What are the differences between the 2? Other than the obvious. STL is slightly older and has a metro of 2.8mil vs 2.3. My gf is from STL and I've been trying to tell her that STL may be in the Midwest but it has more of a East/slightly smaller version of Chicago vibe. Not that that's a bad thing(I've always enjoyed my times there). KC is more like a smaller version of Dallas. I feel like KC is on more of an upswing while St. Louis City gets stuck in limbo in terms of city projects due to most of the money being in St. Charles County. While the snobs in KC suburbs in KS and MO may still be stingy in terms of projects in KCMO they still realize it's the flagship city of the metro. Same state and only 3 hours of highway between them but 2 totally different places imo.
The following will be a combination of opinions and facts about the metro areas of both cities. St. Louis, Clayton, Kirkwood, Ladue and Liberty, Lee's Summit, Overland Park, Lenexa, Olathe etc.
*Both encompass 2 states; MO/IL and MO/KS
*KC has the lower population that is growing, while STL has a higher population that is declining.
*STL feels more like a metro and I always said it wants to compete/compare itself to Chicago, it's a smaller Chicago. KC feels like a big small town.
*There are two Kansas City(s); KCK and KCMO
*University of Missouri System has a campus in each town; UMKC and UMSL. Flagship campus is in Columbia, MO.
*Usually people from STL (this might have softened recently) look down on KC and still think it's a cow town. KC doesn't give a rip about STL and think Cardinal fans are obnoxious.
* KC seems to be flourishing, while STL is slowly dying.
*If you grew up in STL and meet another person who also grew up there, a very common question is "What high school did you attend?" (this always made me laugh out loud)
*Both have revitalized Union Stations, with the Hilton in STL being a really cool hotel.
*The traffic on I-70 between the two metros is heavy with semi-tractors.