What's the difference between STL's MO suburbs (STL county/st Charles/Jefferson) and "metro east" (St. Louis: houses)

[MaxFromPhilly]

On street view they all look similar with some exceptions (east St. Louis IL looks bad as does parts of north county) but metro east is much cheaper to buy it seems


Explain the real differences between the MO and IL suburbs for a potential new resident of the Lou

Thanks!

[Dawn10am]

The MO side is more built-up and, in a lot of areas, more polished. The Metro East is more spaced out with corn fields interspersed between the developed areas. It feels very vast and spread out to me, and somewhat disconnected from "St. Louis." MO has more of the major regional shopping, dining, nightlife, parks, etc. The IL side certainly is not without amenities, but just not on the same scale. The landscape in MO is wooded with rolling hills, and in IL it's flatter with more open fields. MO feels more like traditional suburbia, the IL side feels more like a collection of large small towns that just happen to be near a big city. If you like small towns that have a suburban flavor, decent amenities, and access to the city then you might like the Metro East.

[MUTGR]

Originally Posted by MaxFromPhilly

On street view they all look similar with some exceptions (east St. Louis IL looks bad as does parts of north county) but metro east is much cheaper to buy it seems


Explain the real differences between the MO and IL suburbs for a potential new resident of the Lou

Thanks!

The Illinois side is actually more parochial than the Missouri side. People I know who grew up there and I know many, would never dream of living in Missouri and to a certain extent, vice versa. The Missouri side is more contiguous city then suburbs that blend into each other. Although it is all technically part of the same metro area, the Illinois side is more stand alone smaller towns - Belleville, Edwardsville, Alton, Granite City -etc - each has their own identity. There are lots of good options there. Some real pro-labor old fashioned catholic union types over there, heavily democratic politically but not really "progressive" if you know what I mean. Higher taxes generally in Illinois.

[billiken]

While a house is generally less expensive in IL, the property taxes are higher. IL gets rural a lot more quickly. MO has more traditional suburbia. More MetroLink access in the IL suburbs than MO suburbs. Generally more amenities in MO suburbs. More of a military influence in IL due to Scott Air Force Base. I'd say generally, people from the MO suburbs stay in MO, people from the IL suburbs stay in IL.

[Caesarstl]

Originally Posted by billiken

While a house is generally less expensive in IL, the property taxes are higher. IL gets rural a lot more quickly. MO has more traditional suburbia. More MetroLink access in the IL suburbs than MO suburbs. Generally more amenities in MO suburbs. More of a military influence in IL due to Scott Air Force Base. I'd say generally, people from the MO suburbs stay in MO, people from the IL suburbs stay in IL.

Do you mean for living, or?

[billiken]

Originally Posted by Caesarstl

Do you mean for living, or?

Yes, for living. The only people I know who live in IL, grew up there. Everyone I know from out of town lives in MO.

[Craziaskowboi]

The Illinois suburbs of St. Louis strike me as similar to the New Jersey suburbs of Philadelphia:


1. A decrepit slum of a city immediately across the river (East St. Louis, IL and Camden, NJ).
2. Some nice suburbs in Illinois/New Jersey, but overall not as high-rent as the Missouri/Pennsylvania suburbs.
3. More spread out, but psychologically disconnected from the central city.
4. Not completely lacking amenities in the Illinois/New Jersey suburbs, but lacking amenities compared to the Missouri/Pennsylvania suburbs.

Originally Posted by billiken

Yes, for living. The only people I know who live in IL, grew up there. Everyone I know from out of town lives in MO.

That's another similarity St. Louis has with Philadelphia: The vast majority of newcomers to each city live in the same state as the central city (Missouri, Pennsylvania). One possible difference is that many of Philadelphia's New Jersey suburbs are populated by ex-Philadelphians who moved out of the city in protest of what it was becoming (for better or worse). Oddly, most of them didn't move to the Pennsylvania suburbs. As a result, there seems to be more animosity toward the city on the New Jersey side than the Pennsylvania side.

[MUTGR]

Originally Posted by billiken

Yes, for living. The only people I know who live in IL, grew up there. Everyone I know from out of town lives in MO.

That's my experience as well. I've flirted with the idea of moving to Illinois but could never pull the trigger. And everyone I know who works in Mo but lives in Illinois would never consider living in Mo. It's kinda weird actually.

[PerseusVeil]

Originally Posted by Dawn10am

The MO side is more built-up and, in a lot of areas, more polished. The Metro East is more spaced out with corn fields interspersed between the developed areas. It feels very vast and spread out to me, and somewhat disconnected from "St. Louis." MO has more of the major regional shopping, dining, nightlife, parks, etc. The IL side certainly is not without amenities, but just not on the same scale. The landscape in MO is wooded with rolling hills, and in IL it's flatter with more open fields. MO feels more like traditional suburbia, the IL side feels more like a collection of large small towns that just happen to be near a big city. If you like small towns that have a suburban flavor, decent amenities, and access to the city then you might like the Metro East.

