St Louis vs Kansas City (St. Louis, Jefferson City: purchase, prices, legality)
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.
To SLC person, I don't know what 'smothered' Mexican is to you (I never heard that while in Mexico) but KC has representation of every region of Mexico to SW to Calimex, some great street counter eats like El Camino Real to Ricos Tacos Lupe and KC's own cheesemex. KC is one of the better places for Mexi eats outside SW, especially KCK. See this thread on Mexi eats in KC..
KC has a few major weaknesses all that are being addressed. Downtown dead at night is being addressed by adding more residents, developers are behind demand though. Downtowns can't depend on just events, it needs residents. STL and KC have this issue. When it's hopping, it's hopping though like for First Fridays or other multiple events going on. Weak transit is being addressed with MAX and streetcar coming - for me MAX is all I need and it runs often. SLC airport is a secondary hub that has a lot of traffic for its size but KCI has airport traffic comparable to its size, ranked only one notch behind STL. Airport is awkward because it was designed before security checkpoints required, which made it obsolete. A new airport terminal is in the works. KC's strengths outweigh its weaknesses and pretty much all weaknesses are being addressed. The one remaining is to stop the ridiculous KS/MO border war with companies moving for tax breaks that do not net in any new metro jobs.
I travel constantly around the US/world and appreciate the day to day livability of KC overall (am from STL), especially living in Westport/Plaza area with MAX to downtown. KC has most big city amenities with no big city hassles. STL has broader/older urban infrastructure but KC is a more functional/livable city to me.
On another note, is interesting to see a recent Travel and Leisure poll that polled 40K readers (more than Feds use to determine unemployment rate) and KC came out favorably over Denver, Seattle, Dallas, Miami and Atlanta. They didn't even include STL.
Location: Jefferson City 4 days a week, St. Louis 3 days a week
2,709 posts, read 5,097,146 times
Reputation: 1028
Quote:
Originally Posted by canyonvue
You know nothing about Salt Lake City if you think it has no black people and is entirely white trash. Please. Salt Lake City has a surprisingly (to some) diverse population. And there are more Latin American people there than anywhere in Missouri, I'm sure. Thus, a plethora of very good Mexican restaurants. Mexican food is THE food there. You find it practically on every street corner. Salt Lake seems to have a plethora of good restaurants, in general, to population. People have even talked about that from out of state, that is surprisingly culinary. But if you must brag diversity as a St. Louisian I don't think you can brag. I've never seen any city more diverse than London! Want to talk diversity, go there first, then see if your city is as impressively diverse as you think. I doubt St. Louis compares when I don't think New York may even compare. And yes, I've been to New York.
Salt Lake has historical districts and old architecture mixed with a lot of modern. Most western cities are largely modern. To say it has none is ridiculous. Is it like, say, New York? No. But then that's one of the reasons I moved, isn't it?
Lol. I can't believe you're getting so worked up, especially when I spent the whole time talking about Kansas City and talking about its faults. I'll let you know what I think of St. Louis when I go, but one little comment and you get in a snit. No, I've never seen much in St. Louis' skyline, but seeing it with my own eyes will help.
To another poster:
There is stuff going on all the time in downtown Salt Lake, no matter the time of year. The city has worked very hard to make it so. It was their stated goal and has been their mantra for years. They want it to be THE center for entertainment, shopping and culture, and the residence for a lot of people. They wanted to bring people back downtown, out of the suburbs, and make it vibrant, so they've spent billions and years making it so. I now see how much their efforts are paying off when it outdoes a larger city, like KC.
Having the winter Olympics there gave it a boost, too, and they're going for them again in 2026. It was largely because of the winter Olys in 2002 that Salt Lake had the money (before the games) to build a light rail system and upgrade all their freeways, and, of course, build the Oly venues that still needed to be built. Has St. Louis or KC ever hosted an Olympics games? Will they ever? That's one claim to fame SLC has over St. Louis. Salt Lake, or rather, nearby Park City, also has the Sundance Film Festival, which is a big deal.
And if you must brag transportation, again, you ought to look at London! That place is amazing with their public transportation, especially their Tube system. There is no room to brag, anywhere in the US. Not even New York.
