Are St. Louis and New Orleans the last "eastern" cities?

[Docere]

Splitting the US on binary east/west lines, the Mississippi River is often seen as the dividing line ("W" and "K" call numbers, for example).

The Eastern states are often said to include the Northeast, the South Atlantic and the East North Central and East South Central regions.

This would put Louisiana and Missouri outside the "east" but St. Louis and New Orleans are more similar to cities to the east and can perhaps be said to be the last eastern cities.

[Steely Dan]

st. louis kinda seems like the ultimate junction city of north, east, south, and west.

it's a bit of shame about TWA getting bought out by American, STL is such a natural spot for a large hub airport.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

st. louis kinda seems like the ultimate junction city of north, east, south, and west.

it's a bit of shame about TWA getting bought out by American, STL is such a natural spot for a large hub airport.

St. Louis (or perhaps KC) is the ideal site for the national capitol, geographically. But we are stuck with Washington. Denver is a bit too far west, Chicago too far north. Kansas City has always struck me as the real boundary between "east" and "west", even more than St. Louis, even though SL has the Gateway Arch. When in SL, it gives me a more Eastern vibe, with some southern touches as well. KC is almost equally east and west in feel, almost like Omaha is. I have always thought of the Missouri River as the real boundary between east and west, until it drifts west into Montana in the north, and joins the Miss. near SL. John Steinbeck in "Travels With Charlie" talks about how Bismarck ND had eastern smells and feel, while Mandon across the Missouri smelled and looked western. When crossing the Missouri at Chamberlain SD, I noticed the same shift. SL and KC were at the boundary of the North and South in the first phase of the Civil War. SL was slave owning, facing free Illinois across the river and KC faced free Kansas across the Missouri (although slavery in western Missouri was not as common as in eastern Missouri). Both cities are near the boundary between North and South, East and West.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

St. Louis (or perhaps KC) is the ideal site for the national capitol, geographically. But we are stuck with Washington. Denver is a bit too far west, Chicago too far north. Kansas City has always struck me as the real boundary between "east" and "west", even more than St. Louis, even though SL has the Gateway Arch. When in SL, it gives me a more Eastern vibe, with some southern touches as well. KC is almost equally east and west in feel, almost like Omaha is. I have always thought of the Missouri River as the real boundary between east and west, until it drifts west into Montana in the north, and joins the Miss. near SL. John Steinbeck in "Travels With Charlie" talks about how Bismarck ND had eastern smells and feel, while Mandon across the Missouri smelled and looked western. When crossing the Missouri at Chamberlain SD, I noticed the same shift. SL and KC were at the boundary of the North and South in the first phase of the Civil War. SL was slave owning, facing free Illinois across the river and KC faced free Kansas across the Missouri (although slavery in western Missouri was not as common as in eastern Missouri). Both cities are near the boundary between North and South, East and West.

St. Louis would be the perfect capital. When the US got independent, north-south divide was the most important, but soon after it because east-west oriented.

It's right on the middle of this divided, by the country's most important river and they already have a very beautiful monument, more impressive than anyone in Washington.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Yuri

St. Louis would be the perfect capital. When the US got independent, north-south divide was the most important, but soon after it because east-west oriented.

It's right on the middle of this divided, by the country's most important river and they already have a very beautiful monument, more impressive than anyone in Washington.

To be more precise, Washington DC was the perfect capital in 1800, St. Louis was the perfect capital in the late 1970s, and Hartville, Missouri, is the perfect capital these days.

[MAC123]

Geographic Position alone does not make a city "the perfect capital"

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by lio45

To be more precise, Washington DC was the perfect capital in 1800, St. Louis was the perfect capital in the late 1970s, and Hartville, Missouri, is the perfect capital these days.

Maybe an unpopular opinion, but the capital should be in New York.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

st. louis kinda seems like the ultimate junction city of north, east, south, and west.

it's a bit of shame about TWA getting bought out by American, STL is such a natural spot for a large hub airport.

KC almost as central, but a tad more "western" in feel than SL. SL, where the "east" ends. KC, where the "west" begins.

[Centropolis]

I’ve chewed over this a lot and have varied my opinion on this over time as i’ve explored more of the eastern third of the US via automobile instead of flying to the coast.

There is so much real estate between the Mississippi and the Atlantic that it’s really hard for me to think of St. Louis as the last eastern city, anymore. In fact I’ve argued for the idea that Missouri is a weird proto-western state where various westbound currents merged flowing in from east, northeast and southeast.

In any case, both St. Louis and New Orleans were shaped by the time that they arose - as european imperial outposts that leapfrogged the last westernmost American redoubts.

[Centropolis]

…and then really physically expanded during peak Manifest Destiny as convenient far forward supply chain bases to the benefit of industrialists and u.s. government expansion (Western Arsenal/Armory of the West based at St. Louis, etc).

[edale]

Originally Posted by Docere

Splitting the US on binary east/west lines, the Mississippi River is often seen as the dividing line ("W" and "K" call numbers, for example).

The Eastern states are often said to include the Northeast, the South Atlantic and the East North Central and East South Central regions.

This would put Louisiana and Missouri outside the "east" but St. Louis and New Orleans are more similar to cities to the east and can perhaps be said to be the last eastern cities.

In your opinion, in what ways are STL and New Orleans more similar to cities in the east? I think I agree with you, especially when it comes to STL, but am curious to see your reasoning for this statement.

If we're just talking in terms of east and west (no midwest distinction), I think Kansas City could be argued to be the last eastern city. It's still pretty green and has lots of old brick building stock. It definitely has western influences, but I think you really start to feel like you've left the east behind when you get just west of KC and into the relentlessly flat and golden/brown Kansas prairies.

