St. Louis Among Ten Towns to Watch
Forbes publisher, Rich Karlgaard, is promoting his new book, Life 2.0: How People Across America Are Transforming Their Lives by Finding the Where of Their Happiness. This book is not released yet but American Way magazine (you know the one you get on American Airline flights) had a review.
The book will include a list of 150 Great Places to Live but in the meantime American Way narrowed the list to a top ten. St. Louis was #7 on the list.
#7 – St. Louis, Missouri
“A ‘bohemian bargain’, which means it offers a lively downtown coupled with a reasonable cost of living.”
The remainder of top ten is:
1 – Bismarck, North Dakota
2 – Bisbee, Arizona
3 – Austin, Texas
4 – Sioux Falls, South Dakota
5 – Albany, New York
6 – Birmingham, Alabama
8 – Albuquerque, New Mexico
9 – State College, Pennsylvania
10-Milwaukee, Wisconsin
I don’t want St. Louis to become Chicago, Seattle or New York. I do want St. Louis to come into its own and hopefully that will include density, mass transit and a thriving local economy. If so we may begin receiving new residents finding the “where of their happiness” in our great city.
– Steve
This ranking comes as no surprise. However, looking at the other cities on the top ten list, besides St. Louis only Milwaukee is a real big-league city.
Given our big city status, I think they could have placed us even higher on the list. Do those other bergs have even half the cultural amenities of St. Louis?
We offer a long list of attractions, including a tradition of quality professional sports.
Now I know there are a lot of people (probably some readers of this blog) that could care less about professional sports.
But I think there are more people that do.
Having the Cardinals downtown is a whole lot better than having them in Earth City.
As far as adding character, look at what Wrigley does for Chicago—or do they call that area Wrigleyville?
Keeping the Cardinals downtown, with a little move south, is keeping them connected to the rest of the city.
When coming to see the Cardinals, lots of people come from out of town, and while here they patronize other city neighborhoods and attractions as part of an overall St. Louis experience.
RB
[I think many people on the coast view St. Louis as being no different than Birmingham. I care more about great urban life than being “big league.”
I’m one of those that doesn’t care about sports. I do admit to enjoying a baseball game – very civilized sport. But I also enjoy watching Latinos play soccer at Cleveland HS on Sunday mornings.
The Cardinals could have gone to Earth City as far as I am concerned. I think it might have actually helped downtown recover. I’ve never been convinced that sports fans actually help downtowns. – Steve]
nice find steve. by the way your post was picked up by Planetizen. a info clearing house for planners and land use professionals
Yeah, but seriously. Who wants to live in North Dakota?
[Many ask “who wants to live in Missouri?” All a matter of perspective… – Steve]
Well, Bismarck ND is the hometown of Rich Karlgaard himself. No wonder it is #1 on the list.
[Perhaps he knows what he is talking about? As the publisher of Forbes I imagine he can live anywhere he likes. It says a lot for Bismarck if that is where he is happy. – Steve]
STL is what you make of it. I was born and raised there but felt constrained by it’s cultural limitations (which have gotten better). Sure “the Lou” has lots of great stuff, and maybe I am more of a metropolitan girl, but I will say it is a wonderful place to raise a family. That is if you can take the homogony. My family still lives in STL and I enjoy my trips back home but after I’ve been there a couple days I’m ready to leave. It’s all about where in life you are.
Like supporting major league sports, valuing a place as being a “good place to raise a family” somehow seems to lower its status as a “cool place”.
Isn’t it “cool” to live somewhere that’s family friendly? Sort of in the same way it’s “cool” to keep kids off drugs and staying in school?
What cool things are missing from St. Louis?
A beach? A 12,000 foot elevation ski resort? Mountain biking? Maybe, but aren’t those mostly “tourism” amenities. I’ve lived in the San Francisco Bay Area and Vail Colorado, and for us, we prefer living in St. Louis to both of those places.
Besides, with the money you save living in St. Louis, you can visit the places with those offerings a lot more often than someone paying the rent-never mind the mortgage payment-to live in such a locale on a year-round basis.
Recently there was an article about San Francisco and Portland bemoaning the fact that these places are losing all their kids. They’re obviously not “a good place to raise a family”, even though they’re considered “cool”.
I bet the locals there would rather see and hear more kids in their communities than have a “cool” label attached to their zip code.
Or, maybe not. What do you think?
RB
[I don’t equate major sports and kids in the same way. The majors is about money which is not the issue with kid friendly. It really comes down to who is defining cool. I’ve been to the beach – in California, Washington State, South Texas, Florida and I must say it does nothing for me. You won’t get me on skies ever.
But Rick be careful with your generalization. Just because SF and Portland have attracted many childless people to their city does not mean it is not kid-friendly. A neighborhood with lots of people about and things to do is an ideal environment for a young mind. Such neighborhoods are also safer for adults and kids alike.
Cool does not have to mean kid free. Part of what you are seeing is more gay folks like myself, straight couples deciding not to have children and couples and singles waiting later in life to start a family. Let’s not confuse the physical environment with the numerous reasons couples aren’t popping out kids the way they used to in prior generations.
– Steve]
I think the number one reason that there are fewer kids in San Francisco, and increasingly Portland, is because of the outrageously high cost of living.
Equity rich empty nesters are making up more and more of the population.
Young folks of child bearing age, gay or straight, are having a harder time living in places like SF, LA, Seattle, Austin, etc.
And so as they search for new places. And some find St. Louis and say, “yeah, I think this place could work for me/us”.
In the 12 years we have lived in the city of St. Louis, wouldn’t you agree that it has become much more recognized as a center for gay households? Could you say that 20 years ago?
I think more and more people, especially folks living on the coasts, are looking for a less complicated life, a life out of the fast lane, a life on less than $10,000 per month, and they’re finding it in places like St. Louis.
Margie Newman recently posted an article on StLToday about the problems in Portland and SF losing their kids (any advice on how to post links here?). The article noted that SF is already nearly a childless city.
When I was a kid in the Bay Area, (30-something years ago), there were lots of kids living in San Francisco proper. And during these times SF was already well known as a mecca for gays (in those days moreso on Polk Street than in the Castro). But “the City” was also a place for families, especially out in the “Avenues”.
Now those little bungalows in the Avenues are going for over $600,000. How many young families can afford that sort of housing? Maybe the ones living on a trust fund.
RB
If I’m violating your users agreement by posting this without permission…kindly edit or delete this post…but here’s the article that discusses how bustling cities are losing kids…
This article was written by Timothy Egan of the NY Times:
Copy & past: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1369381/posts