St. Louis Area Perceptions (Columbia, St. Charles: real estate, apartments, high crime)
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.
I recently drove through the St. Louis area, and I must say that I was surprised on a number of levels.
First, driving through the city itself, it appeared that the actual city proper has endured decay. I noticed numberous buildings that appeared to be mostly abandoned alongside I-70. Most of the homes looked to be in very high crime areas.
Secondly, by the time you made it out into the suburbs, it seemed as though the frontage/access roads, whatever you call them, had put a blight on the area. I mean, there seemed to be no real attention to planning, at least not in close proximity to the interstate. It looked tacky, in my opinion. Mile after mile of contiguous commercial development, mixed with apartments and a few industrial sites. Now, I have a feeling that the areas look much better once you get off the interstates and into the towns, but the image being put out to travelers via the freeway is that of "there's no real planning going on here". Keep in mind, I have traveled through other parts of metro St. Louis that looked much better planned.
Thirdly, based on the amount of development, you'd think that St. Louis would have a larger population than their 2.8 million population. I drove I-64 West, getting on I-70 near downtown, and the whole span was about 60 miles of built-up area. That's a lot longer and bigger than any of the other metros I've driven with a comparable population. Is development strangely and unusually uneven in different areas of the metro, in terms of the distance it extends out from downtown? Is development remarkably uneven in different directions. Curious.
To me, commercial development along the highway makes sense for exposure and access. I don't percieve it as lack of planning, I see it as commerce, jobs and general economics.
I recently drove through the St. Louis area, and I must say that I was surprised on a number of levels.
First, driving through the city itself, it appeared that the actual city proper has endured decay. I noticed numberous buildings that appeared to be mostly abandoned alongside I-70. Most of the homes looked to be in very high crime areas.
Secondly, by the time you made it out into the suburbs, it seemed as though the frontage/access roads, whatever you call them, had put a blight on the area. I mean, there seemed to be no real attention to planning, at least not in close proximity to the interstate. It looked tacky, in my opinion. Mile after mile of contiguous commercial development, mixed with apartments and a few industrial sites. Now, I have a feeling that the areas look much better once you get off the interstates and into the towns, but the image being put out to travelers via the freeway is that of "there's no real planning going on here". Keep in mind, I have traveled through other parts of metro St. Louis that looked much better planned.
Thirdly, based on the amount of development, you'd think that St. Louis would have a larger population than their 2.8 million population. I drove I-64 West, getting on I-70 near downtown, and the whole span was about 60 miles of built-up area. That's a lot longer and bigger than any of the other metros I've driven with a comparable population. Is development strangely and unusually uneven in different areas of the metro, in terms of the distance it extends out from downtown? Is development remarkably uneven in different directions. Curious.
A short answer to your question is yes.
You were not imagining things. St. Louis is a city of neighborhoods. In the city, there are a lot of very good neighborhoods located next to and near urban decay throughout...not necessarily high crime areas, but unaesthetically pleasing urban decay. The high crime area is in the city North of dowtown(take I 70 North from downtown). Just as one wouldn't want to venture into some parts of Chicago's City South side and West side, and parts of Milwaukee's N/NW side of city, etc...parts of Houston Tx'sa East side of the city....and so forth......St. Louis has a high crime area North of Downtown in the city. The city of St. Louis has been a mess when trying to consistently and TIMELY complete development projects compared to other cities.
64 West covers the most expensive real estate and a big bulk of development. For example Clayton Mo is an inner rung burb 9 miles West from downtown which has become a big financial and professional center. Much of new development. Much of the new residential and commercial real estate projects have been West and have been moving further and further out too.
St. Louis County is not considered part of the city, even though a lot of it is extremely close to downtown.(When you factor in Stl County, St. Louis falls into the hundreds in crime stats). The county is very safe.
St. Louis decades ago was a typical example of suburban sprawl. Efforts have been made to change that, but they are unorganized, with plenty of personal agendas. Some recent downtown developments have been positive, but they should be coming at fast clips and Metro Link has been a success and hopefully can expand greatly.(it's very limited).
St. Louis is from the Rust Belt cities, tons and tons of Red Brick warehouses all over the city. Many have been renovated and others remain vacant and untouched. The Illinois side of St. Louis(called the Metro East to locals) is not as densely populated or developed as the St. Louis side of the metro area.
You were not imagining things. St. Louis is a city of neighborhoods. In the city, there are a lot of very good neighborhoods located next to and near urban decay throughout...not necessarily high crime areas, but unaesthetically pleasing urban decay. The high crime area is in the city North of dowtown(take I 70 North from downtown). Just as one wouldn't want to venture into some parts of Chicago's City South side and West side, and parts of Milwaukee's N/NW side of city, etc...parts of Houston Tx'sa East side of the city....and so forth......St. Louis has a high crime area North of Downtown in the city. The city of St. Louis has been a mess when trying to consistently and TIMELY complete development projects compared to other cities.
64 West covers the most expensive real estate and a big bulk of development. For example Clayton Mo is an inner rung burb 9 miles West from downtown which has become a big financial and professional center. Much of new development. Much of the new residential and commercial real estate projects have been West and have been moving further and further out too.
