Kansas City will be one of the top in mid-west

[The Waldonian]

I dont think that the twin cities are known more throughout the world than KC or Stl. You only have to mention the arch and a great majority of people worldwide would think of Stl, and KC is more famous than you think, especially in art. KC is widely known for the Country Club Plaza and the many parks and boulevards and especially fountains. Many people that visit KC, especially from outside of the United States, are very impressed. Thats why KC is truely a hidden gem. The twin cities are mainly known for the mall.

[JivecitySTL]

KC associated with jazz and barbeque much moreso than for fountains and boulevards and the Plaza.

[The Waldonian]

I dont know how I left barbecue out since I love barbecue. Jazz is famous, especially Charley Pakrer, but not as famous as I wish it to be, its kindof diminished.

[johnnydr87]

As an out of stater, I can say that St. Louis is a LOT more famous then KC. The cardinals, the history,everything.

I've heard good things about KC, but it still in no way compares to St. Louis in popularity around the globe. Ask a random person if they've heard of St. Louis vs. KC, and the victor will be STL.

BTW, I checked the density for St. louis county and the county KC was in:

St. Louis': 5600 people per square mile

KC: above around 1100

Mind you, the county size does play a role.

[The Waldonian]

But if the arch was in KC, it would be totally reverse.

[JivecitySTL]

^That is definitely not true. St. Louis has always been the more prominent city of the two. Having a big monument has nothing to do with it.

[monsoon]

^That is definitely not true.  St. Louis has always been the more prominent city of the two.  Having a big monument has nothing to do with it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As someone who lives on the East Coast, I can say that is true. When one thinks of a city in Missouri, St. Louis comes to mind. Monument aside, the city is part of the nation's folklore.

[The Waldonian]

St. Louis probably is more famous,one reason being that St. Louis is more fast pace than KC. St. Louis is more like an east coast city than Kansas City. KC is more down home, and has more of a friendly welcoming attitude. But the fact that St. Louis is more famous, doesnt mean that its better. KC is more of a hidden city that when people move here, or just visit here, they realize how livable it is, and how beautiful it is.

[The Waldonian]

One famous thing that i forgot to add along with bbq and jazz is the liberty memorial. It was, or may still be the only memorial dedicated towards WWI.

[SoFLA954]

From an outside point of view, I don't live in Missouri so I don't really have a bias, I think both cities are about the same as far as prestige and national/international attention. I think you really can't compare them to cities like Chicago, NY, LA, or MIA. I've been to downtown KC and STL and they're very unique because they both have there own unique characterics. They will never have downtowns that are as fast and large as East Coast Cities but thats what makes them neat. They're slower and more laidback. Coming from South Florida and Miami I think its was refreshing to come to downtowns that were different from other major downtowns. I'm not saying they need some improvement but I think instead of this animousity between STL and KC you should be joining together to promote the unique Midwestern vibe that both cities have.

[nokturnal_vibe]

I was born and raised in Kansas City and I frequently visit STL and we always tend to get into the same arguement everytime. Which city is better? Does it matter? Come on you all can't we just come together as one state. As for other things, there are many things in Kansas City that St. Loius people like to bull$#* on. Who is also located in the middle of the United States? Kansas City, Missouri, Hence why Union Station was located where it was. Not only that but who cares about population density. Kansas City is expanding and once expanded the density will increase. As for downtown Kansas City, STL you all have another thing coming for you becase after the completion of the Sprint PCS/Nextel Arena and the whole Remodeling of downtown, I can guarentee that we will be the more prominent city. To add to that we have the historic Country Club Plaza, Westport, and We also have the Truman Sports complex. Though our education may lack also our money for education lacks. Our youth athletics seem to surpass all of those in so-called inner city St. Louis. I can speak all of this becase I also spent 3 years of my life growing up in East St. Louis. Do talk what you may but from my vivid point-of-view Kansas City will be more prominent. Grow up you all, we are all part of the same state, same laws, and same damn restrictions. Who cares wether STL or KC end up on the top. They both put up a damn good fight and after all is said and done I beleive that Kansas City will also turn out on top, because they share alot with Kansas City, Kansas and since some is located on Kansas it really drops alot from the Missouri side. Imagine if all that was in KCK was in KCMO. We would be more prominent. Imagine San Fransico without the Golden Gate Bridge, and New York without The Statue Of Liberty. Now think about STL, That Arch has given it alot of publicity. Landmarks cause a lot of publicity and density in the population. Kansas City doesn't have a landmark of that sort. If we did, we would be in no competition agianst this other city. Read this and think what you have to say about Kansas City and STL. I grew up in both and I know alot about both cities.

