56 replies to this topic

[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://skyscraperpag...es/?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]

en08, on May 29 2006, 12:00 AM, said:

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.  

JivecitySTL, on May 29 2006, 07:17 AM, said:

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]

KCDevin, on May 29 2006, 12:18 PM, said:

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]

KCDevin, on May 30 2006, 12:27 AM, said:

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]

en08, on May 30 2006, 11:01 AM, said:

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.

[ShowMeKC]

en08, your 100% incorrect. STL's Downtown is much more dense than ours, and if you read correctly, STL has over 150 skyscrapers that are built. We have only have about 110 that are built. (but our count is not completed)

STL- 2.8 million people
KC- 2 million people

Downtown population doesn't matter as much as urban area, and they kick our butt in that regard:

STL- 2 million in 2,506 sq. mi.
KC- 1.4 million in 2,330 sq. mi.

[JivecitySTL]

en08, on May 30 2006, 10:01 AM, said:

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.

^Uhh..that only accounts for the official boundaries of downtown St. Louis, which doesn't include Downtown West, which neighbors downtown and, for all practical purposes, is part of downtown.  What is the square mileage of downtown KC vs. downtown STL?  I would bet downtown KC encompasses a larger physical area, thereby including more buildings.  But in all reality, all you have to do is visit both cities to see which looks and feels like a bigger city.

DOWNTOWN WEST, St. Louis (not officially considered Downtown):

[ShowMeKC]

Actually jive, According to the official boundaries of DT STL, it's 2.9-3 square miles, and according to the official boundaries of DT KC, it's 2.9 square miles...

The only difference is DT STL is denser but with less people. But once their buildings fill up, they will surpass us in business and population.

[en08]

Well, kcdevin, we have 178 tall buildings built downtown. It is only showing 85 for STL. Also, I have been to both downtowns, and have looked at extensive photos of the two, and although STL might have more ppl down there, we have more buildings.

[monsoon]

en08, on Jun 1 2006, 03:23 AM, said:

Well, kcdevin, we have 178 tall buildings built downtown. It is only showing 85 for STL. Also, I have been to both downtowns, and have looked at extensive photos of the two, and although STL might have more ppl down there, we have more buildings.

Again what does it matter?   This is not a site for people to have pissing contests on which city has the most buildings, crime, mcdonalds, or whatever else you want to compare.   One of the dullest comparisons I think I see on other sites that start with an S, is "oh my city has X number of 10 story buildings and yours only has Y".

If you want to compare something more substantial in hopes of getting people interested then by all means do so, but stop with picking numbers off websites,  that are not accurate anyway, which is a waste of our time here.   And you may offer up your opinion but don't pass it off as fact.

[JivecitySTL]

...And I can assure you, anyone who visits both cities will see that downtown St. Louis is clearly larger because it has historically been a much larger city and metro area.  I don't doubt for a second that KC has more "tall" buildings downtown, but that's beside the point.  Number of buildings?  Don't even try.  There is no comparison.

And I agree with monsoon-- pissing contests about buildings and height is so juvenile.

[ShowMeKC]

Content Deleted

As in number of skyscrapers even in Downtowns, St. Louis has us beat by far. IT doesn't matter who is taller or who has more...I was using that argument when I was only 14 years old...

Edited by metro.m, 01 June 2006 - 03:33 PM.