December is one of the best times in downtown Salt Lake and it's decorated beautifully, especially Temple Square and the surrounding areas. Downtown KC at Christmas, was depressing. Where were the lights? Other than in that Plaza area and that was still sterile. It's busy, busy, busy downtown Salt Lake right now, but there's a lot going on and often busy the rest of the year, too. Like I said, we were surprised at how Salt Lake is busier, more active than KC, even during work hours. It's just an observation from an outsider. And no, Salt Lake is not more bustling than say, Portland, or Seattle.
Salt Lake is an outdoors city and Salt Lake Citians are a hearty people. The first and only snowstorm this winter in KC and our kids get the day off from school, just because of a little blowing snow that didn't even cover the grass tops. It would take a lot more than that for Salt Lake schools to shut down. I lived there my entire life and I recall only once that we got a day off from school and it was when the snow was deep enough to come up to our doorsteps after walking up steps. It was a rare treat that we always hoped for every winter, but never saw again. If they closed down schools because of a blizzard or snow every time, they'd never go to school in the winter. Salt Lake Citians trudge through.
We also came here in September of 2011 and 2012, when it was nice and warm, and it was just as dead then. That was when we first got our impression. I thought the lack of things going on along the riverfront was sad, too, back then. That could've had something to do with having recently gone to Portland, Oregon, where the Willamette riverfront is an active and bustling place where people are jogging, biking, boating, hanging out.
We went to one of those The Night the Buzz Stole Xmas concerts a couple Fridays ago, which was a blast, and there were a few people around outside, but everywhere else was deserted. That was something going on. It's as if no one even lives down there. It feels deserted, like empty warehouses. So when are things going on down there that brings out the people and why do they stay away? They need to also stop chasing their businesses away, too. My hub's boss's wife works at the AMC HQ downtown and we hear they're leaving downtown and going to Overland Park. Better taxes. What are they going to do with that building with the big AMC on it? Salt Lake is bringing new businesses downtown all the time. They are dead set on making it an attractive place for people to live and businesses to set up shop.
You mentioned apathy in KCians. Maybe that has something to do with this all. But I like the laidback qualities of this city, too. Salt Lake seems tighter wound. I like the feel here. San Diego is a laidback city, with lots of beautiful beaches, and it still has a bustling downtown, though.
We will definitely be checking out other Mexican places, but I'm not holding out hope when all we've found so far is Mexican that is a lesser version of Salt Lake's Cafe Rio and a place that thinks chile con queso constitutes smothered. In Salt Lake smothered is smothered wherever you go, as is chile verde. But I know we've barely begun and I look forward to seeing what KC has.
I don't know if AMC theaters have slipped, but they don't compare to Megaplex theaters and I don't see how they ever could've. The Megaplexes have taken movie-going to a whole new level. AMC theaters are what Salt Lake had before the Megaplexes came along...maybe even before that. I've seen two movies now in two of the AMC theaters (I was thinking maybe one would be better than the other), and they just don't compare, from the website to reserving seats (they have a special "reserved seat" theater and the rest aren't). The theaters are nicer in SLC. And are KCians allergic to loud noises? So far the sound is way too quiet, not that dynamic, and the images are kind of dark. I heard they went with the wrong sound system, in general, and are working to update the theaters, but so far I haven't been impressed. Salt Lake Citians seem to like their movies a lot more, too. I heard that KC has a lot of movie theaters, but there are more theaters in Salt Lake than there is in KC, a bigger city, and seem much more attended (kind of like the downtown).
Don't get me wrong, there are things about Salt Lake City I can't stand, too. These are just the differences I've seen so far. Kansas City has its strengths, too, which I've also highlighted, and I love living here (for now). This city has its charm. I love the Jazz history. I love that in general it seems more conducive to creativity and music and just having a good time. I love the architecture. I love the skyline and just despair of the deserted downtown. Light rail would be a nice option for getting around. Salt Lake City loves theirs. I like the differences. I enjoy experiencing new things. I love feeling like I'm constantly on vacation because this whole place and part of the US is new to me.
