St Louis vs Kansas City (St. Louis, Florissant: apartment, condo, home)
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.
What Kansas City lacks that St. Louis has are livable and interesting neighborhoods in the city outside of the downtown core. St. Louis is a city of neighborhoods and they are distinct and have a vibrancy that is lacking in Kansas City's residential areas. Even KC's residential neighborhoods are car oriented, and there's not very much within walking distance to most of the nice areas with old homes and families.
Never been to Kansas City much, have you? There's a whole lot more to us than the Sports Complex, Plaza, and Johnson County, Kansas by the way.
The Country Club Plaza might be the most densely populated part of the city. If that area is not interesting and livable enough, nothing is.
You just described every neighborhood from slightly south of Crown Center, all the way down to Waldo. That's a sizable chunk of real estate. Brookside, West Plaza, Westport... there's many more names in there that I can't think of right away. Very walkable, with shopping districts in every area. Each area has it's own feel to it.
You also described North Kansas City, my favorite KC suburb, just across the Missouri river from downtown.
First of all I've been to KC more times than can count and in that area especially, but you kind of proved my point. No oe in KC seems to be able to name neighborhoods, leading outsiders to believe they have few distinctions. They're fine areas, I'd live there in a heartbeat (I really enjoy Brookside), but that's not what I was really saying.
Here's the best example of looking at it from the angle of someone who truly wants to love car less. From my favorite Web site walkscore.com
edit:: Again I want to reiterate that I really like Kansas City and I don't want to fight about it, because I think it's a great town. My point, and I think it was muddled in my last post, is that St. Louis is made up of a lot of interesting and distinct neighborhoods in a way that Kansas City isn't and, as a rule, I think more of Kansas City's neighborhoods are car dependent than St. Louis'.
Do you honestly think StL is better than KC when it comes to being “car dependent”. I know they have a nice light rail system, but if you ask me, their bus system is a joke. There are some great areas of StL City, mostly to the west and south of Downtown. The city was once extremely dense and much of that infrastructure is still in place.
I don’t think there is anything in StL quite like the Country Club Plaza. The Central West end is close, but I don’t think it’s quite as nice or compact or as large. I think the plaza has more condos, more office space, more retail etc. all within a few blocks.
Quote:
62% of KC neighborhoods are car dependent!
KC does have a lot of walkable areas. Again, let’s not include Northland and other far reaches of KCMO. Let’s look at the original urban core of KCMO which is about the same size as StL City and this area at once time held 575,000 people and one of the nation’s most extensive transit systems. It’s not the 800,000 (or more) StL city had, but it was still quite a dense city, especially for a Midwestern city west of the Mississippi.
You have:
Old Northeast
Columbus Park
River Market
Quality Hill
CBD
Library District
Crossroads
Westside
Crown Center
Hospital Hill
Beacon Hill
Union Hill
Valentine
Coleman Highlands
W39th
Westport
Old Hyde Park
South Hyde Park
Volker
Midtown
West Plaza
Roanoke
Southmoreland
South Plaza
Country Club Plaza
Rockhill
Hyde Park
UMKC
Troostwood
Brush Creek
Ivanhoe
Waldo
And many more I can’t think of.
I’m not arguing which is better, but just want to give KCMO some of the respect it deserves.
I love StL and when I visit, I spend more time in areas like the Hill, CWE, the Loop, University City (Loop), Washington Ave and Soulard.
But don’t discount KCMO. It’s a very underrated city, especially by the locals. Most people in KC, especially the KS suburbs only know the plaza and maybe the crossroads. They have no idea about the rest of the urban core and the people that live there tend to be pretty "quiet" about it. It's the same way in StL. People out in the county or other suburban cou
I think the urban core of KCMO compares very well with the urban core of StL.
If you want high quality very clean newer suburbs w/ good schools that I dare say, are attractive - Kansas City Metro (Johnson County Kansas)
If you want high quality quaint older suburbs w/ walkable business districts w/ good schools - St. Louis (Webster Groves, etc).
Now, KC doesn't have any urban suburbs to speak of, and St. Louis does not do new suburbs very well at all (most cities don't).
Clayton in St. Louis County is similar to Johnson County, Kansas if it was developed 50-70 years earlier and had a large walkable business district, it's very clean-almost too clean,but appealing in its own way, like JOCO.
I think the St. Louis metro offers more options for those who appreciate older neighborhoods and aren't big fans of sprawl, but aren't ready to fork it out for private school. In Kansas City, the divide between Urban and Suburban is much more stark- and the resulting cultural separation can be exasperating (regional cooperation/regional assets-which is a whole can of worms in KC- the metro is very divided not only urban/suburban, but missouri/kansas). Having progressive "urban suburbs" - to me - makes metro StL more livable. This is an asset typically reserved for much larger metropolitan areas.
