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.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,058,371 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by grindin
Before someone yells at me to "take this to the Missouri thread!," keep in mind that both of these metros span multiple states on either end.
Culture
Economy
Cost of Living
Food
Transportation
Airport
Walkable neighborhoods
Housing styles
Natural scenery
I've always thought KC was a lot more "western" in character, while STL is a lot more "eastern" in character.
Alright, I'm not a pro on this area of the country, but I have spent a considerable amount of time in St. Louis and have visited Kansas City frequently.
Culture: I would give St. Louis popular culture, it had it's own vibe similar to NYC and Chicago earlier on last century. Kansas City has a new and more mountain region/sunbelt type vibe.
Economy: Kansas City's economy is growing faster, where as St. Louis's economy is larger but also stable not increasing much, I believe.
Cost of Living: I would give it a tie on this one.
Food: Kansas City is renowned for BBQ, St. Louis has a bit more cultural variety, but just a tad bit more.
Transportation: St. Louis (They have a subway) Kansas City doesn't have any kind of rail system yet, but I believe they have proposed something.
Airport: St. Louis has the edge here, but Kansas City is more than satisfying as well.
Walkable Neighborhoods: Toss up. St. Louis does have more monuments and things of that nature.
Housing styles: St. Louis- Midwestern, Kansas City- seems more like Denver's type and also Midwestern.
Natural Scenery: I would give the slight edge to St. Louis, I felt incredible seeing the skyline near the arch and the river from the sidewalks... it was simply amazing.
I want to add a category as well:
Professional sports:
+ St. Louis
- NFL: Rams
- NHL: Blues
- MLB: Cardinals
*Missouri lacks an NBA team in both their big cities*
I feel what you're saying when you said "western" and "eastern" in character. I think you were trying to say St. Louis has more ties with East coast/Midwest where as Kansas City would have more ties with West Coast/Mountain region, right?
I can see that. But lets not forget at one point St. Louis was one of the top 10 largest cities in our country, it was far larger in population than it is today and far more significant to the country city wise then as well, which is why it has stronger connections with economics and politics and culture with the east coast, because at that time, west coast cities were roughly small, with San Fran being an exception.
St. Louis is pure Midwestern in culture.
Kansas City is Midwestern with a bit of Mountain region flavoring on that, IMHO.
They're both very unique cities, and they're certainly at the same par with each other. Kansas City just has to work on it's public transportation system though..
Chill out Dinsdale don't get you panties in a bunch. He said St. Louis was more eastern in character in comparison to Kansas City. Not that St. Louis is an eastern city. You may have a great disdain for St. Louis but you cannot deny the historical fact that St. Louis was largely settled and built up by businessmen from the East Coast. That's why the generic St. Louis neighborhood looks much more like Philadelphia or Baltimore than Indianapolis or Kansas City.
I can't really say which is better because I haven't been to KC yet. I'm a huge fan of St. Louis, but I'll try to be unbiased...
Culture- I dunno how a city can win in culture. It just depends on what you want. KC is more of a Western/sunbelt city. It's newer and more glitzy I guess. St. Louis is older, more historic, gritty & classy at the same time. It is somewhat Eastern (ethnic neighborhoods, row houses, red brick, strong Catholic identity) A lot of these aspects make it more like Philly. But the people and culture don't strike me as very Eastern. It's solidy Midwestern, with a little hint of Southern culture.
Economy- I have no idea about these things, but I think KC is probably better off. It's booming and has a lot of things going for it at the moment.
Cost of Living- Probably about the same.
Food- I'd give this one to KC even though I haven't experienced their food. I've always heard that it is a top city for food.
Transportation- Stl wins & loses. I love that Stl has light rail. It convenient and makes it feel like an even bigger city. However, I hate trying to navigate the roads in St. Louis. They're very confusing. I'm used to a grid system (more like KC) The roads in St. Louis wander wherever they want and stop and start as they please. I'm old fashioned, I like maps rather than GPS, but it's very hard to follow a map of St. Louis. I always have to turn around so many times. Traffic is also pretty bad, but probably no worse than any other big city.
