how does St. Louis compare to Chicago and Cleveland? (Kansas City: home, neighborhoods)

[steph410]

hello!
my family and i are still searching for a place to move- we have 4 young children and my husband works from our home so we can pretty much chose where to live. recently i have been researching webster groves & kirkwood- they might be a good fit for us (we want excellent public schools, a family oriented place, lots to do, walkability, and a historic feel to the neighborhoods).

anyways, to get to my point: what is st. louis like in comparison to Chicago or Cleveland? i have lived in both places and am curious about the city as well as the suburbs. any input at all would be appreciated. thanks!!!

(also any opinions about the cost of living- is it high or low- would be great)

[billiken]

Not familiar with Cleveland, but I grew up in the northern Chicago suburbs. Overall, the biggest differences IMO are the lower cost of living, especially when it comes to housing + property taxes, less congestion + smaller size, and less transient population.

If your budget allows, also look at Clayton.

[steph410]

thanks!

[aragx6]

I have been to Cleveland a few times and really like the city -- it's got that same rust-belt urban vibe as Chicago and St. Louis which I dig, though as a whole I think their urban neighborhoods somewhat lacking in comparison to St. Louis. But I don't know enough to really make any serious comparisons.

I did, however, live in Chicago for two years (one year in Westmont in DuPage County and another year in Wicker Park) so I do feel more qualified to make comparisons there.

Webster Groves and Kirkwood are like many of the older DuPage county suburbs along the Metra line with cute walkable downtowns and a great community feel. WG/K-Wood have great schools and are significantly cheaper of course, but they also won't have the public transit access to the downtown core. Then again, you won't get stuck in traffic for hours while trying to drive into St. Louis either and it won't cost nearly as much to park.

St. Louis city has a wonderful urban flavor and some of our neighborhoods hold up very well to the vibrancy and community vibe of some of Chicago's own fine neighborhoods. The inner ring suburbs have gorgeous vintage housing stock and a great community feel.

I've now lived in Kansas City for almost two years and the differences between KC and St. Louis/Chicago/other rust belt cities is enormous. It's far more spread out, the architecture isn't as all-around impressive and the vibe is significantly more conservative (even in the urban core). For those reasons, I've been known to say that I think of St. Louis as the farthest west Eastern city and KC as the farthest east Western city.

For St. Louis' low cost of living, historic housing stock and access to fantastic urban and family-friendly amenities, I really think of it as in a league of its own. I love this place and can't recommend it strongly enough.

Best of luck to you!

[TheGuy1982]

I moved from Chicago to Saint Louis.

Chicago is a robust, booming large city. Of course, with size comes inconvenience. Parking costs a fortune, traffic is abyssmal and crowds are common. But this is all marked by a scenic downtown, a wonderful lake, tons of great museums and more restaurants than one could possibly scope out in a lifetime.

St. Louis, on the other hand, is much more subtle. You might walk through a few different areas and not be as initially impressed, but later find there are many hidden gems within. It lacks the crowds, expensive parking and traffic, but also lacks a gorgeous lake and a bustling downtown. However, the restaurant scene is great.

Kirkwood compares well to Geneva, IL. Webster Groves is more of a Palatine, IL. I'd recommend Kirkwood over the two, and agree with the other poster that Clayton beats both of those.