Best bones in the Midwest

i do apologize to everyone else for this thread getting derailed. this will be my final comment on the matter.

here's why i'm losing my cool, d'trolley. try actually taking the time to read the sequence of comments carefully this time. Emphases are mine.

Originally Posted by ColDayMan

Milwaukee and Minneapolis are "denser" cities than St. Louis and you can thank topography and a solid grid system for that. Cincinnati (and Pittsburgh and other Eastern US hilly cities such as Providence) have too many hillsides and eroded areas to build "continuous density."

Originally Posted by IWant2BeInSTL

well, no. you can thank population loss for that but not grids or topography. Peak St. Louis was twice as dense as peak Milwaukee and ~1/3 denser than peak Minneapolis.

^ look, d'trolley! i acknowledged that Milwaukee and Minneapolis are denser cities! however, at peak population St. Louis was denser than Milwaukee at it's peak population and Minneapolis at it's peak population. this isn't up for debate. go look at the f*cking numbers. i'm suggesting that THIS IS EVIDENCE that grids and topography were/are not the drivers of the current disparity between THESE THREE CITIES. perhaps i should have been more explicit for you.

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

you might want to check your facts on that.

Originally Posted by IWant2BeInSTL

My mistake, but i didn't use MKE's 1950 population. I used MKE's peak census population with it's current land area. Likewise, though, it doesn't really make sense to compare density over 28 sq. mi. with that over 62 sq. mi. (STL) or 58 sq. mi (MSP). In any case, I was only replying to ColdDayMan's assertion that MKE and MSP are currently more dense because of topography and street grid. This clearly isn't true since STL was denser than both and the respective street grids and topographies have remained relatively constant.

^ hey, look, d'trolley! i acknowledged my mistake in calculating Milwaukee's density at its peak population. nonetheless, it didn't change my thesis since St. Louis was still more dense at its peak population, even if only slightly. and, cool, i found out that when Milwaukee was 28 sq. mi. it had a HUGE population density, which again has no bearing on the point i was trying to make about grids and topography. my comment about not comparing 28 sq. mi. with 62 and 58 sq. mi. was tangential.

Originally Posted by d'trolley

Man don't ever tell an STL booster that their city isn't the densest, baddest, brickest, mother ever haha. They won't take it too well!

Dude, I don't know what is so difficult to understand about this. Statistics have even been shown. Milwaukee had a higher peak population density than STL, at least according to the stats shown so far.

^ wow, d'trolley. you had no business interjecting here to call me a booster and to tell everyone i'm making shit up but you did! yet you still haven't been able to point out what i made up or why my premise is wrong. it's almost like you just made sh*t up.

Originally Posted by IWant2BeInSTL

what? dude, i was addressing an incorrect (or at least incomplete) statement made by ColdDayMan. that's all. i was off on MKE density by a little, but my point still holds–STL was denser AT IT'S PEAK POPULATION than MKE and MPLS were AT THEIR PEAK POPULATIONS (at which times, I might add, their land areas were similar). and the point was NOT "St. Louis is better". the point was that STREET GRIDS AND TOPOGRAPHY ARE NOT THE REASONS THAT MKE AND MPLS ARE CURRENTLY MORE DENSE THAN STL. now maybe ColdDayMan meant that MKE and MPLS RETAINED more density in the face of population loss because of their topography (and maybe there's an argument there), or maybe he meant that topography forces clusters of high density in certain cities. but that's not what he said (until later). i feel like you're a little quick to cry "boosterism" sometimes. did you bother to read my initial comment? none of the statistics presented so far have invalidated my point.

^ i try to explain everything for you again and invite you to tell me what i made up. but you don't, of course. you just insist that i'm wrong and offer smiley faces and lol's as instigation.

Originally Posted by d'trolley

IWant2BeInSTL... Wow. As I said earlier, take it easy. I don't know why you're losing your cool. This is not a serious ordeal. Take a deep breath buddy!

Sorry I wasn't more clear about this, but you said that he is wrong and I think he is correct.