Airport- I have no idea
Housing style- Stl probably wins. The architecture in St. Louis is really charming and historic. The red brick really adds character, even to the more gritty neighborhoods. There are also lots of big old houses in the city (along Lindell for example) The suburbs have huge newer homes.
Walkable neighbors- I'd imagine St. Louis wins in this one. It's a city of neighborhoods, lots of them are buzzing with life: Central West End, Tower Grove South, Soulard, Lafayette Square, the Loop, Clayton (walkable suburb) Those are just the ones I've been to.
Natural Setting- I'm not sure about KC, but Stl has a beautiful natural setting. Most of the neighborhoods within the city are leafy. The surrounding suburbs are very hilly with lots of trees. From 270 looking West all you see is trees & hills, it doesn't even look like suburbs would be out there. I explored that area and found lots of nice homes in a beautiful natural setting.
Last edited by JMT; 07-07-2012 at 08:42 AM..
Reason: Removed broken link
St. Louis is older, and Kansas City is newer. I've noticed that St. Louis has a lit of tiny suburbs while Kansas City has fewer, but larger. St. Louis seems to be more "industrial Midwest" while Kansas City is more "agrarian Midwest."
Can you read? I said it was eastern in character, not that the city itself was eastern. I know St Louis is in the Midwest, but thanks for the geographical lesson, Captain Obvious...
Alright, I'm not a pro on this area of the country, but I have spent a considerable amount of time in St. Louis and have visited Kansas City frequently.
Culture: I would give St. Louis popular culture, it had it's own vibe similar to NYC and Chicago earlier on last century. Kansas City has a new and more mountain region/sunbelt type vibe.
Economy: Kansas City's economy is growing faster, where as St. Louis's economy is larger but also stable not increasing much, I believe.
Cost of Living: I would give it a tie on this one.
Food: Kansas City is renowned for BBQ, St. Louis has a bit more cultural variety, but just a tad bit more.
Transportation: St. Louis (They have a subway) Kansas City doesn't have any kind of rail system yet, but I believe they have proposed something.
Airport: St. Louis has the edge here, but Kansas City is more than satisfying as well.
Walkable Neighborhoods: Toss up. St. Louis does have more monuments and things of that nature.
Housing styles: St. Louis- Midwestern, Kansas City- seems more like Denver's type and also Midwestern.
Natural Scenery: I would give the slight edge to St. Louis, I felt incredible seeing the skyline near the arch and the river from the sidewalks... it was simply amazing.
I want to add a category as well:
Professional sports:
+ St. Louis
- NFL: Rams
- NHL: Blues
- MLB: Cardinals
*Missouri lacks an NBA team in both their big cities*
I feel what you're saying when you said "western" and "eastern" in character. I think you were trying to say St. Louis has more ties with East coast/Midwest where as Kansas City would have more ties with West Coast/Mountain region, right?
I can see that. But lets not forget at one point St. Louis was one of the top 10 largest cities in our country, it was far larger in population than it is today and far more significant to the country city wise then as well, which is why it has stronger connections with economics and politics and culture with the east coast, because at that time, west coast cities were roughly small, with San Fran being an exception.
St. Louis is pure Midwestern in culture.
Kansas City is Midwestern with a bit of Mountain region flavoring on that, IMHO.
They're both very unique cities, and they're certainly at the same par with each other. Kansas City just has to work on it's public transportation system though..
I'm only saying that STL was more "eastern" in look and feel, in terms of the layout, housing, etc. The city is definitely Midwestern.
I wouldn't say Kansas City had "mountain state" characteristics, but more of a Great Plains culture to it than STL. I'm not too sure how much of a relationship with say, Omaha, OKC, or even Denver or Dallas; wheras I think STL has more of a relationship with Chicago.
You mention both cities in your post but then don't really specify where are those photos taken residential Kansas City or residential St. Louis? They look great!
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.
Can you read? I said it was eastern in character, not that the city itself was eastern. I know St Louis is in the Midwest, but thanks for the geographical lesson, Captain Obvious...
