urbanSTL

Dude has a SERIOUS chip on his shoulder about St. Louis.

I'd toss out Cincy.... while not all was rosy there, it was not a slaveholding city and was an important city for the abolitionist cause and the Underground Railroad. While there were some Southern sympathizers during the war, Union troops basically had this city under lockdown/martial law from the threat of significant Southern sympathy here (as the Frost campus and Forest Park memorial can attest to). And we had Jim Crow into the 50s. Big differences.

However, they did share commonalities with boatloads of pro-Union German immigrants that weren't in sync with Scots-Irish southerners. (My theory is that w/o Saint Louis German-Americans, Saint Louis would have fallen to the South and thus control of the Mississippi River and thus no U.S. Grant and Vicksburg wins and thus an eventual arrest of Abraham Lincoln and that alt fiction movie a few years ago about The Confederate States of America would be a real documentary )

Just a short note to anyone who thinks that Cincinnati and St. Louis are not similar:

Cincinatti's poverty rate is around 29% where our's is 27%. I would venture the hypothesis that Cincinatti has larger numbers of poor white people from Kentucky then we do of poor white people from Arkansas, as is indicated by white poverty being 4 points higher in Cincinatti than St. Louis. Also, poverty among Latinos is nearly twice as high, and is also higher among Asian residents and black residents.





Source: http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav ... xhtml#none

As far as slavery goes, in 1860, we had something like 4,340 slaves in St. Louis, which is an almost insignificant number. Missouri had a low slave population relative to other slave states, having something like 114,900 slaves, or around 9%. Some states in the South had slave populations approaching 50%. Thus, most of the black people that settled in St. Louis migrated north from the South during the Great Migration, and were not actually enslaved here at any point.

Source: http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyr ... slaves.php

I could go further into demographics, politics, and economics, but all in all, the cities are extremely similar, notwithstanding an extremely small number of slaves that resided in St. Louis 150 years ago.

Ebsy wrote:Just a short note to anyone who thinks that Cincinnati and St. Louis are not similar:

Cincinatti's poverty rate is around 29% where our's is 27%. I would venture the hypothesis that Cincinatti has larger numbers of poor white people from Kentucky then we do of poor white people from Arkansas, as is indicated by white poverty being 4 points higher in Cincinatti than St. Louis. Also, poverty among Latinos is nearly twice as high, and is also higher among Asian residents and black residents.





Source: http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav ... xhtml#none

As far as slavery goes, in 1860, we had something like 4,340 slaves in St. Louis, which is an almost insignificant number. Missouri had a low slave population relative to other slave states, having something like 114,900 slaves, or around 9%. Some states in the South had slave populations approaching 50%. Thus, most of the black people that settled in St. Louis migrated north from the South during the Great Migration, and were not actually enslaved here at any point.

Source: http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyr ... slaves.php

I could go further into demographics, politics, and economics, but all in all, the cities are extremely similar, notwithstanding an extremely small number of slaves that resided in St. Louis 150 years ago.

Cincinnati is spelled with one 't'. Metro comparisons of poverty would be interesting.

roger wyoming II wrote:

downtown2007 wrote:Kansas City parties on while woes mount for the St. Louis region

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-c ... rylink=cpy

Yael strikes again.... at least he was honest that KC has some of the same problems despite the headline.

Yeah, I'm not sure what St. Louis ever did to piss off this chap. That said, it is actually a pretty balanced opinion piece this time, as he acknowledges similar issues in Kansas City and hopes that the situation here in St. Louis improves.

Besides, Kansas Citians shouldn't be too arrogant, anyway. There is no dearth of racial tension there, and if police brutality sparked unrest there, they couldn't count on a better response than what we've seen here in my opinion.

Yael is a complete ass. Of all the people I have met in Kansas City they all have nothing but GREAT things to say about St Louis. Kansas City has major race issues as well, so him saying Kansas City is better than St Louis is a trash argument. That piece is complete opinion with very few facts to base his case on, and the fact the respectable Kansas City Star published such garbage is horrendous.