If you are coming from another part of the midwest, south, or east, you will be surprised by the quality of natural space near St. Louis (StL has an REI, for whatever overpriced gear is worth) in places like the St Francis mountains, directly south of the city where you can Kayak, fish, backpack, etc. KC is much more isolated from the heart of the Ozark river systems and contiguous forest-but is nearer and more accessible to the states main large impoundments. StL is also very proximate to the main wine district in the state, as well as one secondary district.
You can live in the city limits of KC or StL and have a positive urban experience in either. If that's what you are interested in, I suggest you visit both. I prefer the StL Metro "package" more, however.
Last edited by CoffeeAndBeer; 09-01-2008 at 09:32 AM..
If you want high quality very clean newer suburbs w/ good schools that I dare say, are attractive - Kansas City Metro (Johnson County Kansas)
If you want high quality quaint older suburbs w/ walkable business districts w/ good schools - St. Louis (Webster Groves, etc).
Now, KC doesn't have any urban suburbs to speak of, and St. Louis does not do new suburbs very well at all (most cities don't).
Clayton in St. Louis County is similar to Johnson County, Kansas if it was developed 50-70 years earlier and had a large walkable business district, it's very clean-almost too clean,but appealing in its own way, like JOCO.
I think the St. Louis metro offers more options for those who appreciate older neighborhoods and aren't big fans of sprawl, but aren't ready to fork it out for private school. In Kansas City, the divide between Urban and Suburban is much more stark- and the resulting cultural separation can be exasperating (regional cooperation/regional assets-which is a whole can of worms in KC- the metro is very divided not only urban/suburban, but missouri/kansas). Having progressive "urban suburbs" - to me - makes metro StL more livable. This is an asset typically reserved for much larger metropolitan areas.
If you are coming from another part of the midwest, south, or east, you will be surprised by the quality of natural space near St. Louis (StL has an REI, for whatever overpriced gear is worth) in places like the St Francis mountains, directly south of the city where you can Kayak, fish, backpack, etc. KC is much more isolated from the heart of the Ozark river systems and contiguous forest-but is nearer and more accessible to the states main large impoundments. StL is also very proximate to the main wine district in the state, as well as one secondary district.
You can live in the city limits of KC or StL and have a positive urban experience in either. If that's what you are interested in, I suggest you visit both. I prefer the StL Metro "package" more, however.
First off, there are other suburbs besides JoCo and if you think beige is "attractive", then I'm not even sure why I'm responding.
KC has "urban" suburbs, most are just in the city limits of KCMO. Brookside, Waldo etc.
Webster Groves is not "urban". It's more like a Raytown or Prairie Village.
St Louis has "new" suburbs all over the place. More than KC. It's just that St Louis is built among hills and forests with winding roads. You are right; few cities have suburbs like JoCO where the roads are plentiful, straight, flat and wide as hell with massive building setbacks. Only Phoenix seems to develop in a similar way.
It's cheap and since the land is so baron and plentiful, how much land people take up to develop is not an issue in places like JoCO. You end up with a county that is 50% roads, 25% grass and 25% actual development, much of which is surface parking lots.
Clayton and JoCo could not be more different.
There is nothing like JoCo in StL except parts of west county, but even then, they have trees and hills and it's just different.
I would compare west county more to KC's platte county.
Clayton is more like KC's country club plaza even though KC’s Plaza is far superior as an “urban” district.
Again, Clayton and JoCo have NOTHING is common, except both have a lot of office buildings. Only Clayton has them in a area about 100th the size.
Also, KC has some very historic and "walkable" suburbs, or at least suburbs with nice, walkable downtown districts. Lee's Summit, Independence, Liberty, Parkville and NKC come to mind.
Anyway, I think the cities are about the same, I really do. The urban cores of the cities are very similar. St Louis just has more people in the burbs.
Both towns have a great deal of "redneck" influence, especially in the burbs.
Metro KC is growing faster while StL is migrating west, but not really growing all that fast.
Both towns have major urban blight and crime still which seems to be a problem in large midwestern towns even though both towns have brought their respective downtowns back from the dead.
I say you can live any way you want in either city. That's the bottom line.
Webster Groves is not "urban". It's more like a Raytown or Prairie Village.
St Louis has "new" suburbs all over the place. More than KC.
Clayton is more like KC's country club plaza even though KC’s Plaza is far superior as an “urban” district.
As someone who has lived in both cities, these three statements are absurd.
Webster Grove is old, established and buried solidy inside the outerbelt and the metro.
Name one "new" suburb in STL.
Clayton is a secondary urban core, it is the hub for all of St. Louis County which populates over 1 million. Comparing Clayton to a nice old shopping district is absurd. Clayton is business, not Saks Fifth Avenue, that honor belongs to Frontenac and Ladue.
It has more high density residential buildings than Clayton and it has nearly as much office space.
