Advertisements

I agree with Gene. KC has a much better quality of life as well more and better - to me - cultural life. KC is forever bringing in new and more businesses and building for them. KC has a more open, airy, free and welcoming feeling to it. As for size, I can't see how that matters. It is what you get in that size that matters. KC is always fixing up, rebuilding, repairing, and bringing the new. SL seems to be happy with what it has and just sits back enjoying what is there even if there isn't much there. I cannot find the kind of shops I want or the activities I want in SL. Oh, there is some but nothing like KC. Someone mentioned the urban spreading from the city out into the county of SL. This is true but it is piecemeal, hither and yon. KC groups things in a way that one of two trips will get you what you are looking for. There are so many closed, boarded up, shut-down and going nowhere shops in SL. I've never seen KC this bad. When something starts going downhill, KC is right there to do more than talk about it. They act on it. I can't say I always like the results. I do not care for the jumble of architectural styles they've dropped onto downtown Main Street. But, on the whole KC develops better. They think before they act and the results usually show that thinking.

SL has beautiful residential neighborhoods, friendly people and magnificent trees (their best bragging point when driving around. I find the people of SL more friendly and outgoing than those of KC but so much else makes up for that lack.

It's a case of "to each his own". If you like SL, if it is your style, there you are and be glad. If you like KC, hang onto it. I'd like to hear more about those downtown apartment buildings going that are going up. I always lived downtown and still felt the open, freedom of suburbs. In so many cities, the downtown living areas deteriorate. Not so in KC. KC area is a vast, interacting area that feels like all one. I am not yet sure how to describe SL. I maybe wrong. But there seems to be a divisiveness between "North County, South County, Central West End, etc. They even name some of their shopping malls for locations. Well, I'll let that go. These areas just don't seem to be all one in the general scheme of things. Maybe I am wrong.

Oh, and before I hush, someone liked all the freeways in SL. That's the problem. SL is so sliced up by freeways that it feels like foreign countries. You have no idea who lives "over yonder". And you can't maneuver between those separated neighborhoods. KC routes its freeways around the city and keeps all its people in touch with each other by making it possible to get from one area to another. Those folk "over there" aren't some foreign, unreachable territory.

I'll vote for KC. Wish I were still there.

From my experience people in KC have a serious chip on their shoulder when it comes to St. Louis. I really dont understand. KC is a nice city, that's doing a lot of things, but it seems like the commentary coming from out west is really Anti-St. Louis. Is it because St. Louis gets more recognition, whether it be negative or positive?

As far as urbanity and development. St. Louis is no slacker in comparison to KC when it is coming to development. For one, St. Louis has way more urban nodes throughout the metropolitan area and many of them are connected with light rail transit. The commentary about Tech is also a head scratcher, in what way is KC superior to St. Louis when it comes to tech, when Cortex is a national model for innovation and adding thousands of jobs and residents to the Central Corridor?

Also many of your pictures are still bias, because Forest Park causes a noticeable break in the urban core, which continues on the other side of Forest Park to Clayton. All of which is connected by Metrolink, which gives St. Louis a much more urban feel.

One thing I envy about KC is the amount of new high rises coming downtown, I wish St. Louis were adding new towers, but honestly it is not feasible right now, not from lack of demand, but glut of warehouses. St. Louis has a noticeably larger historic core than KC and therefore more to rehab.

In many ways, KC functions more like a city like Denver. It feels newer, almost a more western feel, not as much baggage. St. Louis is definitely more weathered, a legacy city, but I also feel that St. Louis is way more interesting.

Sorry you feel that way. I'm only giving my opinion.
I'm not negative about STL, I visit every year. The cities have a lot of similarities.

Cerner is adding 12,000 to 15,000 new jobs in KC.
American Century, Garmin, Sprint, H&R Bloch, DST all headquartered here including Fishnet Security; the largest privately owned tech security company in the US. KC was the first Google Fiber city and now the first "Smart City."

Kansas City Is Becoming a Mecca for Big Technology Names


There's nothing in the far-flung suburb of Clayton Missouri or even the inner ring "Loop" that can't be found in a suburb of Kansas City. Yes they are denser but still suburbs. The photos tell the truth, KC's commercial urban core is slightly larger and more handsome than STL city.


In your last sentence I have to question how much you know about KC? KC has been rehabbing the hundreds of huge historic warehouses over the last 3 decades. I'm not conceding that STL has more "warehouses." We just started sooner back in the 80s. KC's last warehouse District left to rehab is the West Bottoms which contains millions of sq ft of 4-8 story brick warehouses. (see the lower center of this aerial)

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c2...5.jpg~original

I like KC, from there originally - but I'll have to say St. Louis is more urban. KC is doing a nice job though but outside of Downtown and the Plaza it's so sprawled out.

I have always liked St Louis and have never had any animosity, but yes, for some reason, many people in KC hold some deep heated grudges toward St Louis. I think the main reason is that StL "used" to really look down on KC as a nobody type city and most people in StL don't even want to accept the fact that KC is in fact a peer of StL now. However, I have noticed over the past ten years or so that people in StL are taking notice of KC and giving it a lot more respect. I think today there is even some jealousy in StL towards KC especially when it comes to downtown vibrancy.

