pseudoswede

I was talking with someone in my company's STL office.

"I live in Arnold. We have just enough electricity to run the meth labs."

Visitors: don't worry. You'll never, ever go near Arnold.

WRCSolberg

I don't share your same optimism. I would be weary of the downtown area after dark, especially the farther north you go. The Lumiere/Ed Jones Dome/Columbus Square area would be completely a no go for me. Despite supposedly being one of the "nicer" areas of STL with a Four Seasons, people are still getting carjacked in that parking garage and murdered right outside the front door. Even Wash Ave which is supposed to be the oontzy loft district is bordered by some sketch neighborhoods and it's not unheard of for people to be murdered around there. Bar fights at "the clubs" that spill out on the streets, that kid from the 'burbs that was murdered in his car not too long ago in a failed carjacking, etc.

I'd stick to the CWE, Clayton, Delmar, Forest Park(during the day) and the Soulard areas. I'd also recommend the Hill if you like Italian food. Plenty to see and do in those areas and reasonably safe. No one goes downtown unless they're going to a sporting event.

backprop

A couple things.

I would say that "big city smarts" would include not going to Columbus Square at night. Or the day, for that matter. There's nothing there of interest to a visitor, so I assume one wouldn't go there, the same way I'd avoid Skid Row if I visited L.A.

It's interesting that you mention "clubs" as I believe there aren't any more, except maybe one (Europe?) left. Sugar Lounge, Amnesia, Club 15, Lure. Closed, closed, closed, closed. The "clubbing" days of Washington Ave. are long gone, replaced by sports bars, a dueling piano lounge, a cigar bar, an upscale bowling alley, and restaurants.

Staying on and south of Washington - with the exception of City Museum - is probably a good rule of thumb.

I'm not saying everything is roses in St. Louis or any major city, but I've lived, worked, and walked downtown St. Louis for almost 20 years now and I know that the 'nobody comes here except for sports' is a bit far-fetched.

But I also think your other suggestions as far as where to visit at night are good too, for what it's worth.

WRCSolberg

On the topic of safety in downtown STL.....

http://www.kmov.com/story/30121515/l...n-the-hospital

Or, if you don't want to click the link, the guy got robbed and shot after leaving the Cardinals game the other night. Pretty much right outside the stadium. Now he's paralyzed.

This wasn't some guy cruising a bad neighborhood in the wee hours of the morning. Safe city. Yessir.

(But don't worry, now that the Cards are in the playoffs, the city of STL is going to step up their presence. People getting smoked right outside the stadium doesn't look good when you're on national TV.....)

Andrea Waters

meh, that's big city living. I live less than a half mile from Wrigley in one of the most sought after zip codes in entire Chicago area. My street is lined with two and three million dollar single family homes on double lots. There are armed robberies in daylight happening almost everyday here. Several have happened directly in front of or next door the police station on Addison. I'd tell visitors to avoid Wrigley but we both know that's not going to happen.

GregL

I would agree completely with this comment...

Greg

cheltzel

I think a lot of the discussion about violent crimes in St Louis (or Chicago for that matter) is a bit disingenuous.

The fact is the murder and other violent crime rates are extremely high in our cities. Chicago has a murder rate of 15.3 per 100,000 in population. If Chicago were a sovereign nation, it would be considered about the 30th most dangerous place in the world (based on murder rate).

St Louis on the other hand is much, much higher. According to the press reports I can find, there have been over 150 murders so far this year and the effective murder rate is 51.4 per 100,000 in population. That would make St Louis the 3rd most dangerous country in the world (just behind Venezuela at 53.6 per 100,000 and way behind Honduras at 90.4 per 100,000). The increase in st Louis murders represents a doubling of the murder rate in just a couple of years.

I am not trying to run down St Louis (or Chicago). I live in the Chicago metro area and my son lives in the St Louis metro area. I enjoy visiting St Louis and would consider moving there when I retire (assuming my son stays in St Louis). But the murder and violent crime rates are very real.

Personally I take exception to statements that seem to indicate that people who get caught up as the victim of a violent crime and not being aware enough and that all you have to do is have your "big city smarts" at full power.

This is implicitly victim blaming.

If you like living in a certain area and have made accommodations for the safety or security issues that come with that area, I am happy for you. But most of our urban areas are dangerous places. And St Louis in particular is one of the most violent.

backprop

This has been discussed to death locally, but I'm not surprised it hasn't reached a wider audience. So indulge me briefly on the forum if you would.

Note that I'm not making excuses for any crime or other shortcoming of the St. Louis area. But there's a very important point that's missing from the crime rate statistics you quote.

St. Louis is one of only two large Independent Cities in the U.S., the other being Baltimore.

This means that St. Louis does not belong to a county or parish. Further, it withdrew from its county in 1876 - more than fifty years before Baltimore did. Because of this, it has not been able to annex a single square inch of land in that time. As other cities - Chicago is a big example - grew and annexed their hinterlands throughout the late 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries, St. Louis didn't. And it doesn't to this day. [As an aside, there are efforts underway to try to undo the "Great Divorce."]

In short, that means that a very large proportion of St. Louis's relatively tiny land area (it isn't even in the top 150 cities by land area) consists of what most people would call the "inner city." And like most cities, that's where the most crime is located.

In short, the crime statistics aren't "diluted" over a wider, area as in almost every other city, save Baltimore (and Carson City, NV, if you want to include those of less than 100K population). And as I mentioned before, those cities had much more time to annex the more affluent areas surrounding them.

If one were to extend the City of St. Louis's borders just to those municipalities including or adjacent to the most inner ring road (I-270) - which would more than triple the population - the murder rate plummets. In fact, crime in this area is statistically average for a U.S. city.

Again, I'm not making excuses for crime that does exist; the attack after the ballgame, for example, is tragic. Nor am I suggesting statistical alchemy to make things appear better. But realize that, in this case, the anomaly is actually comparing the statistical St. Louis crime rate to that of most other cities and expecting an apples-to-apples result.

Delta Hog

If you go south from St. Louis on I-55 (say, to Memphis or New Orleans), you'll drive right through Arnold.

pseudoswede

Sorry. I meant you'll never have any reason to stop there--except maybe to fuel up by the highway.