So let's see, let's talk about St. Louis:
- You
can get stuck in snow and frigid temperatures in the winter: I've done it way too many times.
- You can sweat your **** off in the summertime. Hot
and humid. (Remember, one of the qualifications was "warm (not hot) weather.") Average number of 90+ degree days in St. Louis per year is 40
, vs 17 in Chicago. Summer in St. Louis is downright brutal (and matteni will vouch that, I know, because we spent a blistering hot track weekend there together). If I were choosing a city based solely on weather, St. Louis would be pretty far down on my list.
- Traffic? You betcha - every bit as bad as Chicago, even though it only has about one fifth as many people. I've sat on I-70 for hours in stop-and-go traffic trying to get to the airport in St. Louis. Tell me how long it takes to get across the bridge at rush hour and we'll talk about traffic.
- St. Louis is a hub for exactly one airline, an expensive one, and as a result, without any competition, airline prices are much higher than in Chicago, which is a hub for two expensive airlines and two bargain airlines.
- You can pay $100/hour for someone to work on your NSX. You can't do that in Chicago.
- Many of the St. Louis NSX owners drive several hundred miles for NSX service, or fly a qualified NSX tech into town. No one in Chicago does.
- Within five hours of Chicago, you have nine racetracks, including some of the best in the country. Within five hours of St. Louis, you have four.
- Mosquitos? Get real. I've gotten more mosquito bites in the ~40 days I've spent in St. Louis in the past 30 years than in the 10,000 days I've spent in Chicago.
-
World class museums and symphonies and cultural activities? Oh yeah, KGP mentioned all the ones that St. Louis
doesn't have.
- No beaches, either.
- State income tax rates twice as high as Illinois.
KGP mentions Chicago sports teams. While I am not a fan of the Chicago sports teams, during the time I've been here, I've gotten to see the greatest football running back of all time, and the greatest basketball player of all time, both spending most of their careers here. I've also gotten to see perhaps the best defensive NFL team ever, the only team that has won both its playoff games by shutouts en route to their Super Bowl win. And, of course, six championship NBA seasons in the 1990s. Even without rooting for them, it's been great to be a sports fan living in Chicago.
Furthermore, unlike St. Louis, the Chicago sports teams don't pack up and leave town for a better offer somewhere else, not for the past fifty years or so, anyway. Let's face it - if you're comparing which cities are great for sports, any city where a major sports team recently left town is a loser.
Sure, the cost of real estate is high. You can make a lot more on the appreciation of real estate in Chicago than in St. Louis. My house is the best financial investment I've ever made. Had I lived in St. Louis, I would not have made anywhere near as much.
IMO comparing St. Louis to Chicago is like comparing a Class AA baseball team to the Florida Marlins. Both can be fun to watch, and each has its charms. The fact is, I have visited St. Louis a lot over the course of my 30 years in Chicago. I've even had a good time there. I've gone to some great restaurants - all of them, apparently, which you can't do in Chicago, even if you go to a different one every night. I've seen some nice neighborhoods in the city as well as the suburbs. But St. Louis is a small town as big cities go. Small towns have their advantages and they also have their disadvantages. If you like them, they're great - St. Louis has its charms, just like similar cities such as Memphis, Birmingham, and Oklahoma City. I'm sure that their residents love living there. But by the criteria that were set out at the start of this topic - things like air travel, cultural activities, close to the water, low taxes, etc - St. Louis just doesn't compare with Chicago. Not even in the same league.