloh, and Alton). In reality, the size and population of the two metros is probably about the same-- although I actually think that the size of KC's metro is a little bit larger. And when I say metro, I mean stream of continuous development-- Connected street grids. I mean suburbs that are connected to eachother with continuous development-- not going 10 miles outside of suburban development and then a small little town with some new houses is not something that I consider part of a metro.

I will say that the CSA of St. Louis and surrounding areas is probably larger than KC's, but St. Louis Metro and KC's Metro are probably both comparable in size.

(6) When people say St. Louis is more "urban", in my oppinion, it's not that they have more tall buildings, skyscrapers, apartments, or high-density than we do; it's more they have packed more houses (brownstones) in a smaller amount of space. And instead of segregating areas of blight from areas of non-blight, they throw everything in together; which, in my oppinion results in a way uglier city.

I think, after living in BOTH cities and exploring BOTH cities and their metro's extensivley, I honestly believe that St. Louis was once a great place, and still has some good areas, but overall it's, to put it bluntly, a shithole. It's old, falling apart, and there is not even close to newly-constructed buildings as there are in KC. There is still alot of cool cultural areas there like Soulard, CWE, and the Delmar Loop, but outside of those areas it's lacking (and yes Forest Park is very nice too). Kansas City is newer and more "up and comming" than STL, and while it doesn't have the mass of "urban space" that STL does, our "urban" space is more desirable than the urban space that "STL" has. Basically, urban Kansas City is like a filet, while urban St. Louis is like a big-ass T-Bone steak (with one, all the nice urban areas are thrown together like a filet, where in St. Louis they are spread out among "fat" or bad areas).

In conclusion, again, St. Louis has some nice and very unique areas, but in general the city is not that special. I think it's WAY overrated and over-marketed, especially by people that live there, who honestly believe that it's the best city in the nation. People from KC tend to have a very "defeatest" attitude and little confidence in their city, while people from STL tend to have TOO MUCH confidence in their city and will defend it to the death (and I anticipate attacks from people from St. Louis about this post). At one time, St. Louis was great, but that was in 1904 when they had the world fair and they have since been overtaken by many other great cities-- including, in my oppinion, Kansas City.

Oh, and PS- anyone who thinks that KC's city council and government sucks-- please visit St. Louis. Many residents of the city tell me how corrupt, stupid, and ineffective their city government is-- it makes Funkhouser and the KC city council look like the most effective government on earth.

[dangerboy]

en08 - we are well aware of all of the points you go into in great detail.  There are literally dozens of threads comparing KC and STL, so please take that discussion over there.

[chrizow]

en08 has returned to serve up a steaming wagon-full of FAIL.  joy!

[ntbpo]

2) St. Louis DOES NOT feel like a "big city" with the exception of it's downtown (which, in reality to me feels like a big ghetto). True, they have some, very vibrant neighborhoods outside of their downtown (The Loop, CWE, South Grand, Soulard, Clayton), but for the most part those neighborhoods are in the urban core or very near to it.

(3) While St. Louis does have some nice areas, it's blighted-to-prosperity ratio is way too off. For every 1 square miles of "nice areas" there are 1.5 or 2 square miles of pure blight. If you look at the center city, everything north of Washington Blvd is pure blight, and south of Market St everything is blight with some nice areas sprinkled in.

(4) Their downtown is DEAD except during a Cardinal's/Rams/Blues game and/or the business hours (even though most businesses have located to the suburbs). The downtown sports venues haven't really helped the city out at all. I went downtown on a Friday night around 12 and it was dead. I went to KC's about a week later and it was ALIVE with people-- normal non, shady people-- at 1:00 in the morning.

Also, their skyline for a city of 2 million+ people-- sucks. If you go on I-64  and descend downtown (or HW 40 as they call it), St. Louis has four tall buildings and an arch. Go on 169 South from the Northalnd in KC, and you see a HUGE skyline that makes KC look larger than it actually is. Even so, go to wikipedia, and type in Missouri Skyscrapers. You will see there are 16 buildings listed. 10 of those buildings are in KC, 5 are in St. Louis, and 1 is in Clayton (and that includes the Arch). 

I appreciate your passion and biased opinions, but your hatred seems to drown out your point-KC is better? Possibly you aren't having a very good time in STL because you are a toolbag and people dont like you. To the moderators I live here in STL and frequent your KCrag site often to check out on KC developements-great site with good info. I think we've gone through the "my city is better than your city" rhetoric and it is pointless-but sometimes interesting.

[warwickland]

i think en08 built st. louis up to be something in his/her mind its not...nearly half your posts on here are about st. louis. now the pendulum has swung completely across the center to the other side.

[GRID]

en08, was that all directed at me?

I lived in StL and know the city about as well as I do KC, I still visit several times a year.  I never said the city was better than KC.  I would say they are very similar in almost every way, but if I had to choose, it would be tough, StL might, just might win out, but not by much.

I think you are being a bit hard on StL though.  Timing is everything in both cities.  KC can be the most boring city on the face of the earth at times and other times it can rival the vibrancy of a city four times its size.

The same can be said for StL.

[en08]

I appreciate your passion and biased opinions, but your hatred seems to drown out your point-KC is better? Possibly you aren't having a very good time in STL because you are a toolbag and people dont like you. To the moderators I live here in STL and frequent your KCrag site often to check out on KC developements-great site with good info. I think we've gone through the "my city is better than your city" rhetoric and it is pointless-but sometimes interesting.

To respond... first off asshole, I enjoy the people I am around in STL-- and I don't think it's appropriate for you to call me a toolbag for ragging on your town; however, the reality of it is I don't enjoy waking up to this city.

Second, I was just saying my oppinion of STL, b/c I am sick and tired of people building Saint Louis up to be some awesome, vibrant, beautiful place; when in my oppinion it is totally 100 percent NOT any way similar to such an impression and is instead overrated: Big Time.

As far as GRID said, no my post wasn't directed at you. Yes, I totally agree with you that timing is important, yet Kansas City to me feels more vibrant yearround than STL does.

[Tosspot]

This is so 2005.

[Tosspot]

The ensuing argument, that is.

[STLguy1]

To be honest with you...  I have reread en's initial post and I really don't think he/she is even in St. Louis.

I did get a good laugh out of it though. 

Good grief! 

[staubio]

To be honest with you...  I have reread en's initial post and I really don't think he/she is even in St. Louis.

I did get a good laugh out of it though.   :lol:

Good grief!   :shock:

According to his/her IP address, he/she is in St Louis.

[STLguy1]

Well good enough then.

It just sounds a little fishy.

To each their own I suppose.

I'm out.  This thread is exhausted.

[IraGlacialis]

This thread is exhausted.

Yeah... I don't really have any other pics that are varied to invigorate it.

I thought that most of the StL vs KC vitriol was done with a couple years ago.