urbanSTL

DC age 16-24 unemployment rates:
5% for whites vs. 38% for African Americans

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/loca ... udy-shows/

Yet, no one calls out DC. It's so convenient to pick on St. Louis while giving other cities with the SAME problems a free pass. The entire country has a lot of work to do in terms of race. No, I'm not making excuses- we all know St. Louis has been screwed up for a long time, now the rest of the world does too. And let's also keep in mind that a lot of the new "progressive" cities like Portland and Austin and Minneapolis, etc that seem so racially harmonious also have comparatively minuscule African American populations. Different dynamics completely.

Funny or Die.... The Show Me No Black People State

On the bright side, I'm pleasantly surprised that the video didn't show a single image of the Arch, which is typically synonymous with "Missouri", especially in tourism promos. Perhaps even the producers at Funny or Die concede that St. Louis shouldn't be lumped in with the rest of Missourah.

Stumbled onto this write up of STL embedded within the Buccaneer's road trip guide for 2015.

http://www.buccaneers.com/news/article- ... 82db97c03d

Nice travel piece with some strong visuals...

http://globalflare.com/this-stunning-vi ... move-here/

Not sure where the "one of the fastest growing cities in the Midwest" comes from but we'll take it!

blzhrpmd2 wrote:Stumbled onto this write up of STL embedded within the Buccaneer's road trip guide for 2015.

http://www.buccaneers.com/news/article- ... 82db97c03d

Ted Drewes, Grant's Farm, Brewery Tour, The Hill......

When is St. Louis going to wake up from the collective 'Jedi Mind Trick' and realize The Hill is the area's most over-rated neighborhood?

Yeah, the same Jedi mind trick that would make people recommend Bourbon St in New Orleans or looking at the White House in DC......and cheese steak in Philadelphia, how lame and predicable is that?

When did our attitude get so elitist that the Hill is now no longer a recommendation? If people don't like it once they go, fine, but it is something that is a part of St. Louis and I think it's a great neighborhood. Does everything have to be a 5 star meal?

I could have sworn that when I drove through the Hill at lunch on Thursday, I really enjoyed an Eovaldi's roast beef, but I guess it was just an old fashioned brain washing. When I left work that evening there were a lot of people outside of Ted Drewes' too, but I'm sure they were all being enlightened by some really cool person in the crowd telling them where they should go instead.

^Yes, it does smack of laziness.

Not saying it's not a recommendation. I say over-rated because it doesn't have a neighborhood feel. It's really just a couple dozen restaurants. And face it, you only eat one meal an evening.
If the Hill had shops, boutiques, art galleries, a little black box theatre, a public gathering space with a fountain...
I spend way more time and enjoy strolling/poking around Maplewood than the Hill. I've tried to poke around the Hill, there's really nothing there outside restaurants. The Hill is truly dine and dash.

^ That is a bit of an overstatement but I agree that it isn't a stroll-inducing environment.

I'm all for diversifying someone's experience, but disagree that there isn't much to take in. I usually recommend the Hill for lunch because it gives a glimpse of long-established people living and working in the city. There are no fountains or theatres because it's jammed packed with people living in it (those would be a cool additions, though). There are cigar stores, coffee shops, barber shops, groceries, delis, bakeries, corner pubs, mechanics, schools, funeral homes, churches, playgrounds and parks with soccer leagues, all of which ooze with actual use. It's not trying to impress, it just is; and that's why I want people from out of town to see it. I recommend for people with bike access to ride Forest Park and use Macklind to find a stop for lunch on the Hill. Ride a few streets on the Hill and continue to Tower Grove Park or back north.

You can send visitors to the up and coming neighborhoods to see "what's new" in STL, but don't discount showing them what got us here and has and has stood the test of time. And if you happen to score a fish bowl along the way, even better.

^So not trying to bash the Hill because I do really think its a cool place, but the "inertia" and "laziness" comment is pretty spot on.

Fact is on ALOT of tourism recommendations for St. Louis the Hill is a top 10 recommendation. That just seems like someone who read last year's list reworded the recommendations from last year a re-posted it. Often they don't even recommend an actual place in the Hill, so if anyone actually did follow the recommendation they would go there via Hampton take one look and say "Holy cow this is the best neighborhood in St. Louis? St. Louis must be a dump!" I don't know anyone who knows St. Louis who would put The Hill in their top ten recommendations.

I think in a way it also makes the Hill a little to satisfied with the current state of the Hill. The idea of a fountain is a great idea. I'd like to see a cascading waterfall built into the green space on Hampton. Some improve signage, lighting, etc. Turn Hampton into a walkable urban retail corridor. Instead the Hill rest on its laurels which would be sad but tolerable, if half the tourism industry didn't get their top ten musts lists from 1980.

Neighborhood/areas musts to visit in St. Louis in order of potential to impress out-state visitors (IMHO)

1. CWE
2. Downtown
3. Soulard
4. Lafayette Square
5. The Loop
6. South Broadway
7. The Grove
8. Midtown/GrandCenter
9. Cherokee
10. Dogtown
11. The Hill?, Bevo?, Old North?, Carondolet?

The Hill doesn't even crack the top ten neighborhoods. Let alone the various individual attraction, Arch, zoo, brewery, Cardinals, etc.

also if you include county neighborhoods it drops even further