I am absolutely done with this stupid freakout though, so continue on if you want, but I will be doing something else aight. (lol what a ridiculous smiley wth!!)

you come in and start a fight and you're seriously going to f*cking tell me to cool off and take a deep breath? and then act like you're the mature one? if you think ColdDayMan is correct then let's see an argument. otherwise say "sorry but i disagree" and leave out the f*cking insults. i wasn't rude to ColdDayMan, i simply disagreed with one of his statements and offered a reason as to why i disagree. i have no qualms with ColdDayMan and was in no way stating that St. Louis is in any way superior to any other city. that was YOUR knee-jerk interpretation (again).

so, yeah, we're finished. everybody is free to check my numbers and disagree with my premise. but you could at least be respectful and use some tact, particularly when your disagreement doesn't seem to have any basis aside from you perceiving every St. Louis comment as boosterism.

[d'trolley]

^ This is getting really weird.

Iwant2beinstl, please for the sake of everyone else, stop this argument. You may not realize it, but you are arguing with yourself at this point. We were talking about 2 different things, and there was a slight misunderstanding, but it's over now. Really no big deal. Okay so please stop. That way this thread can go back to it's original purpose. I am sorry if any of my comments left you feeling insulted. It was never my intention if they did. I am not saying that you made things up. It was a misunderstanding. You are correct about everything you said.

Okay? We cool?

oh, i see. now it's a misunderstanding and we're talking about two different things. a couple of comments ago you were absolutely sure that i was wrong, so much so that you made it a point to clarify that you were being coy in saying "not so sure" and that you were, indeed, sure. this after making a big stink about how i'm a booster and a liar.

nah, dude. we're not okay. despite your backhanded apology you're still talking down to me. but whatever; no need for us to engage any further.

[Arch City]

This is one of the best photo sets the twins have posted in awhile.

You'all's photo sets are usually too "gritty" for me, but this one was great.

With all due respect, I want to chime in on one aspect of the discussion then I'm going to go ghost.

Originally Posted by IWant2BeInSTL

i do apologize to everyone else for this thread getting derailed. this will be my final comment on the matter.

here's why i'm losing my cool, d'trolley. try actually taking the time to read the sequence of comments carefully this time. Emphases are mine.

He's trolling you, but I say dig in. I'm loving it. Stay true to your never-say-die hardscrabble St. Louis roots! LOL! I think you are handling yourself pretty well.

Nonetheless, I'm always baffled at how some KC people tend (or pretend) to know more about St. Louis than St. Louisans. Some KCitians will let their envy of STL show up anywhere. They simply can't contain themselves.

The whole "single family" housing assertion was enough to question his credibility. When the stats (presented by Steely Dan) were presented...ahem.... he goes on to say that many of the flats in St. Louis have been converted into single family homes, which is true. A conversion also requires a permit, which in time becomes a real number.

The stats presented seem to indicate a near balance (SF vs. MF) based on numbers issued by City Hall to the Census Bureau.

Also, although the current percentages (SF vs. MF) are close, I am willing to bet the City of St. Louis at one time had more multi-family dwellings or shared an even percentage with single-family.

Unfortunately, large swaths of St. Louis City have been torn down. Neighborhoods such as McRee Town, which had blocks of multi-family units decimated is now filled with new single-family housing called Botanical Heights. The riverfront area had trade and multi-family units. The Gateway Arch sits there. Same with Mill Creek Valley. Torn down. Same with the Pruitt-Igoe area. The Gate District, etc.

Despite having a lot of great housing stock to this very day, a lot of it, sadly, has been lost to demolition, decay, fire, tornadoes, earthquakes, re-gentrification, highways, commercial projects, brick-rustling, etc. Keep in mind that MANY of those were multi-family units. The city had almost 900,000 people. They all lived in single-family? No way.

Regardless, KC is the city with large SF number - not STL.

[Ex-Ithacan]

What a brick-red bones treat. Thanks for the tour.

btw, this is a great peice of advice:

[mrherodotus]

Blast from the past!!!

[Evo5Boise]

Congrats to St. Louis for winning the Stanley Cup!