I already posted that I think StL feels like a larger and more urban city than KC, however, I don't think there is much of a difference in the main part of the city. (River to Plaza vs River to CWE). It's really Clayton and the rest of suburban StL that makes StL feel considerably larger, not the core itself. I do think StL has more urban neighbhords outside of Downtown than KC, mostly in the south city area (Soulard etc), the Hill and other areas.

But Downtown StL leaves a lot to be desired. Even with light rail, three downtown stadiums, a national or even world known tourist attraction (the Arch), Downtown StL is just not all that great. Washington Ave is great, but most of the areas surrounding Downtown StL look like most other cities did in the 1980's. KCMO is so much further along with redevelopment warehouse districts like the River Market and Crossroads. KC has spent a decade repurposing old buildings and is just now moving into new construction. StL is at least 15 years behind KC in this regard.

Areas just north or just west of downtown StL still need a lot of help. Even pockets to the south are still pretty rough.

And the Plaza area is a larger more comprehensive district than the Central West End. So urban KCMO really gives urban StL a run for its money even though it really shouldn't be close considering the historic size difference of the cities.

I would agree that KC is much more of a tech city than StL. I have shown links before that KC is a much larger engineering town than StL. It's also a telecommunications and software town with many companies based there like Cerner, Garmin, H&R Block, Sprint etc. Cerner alone is building a new complex that will add 16,000 new tech jobs to KC.

I like StL. In many ways, I prefer it over KC. But the city does seem stuck in a rut. I don't see it changing all that much while I think KC is on the verge of going to the next level. Downtown KC is on pace to have over 30,000 people living downtown soon. Companies have got to take notice of that and hopefully KC will see the one thing they have been missing out on and that's jobs moving back downtown.

I'm sorry, but even though I concede that downtown St. Louis is lacking in vitality for its size, it is still larger, more dense and more active than downtown KC. I have spent about 1 week out of every month in KC for nearly the past two years and it is just disingenuous to suggest that KC's downtown is bigger or more lively. It just isn't true, not at all. And to say that STL doesn't have a lot going on in terms of new development, well that's just complete BS.

I like KC, it has awesome people and some really cool things going for it and I will agree that there is a greater sense of optimism overall than in STL. But it is just a different type of city entirely, it really is. KC feels like a smaller town that grew larger and STL feels like a big city that shrunk. Even despite the decline, St. Louis feels like a much bigger urban city with more "stuff" in general.

I readily admit that I am obviously biased, as are KC posters, but I know my perception is shared by the vast majority of objective visitors to both cities. Even people in KC agree: Identifying the Kansas City-St. Louis Cultural Divide

KC has a much more open, "plains state-ish" feel, while St. Louis has a much more mature, dense and eastern development pattern. Both are great cities and MO is lucky to have them. This really just comes down to personal preference.

I think it is cool for a state to have nearly two equally sized and nearly equal caliber cities, in my opinion. Especially when their overall sizes aren't tiny. A true Melbourne-Sydney relationship and rivalry can take off that way.

For what it is worth, I find city rivalries to be extremely interesting. I love when cities have rivalries with others in the same state or country. It gives the place an edge, especially in terms of culture (and in specifics sports and academic competitions) but not just limited to that, socially, economically, and politically as well.

So a follow up question for people in Missouri; do Kansas City and Saint Louis have a sort of Sydney-Melbourne or Houston-Dallas rivalry?

Rivalries make cities fascinating, well, to me for sure. Cant speak for others though.

And there you have said it all. It isn't a case of "we're better than you", although it may sound like that. It is simply a matter of taste and what one likes. I, personally, do not like the very things you do like about SL - mature (meaning what?), dense (too crowded for me), eastern ( I didn't like eastern when I lived in the east.)

I like your description of KC "plains state-ish" KC is in the plains and has developed as a plains city. But it is a modern city in the plains. It is more open, less dense, has more room to stop and take a deep breath. I will say this, though. SL has developed a bit more of the openness since I was here fifty years ago. It doesn't have quite the 'hurry up and keep moving" rush that it once had. Less Eastern; more western?

Something else, in fairness. SL's people are more open in their friendliness than KC's. It isn't that KC people are not cordial. They are just more reserved about offering a smile and a good morning if they pass you on the street. SL people have more of a "can I help you" spirit that cheers you up when they offer, whether needed or not.

SL also has forests of magnificent trees, some several hundred years old. KC, being a plains state, missed out on that. And, best of all, SL has Forest Park which has just been voted the best city park in the nation.

So there are bragging rights on both sides of the state. To each his own and keep the rivalry friendly. Rivalry is good. Keeps us alert and active.

I generally agree and like I said, when you include areas of south city, clayton and the metropolitan areas, StL does feel like a much larger metro and city. But the urban cores of the cities are remarkably similar in size, scale, urbanity, density and layout.

Rivalries are a beautiful thing. They automatically pop any sort of bubble people in an area live in because inherently they have to acknowledge and accept another place actually exists. It is even more worthwhile when the two places in rivalry are close to the same size, are in the same tier, and overall offer different but equal things.

That makes it intense and it makes it worthwhile. I hope that translates into a Royals-Cardinals barb when they play, if it doesn't, that's a crying shame and a waste of a potential rivalry. Even beyond just sports, rivalries are spectacular. They add a much needed new layer and dimension to the overall culture of any given two cities.