[midwest]

Kansas City doesn't have a landmark of that sort. If we did, we would be in no competition agianst this other city.

The above statement really makes no sense. Nor does most of your post. First, you say it doesn't matter who is on top, then rant and rave why KC is better - or is going to be better in the future. FYI, you really shouldn't brag about the Truman Sports Complex. St. Louis offers the same sports options in a better environment, DOWNTOWN.

[Dale]

When I think of BBQ, I think of Kansas City. Sorry.

[chingon]

after browsing these forums for month or so, i have seen this silly kc/stl thing more times than i can stomache.

to most people outside the midwest, every midwestern city is seen as an interchangeable agglomeration of boredom. and they're not all wrong. these midwestern cities share more in common than they differ on, and most of us know it. there are architectural differences and historic differences, but current midwest urban culture is largely homogenous.

even kc and stl.

all the silly little "mine's bigger" or "mine's more dense" arguments are truly tiresome. coincidentally, "real" kansas city (and those of you from there know what i mean) is only about 250k people in about 65 square miles, making it smaller and a little less dense than stl. counting the suburban/rural north, east and south sides of the city may be factually acurate, but it isn't kansas city in any real way. no more than st. charles is part of stl. and don't start with the metro size, stuff. we'd all be better off without the millions of leeches clinging to our core cities in the schlocky beige whitemare that surround all of our cities. i don't care if you metro is 10 million, if it looks like the suburbs of kc or stl, it doesn't count. those people are gone down highway farty before the ninth inning is over, anyway.

i live in kansas city and have travelled pretty extensively in stl, and i think most people would agree, they're yawners. i can't speak on alot of midwestern cities, because i don't travel to them much, but i can definitively say that cincy, omaha, and cleveland and denver (it may not be midwestern, but everyone who lives there is) are sleepers, too.

i liked them all except denver. but most people couldn't care less. they laugh at st louis and they don't even deign to talk about kc.

why should we waste time ragging on one and other? no one else cares.

[mcheiss]

^I agree, that's why I'm not in here very much.

[en08]

One FACT is that Kansas City has a larger downtown with more tall buildings there than STL. If you go to this page:

http://skyscraperpage/cities/

By number of skyscrapers downtown, Kansas City is ranked 33rd in the WORLD with 184 skyscrapers, where as Saint Louis is number 93. In the United States, according to http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?countryID=2 , Kansas City is number 7 in the NATION in number of tall buildings, and Saint Louis is at number 26. Looking at pictures of both downtowns, and having been to both, I can say that Kansas City definatley has more tall buildings, and just plain buildings down there. For example Saint Louis's tallest building, Metro Square, is like 584 feet, whereas the tallest building in KC, One Kansas City Place is taller than the arch (by 2 feet) at 632 feet. Our next tallest building, the Town Pavillion compares with Saint Louis's tallest building. As far as area, I would have to say that Kansas City has a larger downtown and better looking skyline (without taking the arch into account) than Saint Louis does, since it has a line of skyscrapers that start small and then grow to be tallest at the middle point (especially when comming from the north side down) and STL just has a group of skyscrapers by the arch and they get smaller as you get father back in the city-- but that is just my oppinion (I am sure someone from Saint Louis might say the opposite). Of course Saint Louis has their stadiums downtown, which is one good thing about their downtown that we lack.