NOLA feels distinct from any other part of the US, though. I don't think it feels particularly eastern or western. It's walkable and historic, but so is San Francisco, and no one is calling that eastern. It looks and feels very unique, imo, whereas St. Louis feels pretty similar to Cincinnati, parts of Chicago...points east and north of it.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by edale

In your opinion, in what ways are STL and New Orleans more similar to cities in the east? I think I agree with you, especially when it comes to STL, but am curious to see your reasoning for this statement.

If we're just talking in terms of east and west (no midwest distinction), I think Kansas City could be argued to be the last eastern city. It's still pretty green and has lots of old brick building stock. It definitely has western influences, but I think you really start to feel like you've left the east behind when you get just west of KC and into the relentlessly flat and golden/brown Kansas prairies.

NOLA feels distinct from any other part of the US, though. I don't think it feels particularly eastern or western. It's walkable and historic, but so is San Francisco, and no one is calling that eastern. It looks and feels very unique, imo, whereas St. Louis feels pretty similar to Cincinnati, parts of Chicago...points east and north of it.

Not to speak out of turn but the argument for StL has always been the large amount of zero lot line construction (so far west) e. g. rowhouses - obviously used to be a lot more. St. Louis does weirdly have similar feels to Baltimore specifically…which also has some similarities to New Orleans making a weird lost triangle of its own.

[Crawford]

NOLA looks like a Carribean city, but yeah, it has elements of an Eastern, perhaps even Northeastern, feel. Catholic, clannish, lots of Italians and Irish, hyperlocal accents, narrow streets, strong sense of place. History and pedigree matter, at least for U.S. standards.

It definitely doesn't feel anything like a Sunbelt city. Even Charleston and Savannah feel like Sunbelt cities once you get outside the historic cores.

[Centropolis]

I’ll add that St. Louis is the first city along I-70 or I-64 that I start seeing huge new construction Mormon Temples - a further argument that Missouri and by extension St. Louis are proto-western.


churchofjesuschrist.com

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

I’ll add that St. Louis is the first city along I-70 or I-64 that I start seeing huge new construction Mormon Temples - a further argument that Missouri and by extension St. Louis are proto-western.

haven't the mormons been building grand new temples everywhere over the past several decades?

i mean, here's a new-ish mormon temple just outside of freaking boston:

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4117...7i13312!8i6656

[lio45]

I’m pretty sure the West at the latitude of STL doesn’t begin before Kansas City, and it’s 100% certain that East Texas isn’t “Western” so a definite “no” on NOLA being the line.

San Antonio, Austin, Arlington (it’s the motto of Ft Worth that it’s where the West begins…) and OKC would be the last Eastern cities - putting New Orleans firmly in the East.

The West begins where it starts to be dry, not at the Mississippi.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by lio45

I’m pretty sure the West doesn’t begin before Kansas City, and I’m 100% sure East Texas isn’t “Western” so a definite “no” on NOLA being the line.

San Antonio, Austin, Arlington (it’s the motto of Ft Worth that it’s where the West begins…) and OKC would be the last Eastern cities - putting New Orleans firmly in the East.

The West begins where it starts to be dry, not at the Mississippi.

yes, i would never argue that the contemporary west begins before the Flint Hills, really, at Manhattan, KS (nice town). Theres a gap in the bluffs just across the Kansas state line at downtown KC that feels like a runner up.

Lawrence KS really feels like the first westerly college town too. Theres a Native American college in town of course.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

yes, i would never argue that the contemporary west begins before the Flint Hills, really, at Manhattan, KS (nice town). Theres a gap in the bluffs just across the Kansas state line at downtown KC that feels like a runner up.

Lawrence KS really feels like the first westerly college town too. Theres a Native American college in town of course.

Emporia and the Flint Hills region is the first thing that feels solidly "westernish", if KC itself doesn't. Kansas City has common architectural features that remind me of Detroit, especially all of those 1910/1920s apartment buildings, but in a semi-arid climate. The hot wind has a way of blowing through KC that simply doesn't happen further east.

St. Louis definitely sits in a semi-arid climate zone as compared to Chicago or Indianapolis. The woods in Missouri simply don't get as thick as they do east of the Mississippi.

Where St. Louis is unusual is in its brick type, which makes the place look older than it is. Pittsburgh also has brick and stone that is quite distinct. By contrast, the brick and stone in Cincinnati is very brittle. You can literally kick chips and dust off the side of any stone foundation in Cincinnati.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

St. Louis definitely sits in a semi-arid climate zone as compared to Chicago or Indianapolis.

huh???

st. louis gets more annual precipitation than chicago does, and i would hardly call chicago a "semi-arid" climate.


STL annual average precipitation: 41.7"

MDW annual average precipitation: 40.9"

source: wikipedia


the conventional definition for "semi-arid" is places that get between 10 - 20 inches of precipition per year.

no place on or east of the mississippi qualifies by that definition.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

huh???

st. louis gets more annual precipitation than chicago does, and i would hardly call chicago a "semi-arid" climate.

Yeah - I was completely surprised to read that several years ago after a trip to the Dirty Kanza bike race - but it's obvious that some combination of the prevailing soil and rock and atmospheric conditions cause the rain to run off or evaporate more quickly, as the woods and farmland near St. Louis are quite obviously not as robust as those just 10-20 miles east of the Mississippi River.

The effect is even more pronounced at the Missouri/Kansas line, or just past in the Flint Hills. The former Dirty Kanza is now called "Unbound Gravel". The landscape is undeniably arid as compared to Illinois, despite it receiving almost 40 inches of rain per year: https://www.unboundgravel.com/