St. Louis County is not considered part of the city, even though a lot of it is extremely close to downtown.(When you factor in Stl County, St. Louis falls into the hundreds in crime stats). The county is very safe.
St. Louis decades ago was a typical example of suburban sprawl. Efforts have been made to change that, but they are unorganized, with plenty of personal agendas. Some recent downtown developments have been positive, but they should be coming at fast clips and Metro Link has been a success and hopefully can expand greatly.(it's very limited).
St. Louis is from the Rust Belt cities, tons and tons of Red Brick warehouses all over the city. Many have been renovated and others remain vacant and untouched. The Illinois side of St. Louis(called the Metro East to locals) is not as densely populated or developed as the St. Louis side of the metro area.
About ten years ago, I did drive through the areas along I-64 west of downtown, and these areas looked fairly nice.
As far as the Illinois side, I did notice a lot more development now as opposed to ten years ago. The city of O'Fallon, Illinois has changed a lot in that span of time.
Fishtacos really nailed it on the head with that description.
As you got farther west on 70 you got to head through the area I grew up in (St. Charles) which is the sprawliest of the sprawl LOL. There's a standing joke (that's actually kind of frightening, God forbid it come true) that in 100 years Columbia, MO will be a suburb of St. Louis. Westward expansion as it were, is fierce, and every time I drive through Warrenton and they are building new houses out there I scream a little bit. "It's 60 miles from the Arch people... WTF are you doing??"
I actually really like the drive of the city that you get along 44. You pass by some of my favorite areas like the Hill and the Tower Grove area. If you get a chance to do that drive in the future, I'd really suggest it.
It pains me that so much of North city is so blighted and scary; it's going to take a long time and a lot of hard work to do anything about it. Some of it often reminds me more of Chicago's West side than it's south because it's just so empty, dilapidated and sad!
North City is pretty blighted in areas. There are people working to save it. Old North Saint Louis What's New in Old North
Like a lot of cities, St. Louis has seen blight, but there are good neighborhoods as well.
I like the grittiness and architecture of St. Louis myself.
North City is pretty blighted in areas. There are people working to save it. Old North Saint Louis What's New in Old North
Like a lot of cities, St. Louis has seen blight, but there are good neighborhoods as well.
I like the grittiness and architecture of St. Louis myself.
yea, I agree - grittiness, it is good - adds character, that blue collar worker, the rough 'n tumble of street life; I like it too. However, blight, where you have ghettoish type crud, trash, broken windows, doors, etc. that ain't good. To the OP - I like your descriptions; painfully honest; esp. in regards to the sprawl... BTW - as posted above, take a ride on I-44, and even on 40 [after its completed], and those have some much more better IMHO character than I-70 heading west from downtown.
You were not imagining things. St. Louis is a city of neighborhoods. In the city, there are a lot of very good neighborhoods located next to and near urban decay throughout...not necessarily high crime areas, but unaesthetically pleasing urban decay. The high crime area is in the city North of dowtown(take I 70 North from downtown). Just as one wouldn't want to venture into some parts of Chicago's City South side and West side, and parts of Milwaukee's N/NW side of city, etc...parts of Houston Tx'sa East side of the city....and so forth......St. Louis has a high crime area North of Downtown in the city. The city of St. Louis has been a mess when trying to consistently and TIMELY complete development projects compared to other cities.
64 West covers the most expensive real estate and a big bulk of development. For example Clayton Mo is an inner rung burb 9 miles West from downtown which has become a big financial and professional center. Much of new development. Much of the new residential and commercial real estate projects have been West and have been moving further and further out too.
St. Louis County is not considered part of the city, even though a lot of it is extremely close to downtown.(When you factor in Stl County, St. Louis falls into the hundreds in crime stats). The county is very safe.
St. Louis decades ago was a typical example of suburban sprawl. Efforts have been made to change that, but they are unorganized, with plenty of personal agendas. Some recent downtown developments have been positive, but they should be coming at fast clips and Metro Link has been a success and hopefully can expand greatly.(it's very limited).
St. Louis is from the Rust Belt cities, tons and tons of Red Brick warehouses all over the city. Many have been renovated and others remain vacant and untouched. The Illinois side of St. Louis(called the Metro East to locals) is not as densely populated or developed as the St. Louis side of the metro area.
I agree with aragx6 on this one, Fishtacos nailed it better than I would've expected anyone to. I'd have added to your reputation, but this darn thing keeps saying I have to spread it around before I can again
I agree with aragx6 on this one, Fishtacos nailed it better than I would've expected anyone to. I'd have added to your reputation, but this darn thing keeps saying I have to spread it around before I can again
I do have to say that I love driving through Atlanta on the way to Florida. I've always loved the beautiful office buildings that line the outer roads of the highway. I do feel that I-64 here in St. Louis is the nicest drive through our town and, to me anyway, greatly resembles Atlanta now since all the commercial building boom in the Creve Coeur/Chesterfield area. Our I-70 is the oldest stretch of interstate in the country, and I imagine one of the reasons it seems to go through such blighted areas now is that back in the day that was what I-64 is now.
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.
BTW - as posted above, take a ride on I-44, and even on 40 [after its completed], and those have some much more better IMHO character than I-70 heading west from downtown.