The disconnectedness depends entirely on where you are in the Metro East as it's not a monolithic entity. Some of the suburbs in Illinois are actually closer to the city's amenities than some of the MO suburbs that people typically think as being close. The distance between towns also depends on where you're at as well, as you have towns like Belleville, Swansea, and Fairview that roll into each other, where as there's going to be a lot of open space if you're driving from one of them to some place like Edwardsville.

Also the main amenity that the Illinois side is truly lacking in comparison to the Missouri side is that St. Clair Square, while a good mall, isn't on the same level as the Galleria or West County.

Originally Posted by MUTGR

The Illinois side is actually more parochial than the Missouri side. People I know who grew up there and I know many, would never dream of living in Missouri and to a certain extent, vice versa. The Missouri side is more contiguous city then suburbs that blend into each other. Although it is all technically part of the same metro area, the Illinois side is more stand alone smaller towns - Belleville, Edwardsville, Alton, Granite City -etc - each has their own identity. There are lots of good options there. Some real pro-labor old fashioned catholic union types over there, heavily democratic politically but not really "progressive" if you know what I mean. Higher taxes generally in Illinois.

It depends on what city or county you're in in terms of the parochial attitude. The only county that's heavily Democratic is St. Clair, as Monroe is staunchly red, and Madison is more purple. The local congressman is also now a Republican.

I agree about the towns having their own feel. Belleville will have its own vibe, whereas a place like Fairview or Swansea just come across as suburbia. Towns like Columbia, Millstadt, Waterloo, etc, come across as small towns near to a big city. It's sort of odd actually.

Originally Posted by billiken

While a house is generally less expensive in IL, the property taxes are higher. IL gets rural a lot more quickly. MO has more traditional suburbia. More MetroLink access in the IL suburbs than MO suburbs. Generally more amenities in MO suburbs. More of a military influence in IL due to Scott Air Force Base. I'd say generally, people from the MO suburbs stay in MO, people from the IL suburbs stay in IL.

I'm still not certain what all these amenities are that Illinois is supposedly lacking in comparison to the MO suburbs beyond mall options.

Also, while Scott is a big employer, there's not really a military influence at all in regards to the culture of the area.

I do agree that people generally stick to their own states in terms of where they decide to live. Although my grandparents on one side were from St. Louis originally before they moved to Illinois. I've since had 3 cousins, their families, and an aunt move back to various places in the city and the county in the last 10 years though.

Originally Posted by Craziaskowboi

The Illinois suburbs of St. Louis strike me as similar to the New Jersey suburbs of Philadelphia:


1. A decrepit slum of a city immediately across the river (East St. Louis, IL and Camden, NJ).
2. Some nice suburbs in Illinois/New Jersey, but overall not as high-rent as the Missouri/Pennsylvania suburbs.
3. More spread out, but psychologically disconnected from the central city.
4. Not completely lacking amenities in the Illinois/New Jersey suburbs, but lacking amenities compared to the Missouri/Pennsylvania suburbs.

This psychological disconnect depends entirely on where you live in the Metro East. There are people who sit pretty in Belleville or Edwardsville, and only go into St. Louis for a Cardinals game, a play, etc, but then you also have many people who work on the Missouri side of the river (which is why the Poplar is a mess in the mornings), and people in some towns that have their closest stores and what not be over on the Missouri side of the river. For example, the closest mall, Target, and Walmart to a town like Columbia in Monroe County would be in South County.

As for the wealth, there's no Ladue on the Illinois side, but the second wealthiest county in the metro in terms of median household income is Monroe County in Illinois. The wealthiest is St. Charles.

That's another similarity St. Louis has with Philadelphia: The vast majority of newcomers to each city live in the same state as the central city (Missouri, Pennsylvania). One possible difference is that many of Philadelphia's New Jersey suburbs are populated by ex-Philadelphians who moved out of the city in protest of what it was becoming (for better or worse). Oddly, most of them didn't move to the Pennsylvania suburbs. As a result, there seems to be more animosity toward the city on the New Jersey side than the Pennsylvania side.

You're less likely to find that on the Illinois side as you are people who were originally from East St. Louis and who are bitter about what happened to the town. You'll find a lot of people in their 50s and 60s in places like Belleville actually grew up in East St. Louis, and their families moved to Belleville after E STL went down hill.

[scocar]

All of the previous posts are spot on in what they are saying. I moved here 4 years ago and live on the Missouri side. I remember when driving over to the Illinois side I kept wondering where all the houses were. I was confused as to where the 700,000 people lived because from the freeway you see nothing. In Missouri the development is all visible.