As for the debate between the two cities in this thread, like I said, I just knew them both through just pictures once and that's the only comparison I could make. I've always thought it was funny how two cities in the same state could compete with each other, even hate each other, like Los Angeles and San Francisco. Salt Lake doesn't have that problem, being THE big city in the state. I think the only people who are so determined to cling to their own city as "the best" are just people who aren't able to get out and around much, who can't travel to the other city in their very own state very often and claim it as their own, as well. I look forward to seeing St. Louis for the first time (and many other cities on this half of the US) and will gladly give my comparisons and views thereafter.
This thread isn't about Salt Lake City, so please leave it out of the discussion.
In the city of St. Louis there are tons of old houses and buildings that are vacant and falling apart. When I go into the city parts of it remind me of the aftermath of the images of the Battle of Berlin. Buildings half torn apart and bricks all over. Really is sad.
In the city of St. Louis there are tons of old houses and buildings that are vacant and falling apart. When I go into the city parts of it remind me of the aftermath of the images of the Battle of Berlin. Buildings half torn apart and bricks all over. Really is sad.
Actually the south side, central corridor, and parts of the north side are really well intact, St. louis Place, Jeffvanderlou, and Hyde Park on the north side have suffered. Some nice new development is happening up there. You should go see it since it seems that you have not been in a long time.
There is also alot of decay on KC's east side.
Overall the Architectural landscape of St. Louis is richer. KC vernacular (once you get away from the Plaza Midtown and Brookside) gets real bland, lots of salt boxes and 4 squares, but lacking the Arts and Crafts detailing that you would often find in this type construction, but there is the occasional Spanish Colonial style tucked here and there, and some nice Art Deco.
St. Louis is by and large Victorian, Romanesque, Italianate, many of the south side bungalows run the table from Art Deco, to German Low Country Style, to English Tudor all very reliant on old world masonry techniques
Actually the south side, central corridor, and parts of the north side are really well intact, St. louis Place, Jeffvanderlou, and Hyde Park on the north side have suffered. Some nice new development is happening up there. You should go see it since it seems that you have not been in a long time.
There is also alot of decay on KC's east side.
Overall the Architectural landscape of St. Louis is richer. KC vernacular (once you get away from the Plaza Midtown and Brookside) gets real bland, lots of salt boxes and 4 squares, but lacking the Arts and Crafts detailing that you would often find in this type construction, but there is the occasional Spanish Colonial style tucked here and there, and some nice Art Deco.
St. Louis is by and large Victorian, Romanesque, Italianate, many of the south side bungalows run the table from Art Deco, to German Low Country Style, to English Tudor all very reliant on old world masonry techniques
True. St. Louis is also much much older than KC. It was a major hub before Missouri even became a state while KC is more modern. hence why maybe its more bland looking to some. Now you do have some investors that buy these old buildings and rehab them, otherwise they just sit vacant and attract drugs and other undesireable stuff. They really need to tear them down.
In the city of St. Louis there are tons of old houses and buildings that are vacant and falling apart. When I go into the city parts of it remind me of the aftermath of the images of the Battle of Berlin. Buildings half torn apart and bricks all over. Really is sad.
This is a very common complaint about St. Louis. But you have to realize that St. Louis is a very old city (founded in 1764), so of course it's going to have old buildings, some of which will inevitably be rundown. Like a lot of people have said, STL is like an East Coast city and all of those cities have a lot of old rundown buildings too. What's really remarkable about St. Louis that KC can't match are the neighborhoods where we've taken really old buildings, rehabbed them, and created hopping neighborhoods (Soulard, Tower Grove, Lafayette Square, etc.). These places have an old-school authenticity to them that draws people in despite the fact that the entire city is not quite there yet.
True. St. Louis is also much much older than KC. It was a major hub before Missouri even became a state while KC is more modern. hence why maybe its more bland looking to some. Now you do have some investors that buy these old buildings and rehab them, otherwise they just sit vacant and attract drugs and other undesireable stuff. They really need to tear them down.
Tearing down is probably not the answer, the past 10 years have brought an impressive amount of rehab.
Vacant buildings do not attract drug dealers, clients do, lots of neighborhoods have suffered over the years due to this misconception. The real estate industry and home builders love though. That way they can sell you a vinyl (or in the 50's asbestos shingle) house and call it "modern"
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.