The plaza is a cross between Clayton and the Central West End.
But it is NOTHING Like Johnson County,KS (a post 1980's suburb) and neither is Clayton or the CWE.
That was my point.
I think you are forgetting that some areas of NE Johnson County have FAR OLDER housing stock than the 1980s. My relatives have lived in the same house for over 60 years in NE Johnson County that was built in 1937.
I am from Kansas City and I go to SLU in St. Louis. Both cities are totally different than each-other. St. Louis is very eastern. Most of their housing and architecture is brick based, whereas Kansas City's is more stucco-based. St. Louis is laid out on a wavy, loosely defined grid, that if flipped on it's side would look like a U. Kansas City, on the other hand, is laid out on a straight grid-- with the exception of the northland. Geographically, Kansas City is much larger than St. Louis-- both in city and metro area. St. Louis, however, is more dense and more packed together. The population of metro St. Louis vs. the population of metro KC is disputed, however. St. Louisians often count Jefferson County, St. Charles County, and the Illinois counties in their metro area poulations, which makes the metro population seem bigger than it actually is. JeffCo is definatley not part of the STL metro area (it's 200,000 people supposidley) and St. Charles/Illinois is disputably part of STL.
Kansas City definatley has a better downtown and more nightlife than St. Louis. KC has the new Power and Light District, Crossroads arts district, Westport, Plaza, Brookside, and various nightlife areas throughout the metro I forgot to mention.
Kansas City is definitely growing at a much faster rate than STL. Also, KC is much newer. Johnson County, is one of the richest counties in the United States, and south Johnson County is booming with huge mansions. STL has absolutely NOTHING like JoCo. Kansas City, also has more wealth than STL-- but STL has much more "old money" and KC is more "new money". Areas like Lee's Summit and the Northern suburbs are booming with wealthy growth and development as well. STL has some newer areas in Chesterfield, Town and Country, and St. Charles county, but it's very sporadic, and the majority of development there is infill (they tear a house down and build a new one on top) as opposed to KC having massive housing developments of about 100-1,000 houses at a time that are brand spanking new.
STL also has a MUCH more ghettoized area than Kansas City. All of "north county", "north city", even parts of south county/south city and if you want to count the illinois side- East STL area are all very blighted. You might find some OK areas scattered throughout, but for the most part, I would say about 33.3 percent of the STL metro area is living in poverty. KC's ghettoized areas are found east of Main Street-- with some exceptions-- from about 10th street to about 80th street until you hit raytown or the end of the eastern city limits. Wyandotte County isn't very great either. Overall, though, I would say only about 10-15 percent of KC is ghettoized. Like STL it's very well seperated away from the non-ghetto area.
As far as transportation goes, STL has a light rail system, but it's about to have MAJROR cutbacks and doesn't get all the places it could. It's pretty underused as well and there are some shady people that ride it that scare some higher-quality riders away. STL also has a more messed up highway system. They have closed an entire portion of I-64 for improvements, isntead of doing it one lane at a time like most cities. Overall, KC has a way better highway system, and has more highway miles than STL. STL basically has three main highways that get you around the city, i-70, i-64 (or 40 as they call it), and i-44. 55 runs through, but it's not used as heavily as the other three, and 170 is a connector while 270 is a belt. KC has i-29, i-35, i-70, US 71, 435, 635, 169, 69, 152, 291, 7, and more just to name a few that are all used. KC has more miles of highway per person than any city in the country.
Also, KC has lower real estate values, but they are fairly comprable. The economy of KC is very diverse also. It isn't focused on one certain industry, where as STL is much more manufacturing-based.
Overall, I would say STL is more of an eastern city-- and it is in decline. While there are very vibrant neighborhoods there, I would say the cons outweigh the pros. KC is on the upswing, and new things are being built, money invested, and development taking place. it is laid out better, and has more wealth and less "ghetto". I definitely recommend KC over STL and think it is a far superior city.
Kansas City is not "far superior". It may be home to you, but you may give St. Louisans this idea (which they probably already have) that Kansas Citians think they are superior.
St. Louis City IS growing again since 2000. Yeah, there's ghetto. I'm sure there's ghetto in Kansas City also. There has been millions invested in Downtown St. Louis since 2000. There are still things being built, like Roberts Tower. There is development taking place in St. Louis. I think for the first time in a long time St. Louis is on the rise again.
But I'm not surprised that St. Louisans think Kansas Citians think they are all that, because apparently they do. Next time, before you starting drooling falsities, take a look around at Downtown St. Louis now compared to 10 years ago. St. Louis as a whole, especially Downtown, is on the upswing. Yes, economic times are hard, but I believe St. Louis will continue to grow.
"Far superior city" is just laughable. If any city is "far superior" it may be New York, which is more superior (if you can rank cities that way) than St. Louis or Kansas City, which are on the same plane.
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.