KC is a lot more redneck than STL will ever be.

Maybe he's really for city/county merger and thus points out STL is MO's second largest city, etc.

Currently driving northbound on i-49 and am in the middle of the country and passed a sign that said "Kansas City city limits" there is no civilization in sight....smh

I love the KC chip on their shoulder about STL. A true inferiority complex if there ever was one. Of the people that grew up in KC that now live here, they all agree that STL is just a much bigger, more bustling cosmopolitan region. There's no debate. Now I will certainly argue I have total respect for KC, it's fountains, large number of 1930's towers, it's western feel, etc. the plaza is also very cool, as are it's boulevards. A city like KC should get far more respect than cities like Nashville. At the end of the day STL has more history, better parks, better architecture, more unique neighborhoods and more ethnic diversity with restaurants etc. as for his reference of the cardinals being hated, that's purely because they are the Yankees of the last decade.

I've read plenty of Yeal post on the Star about St.Louis. Is this guy even a native of Kansas City? I mean really you have to rip St.Louis constantly to justify how great Kansas City is? I mean if you really want to compare your city to another midwest city then compare it to Indianapolis. We St.Louisan's know we have problems here and always have but we don't need people from out of downstate to bash us so you can gain accolades. If you he's really trying to prove on how much better Kansas City is than St.Louis then go right on ahead but the only thing Kansas City got going for itself is BBQ the awesome performing arts scene The Plaza some awesome Boulevards beautiful fountains and thats about all. We have a world class monument world class history world class neighborhoods world class zoo world class museums world class baseball team and so much more. St.Louis is a city of many what if's and if we can capitalize on some other things such as a N-S metro link expansion tidy up our downtown continue to build on vacant lots which will be added density also dramatically reduce crime then we'll be a city of not what ifs but a city on the rise.

I think it's kind of funny that we're worried about one columnist in Kansas City, whose tone was actually more moderate in this opinion piece from my perspective. I've read far more scathing criticisms of St. Louis post-Ferguson elsewhere.

I couldn't really care less about that piece but the fact they he barely uses any facts in the entire piece says it all.....

^ i saw the segment. there's not much more to it than what the headline says. it was just a rehash of stuff that's been said a billion times already. i generally don't expect groundbreaking or particularly thoughtful analysis from Bill Maher.

urban_dilettante wrote:

threeonefour wrote:I think it's kind of funny that we're worried about one columnist in Kansas City, whose tone was actually more moderate in this opinion piece from my perspective. I've read far more scathing criticisms of St. Louis post-Ferguson elsewhere.

i think we're more annoyed by his motives and lack of integrity than worried about the content.

Perhaps. I just figure it's obvious how his motives and integrity are questionable at best. I bet his articles get more hits and comments from defensive St. Louisans than Kansas Citians who are in agreement with this clown.

I think the STL-KC rivalry is pretty overblown. The rivalry between cities in other states seems more intense to me. Why, many of us have even let go of the 1985 World Series to hop on the Royals bandwagon.

It's just that people in KC think there's a rivalry. St Louisans don't know about it.

jcity wrote:It's just that people in KC think there's a rivalry. St Louisans don't know about it.

I have relatives and friends in Kansas City, and they couldn't care less about how KC compares to STL. I guess there are some who care, however, because it isn't like the two major cities in this state are all that unified. I have long thought the entire state would be better off if St. Louis and Kansas City leaders worked together more often. Kansas City, Missouri is more likely to lose businesses to its Kansas suburbs than to St. Louis or another part of Missouri anyway.

I dont know why people even try to compare the two...there is really nothing to compare...this metro has 1 MILLION MORE PEOPLE! 1 MILLION!. sure City of Kansas City is the biggest in the state on a technicality really. They have a density of 1400 per sq mile, st.louis city is 5100 per sq mile..... if we expend the city limits from 66 sq miles to 320 sq miles like KC, that's pretty much everything inside of 270, thus making the City population somewhere between 700,000-800,000