As far as population, Saint Louis has less people in their city (excluding metro) than Wichita, Kansas (which is growing at the same rate or more than central Saint Louis) with only about 350,000 people. Kansas City is about 100,000 people larger with 450,000 people in the city itself. However Kansas City does have alot more land than Saint Louis does and is one of the largest cities in land in the United States (I think it is number 3 behind Oklahoma City and Dallas). As far as what the city itself controlls, however you can't use the fact that "KC has more land but if the land were the size of the city of STL it would have less people" as an argument, because our city was able to purchase more land than STL (Dallas has more land and everyone reguards that as more populous). I would guess, that in 50 years, after all the development that is going on in both cities, I would probably say that both places will remain pretty comparable, but Kansas City's metro should grow to be the same size as STL is right now within 50 years. There is alot of growth taking place around the area, especially out north where I live.

Both cities are pretty comparable, I think we have a nicer looking downtown, but STL has a more "fun" downtown (since they have the arch and stadiums there), although that may change with the arena, power and light district and preforming arts center. Either way both cities are nice places to live, but I personally favor KC.

[JivecitySTL]

Moderated for proper content. Jive I told you before if you can't make a post on this forum without throwing in some insults then don't come here. This is your last warning.

KC has a lot of growing up to do before it can favorably compare to STL in pretty much anything. I know that's biased, but St. Louis has a lot of urban elements that only come with age. They simply don't build cities like St. Louis anymore.

[monsoon]

One FACT is that Kansas City has a larger downtown with more tall buildings there than STL. If you go to this page:

http://skyscraperpage/cities/

That site is notoriously inaccurate and should not be used as a guage on the worth of a city. Aside from that, I've seen plenty of cities with skyscrapers that are basically dead.

They simply don't build cities like St. Louis anymore.

Indeed. One wonders if the reason for that is because of the 500,000 population loss between 1950-2000.

[ShowMeKC]

monsoon the KC portion is not innacurate... and you know why? I've place about 95% of all information in the KC section on there.

However, you cannot base a city vs city argument on the amount of tall buildings in it's Downtown. St. louis is a bigger metro by far.

[monsoon]

monsoon the KC portion is not innacurate... and you know why? I've place about 95% of all information in the KC section on there.

I don't mean any offence and I applaude your hobby, but a site that is being fed data by teenagers who are also boosters isn't exactly a place that I would cite as a reasonable source of information.

[slyder1]

^I couldn't agree more. Citiing info from a site like that is like taking a 10 yr' old's advice. On the other hand I am so sick of poeple living in KC and STL citing why their city is better. GET OVER IT! Both cities are outstanding in their own right. Now hopefully we can move past this childish talk.

[ShowMeKC]

I will say something though, I used to put somewhat innacurate info on there for KC, however I went back through a couple weeks ago and made it accurate and removed the innacurate information.

[monsoon]

I will say something though, I used to put somewhat innacurate info on there for KC, however I went back through a couple weeks ago and made it accurate and removed the innacurate information.

Case Closed. You have not been the only one to do this on that site.

[en08]

I extensivley looked at that site, and it had diagrams and building names and heights. Being a native of Kansas City, I recognize the vast majority of those buildings. The total number is just a count of all the buildings listed, so I would cite that web site as being accurate. Also if you go to Emporis.com, it gives the same data about Kansas City-- in terms of number of buildings- it also says 181 tall buildings. Saint Louis is only 93. Although you cannot rate a city in terms of tall buildings, I am talking about the downtown. That is one way to rate it--- by size and density. Saint Louis has a smaller downtown than KC.

[monsoon]

That is one way to rate it--- by size and density. Saint Louis has a smaller downtown than KC.

Assuming that is true, what does it matter? St. Louis has light rail which is something that KC voted down. You can't just cherry pick a few items for a comparison on what might be the "top" city in the midwest.