Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Cleveland bound with MPLS in the rear-view
5,509 posts, read 11,872,410 times
Reputation: 2501
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcmo
You are right, it is something that affects all metro areas, but things are a bit different in KC. There is just a general lack of cooperation (and respect) across that state line that really does keep the entire metro in somewhat of a rut compared to what the metro could be if they ever got on the same page. 90% of the growth in metro KC comes at the expense of some other part of metro KC and it often comes with extremely excessive corporate handouts which does nothing but erode the overall corporate tax base of the metro. Most of the aggression comes from the Kansas side as they have everything to gain and little to lose. They don’t understand that they are destroying the very city that give the Kansas side a reason to exist in the first place.
KC is way too small to have such a power and aggressive corporate county constantly poaching off it and contributing nothing. The second largest county in metro KC is basically KCMO’s biggest enemy and competitor. A metro area just can’t function like that and that’s why KC can’t get over the hump and get back to the days of the city being major player in the country (like it was before the KS side transformed from a bedroom suburb to a leaching poaching tumor on the back side of KCMO). Yea, that’s how I really feel and that’s how a LOT of people in the KC area feel, including the mayor of kcmo.
Interesting....I just read a very similar story about a problem here in Cleveland, and the State is hoping to make a law against robbing cities of their companies.
I saw your comment in the Minneapolis-St. Paul forum where you stated that your main reason for souring on Minneapolis was because you felt that as an African-American man, you were not treated well in Minneapolis. You should probably have stated that here if that's what motivated these comments. There is nothing wrong with it if that's the way you feel, but people should know if that's what is motivating your attitude.
I like both Minneapolis and Kansas City. I have family in both cities. But I'm not African-American. Overall, there are about the same number of African-Americans in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metro area as there are in the Kansas City metro area. But Kansas City metro does have a higher African-American percentage, because the Kansas City metro is smaller. The city of Kansas City, MO also has a higher African-American percentage (about 30%) than the city of Minneapolis, MN (about 17%). Kansas City, MO also has a richer African-American history and culture, with barbeque, jazz, Negro Leagues baseball, etc. I can see how you would feel as an African-American that Kansas City feels more comfortable to you than Minneapolis.
That does not mean that I think that Minneapolis is unwelcoming for African-Americans. I don't think that is the case. Minnesota's African-American population has grown by 300% over the last two decades (since 1990), with most of them moving to the Minneapolis-St. Paul metro area. Clearly, black people have been voting with their feet by moving to Minneapolis, so there must be something that they like about it. But Minneapolis has historically had much more of a northern European-based culture.
I agree and disagree with some of the things that you said in your recent comments comparing Kansas City and Minneapolis. In short, overall as a metro area and as a city, I think Minneapolis beats Kansas City. Minneapolis is larger, has a better economy, is cleaner, has less crime, better schools (even in the city, KCMO city schools are worse than MPLS city schools), better public transit, better airport, more professional sports, and a more well-designed urban grid.
BUT, Kansas City, when you look at individual components like museums, theaters, architecture, train stations, shopping, KC Central library vs Minneapolis Central library, the Plaza vs. Nicollet Mall, etc. Kansas City does have some things that are better than Minneapolis on an individual level.
I'm sorry that you had bad experiences that you perceived as racism in Minneapolis. There is nothing wrong with going where you feel most comfortable. But I would caution against judging Minneapolis too quickly based on a few experiences.
I just think he sees the world through KC colored glasses -- not necessarily a troll. Some of his claims and comparisons are ridiculous though and kinda laughable (less interesting Fortune 500 Cos.; "tries to be cool but is stiff"). I mean it's one thing to prefer one area over another, but it's a pretty sad comparison between two great cities. He had almost NOTHING good to say about Minneapolis, and everything good to say about KC. That's just not the reality for most people.
If you read his older post, he didn't stay in KC very long from what I could tell... so he doesn't really have any reason to have a personal attachment to KC that I could see.
I will say that I think Minneapolis has more going on for it for KC, but as I said in my original post about this topic... I don't think it's leaps and bounds better...
I love Minneapolis, but if I wanted a change from KC I wouldn't move there... I don't find it to be a significant difference. There are 3 things that jump out as better to me..
1. Very friendly people (and I think KC people are extremely friendly, I find Minneapolis to be EVEN moreso...)
2. Very healthy people.. KC you can live very well without a lot of money. I think that combined with our car focused economy makes it easy for people to very lazy.
3. Transportation is way better... KC sucks in this department. Our train station is nice, to bad Amtrak as a whole in our region blows.
After that I think there are some things KC does way better, and some things that are just really comparable. Which is why as I stated before, if I wanted to get something different from KC I'd look to Chicago, Seattle, Miami, Denver, or even Pittsburgh... and of course a lot of places... just not Minneapolis. The same as I wouldn't choose Cleveland, Indianapolis, Milwaukee, etc... Minneapolis is 2nd best in the Midwest after Chicago... but the difference between a city like Minneapolis and KC is small when you look at the difference between Minneapolis and Chicago.
The sad reality though is, in my opinion KC should be a city that competes with Minneapolis... and it doesn't... and we need to improve on that. Hopefully we get somewhere with our new mayor, who seems to have a better vision.
Location: Cleveland bound with MPLS in the rear-view
5,509 posts, read 11,872,410 times
Reputation: 2501
slept?
KC doesn't need to be as good as Minneapolis for it to be successful. It's still a fine town with a lot going for it. And they are both relatively even-keeled when it comes to amenities -- neither blows the other out of the water on an overall basis. Just wait 'till this Great Plains boom grows and people start flocking to KC, Omaha, OKC, Souix Falls, Rochester, etc. in droves!
I just think he sees the world through KC colored glasses -- not necessarily a troll. Some of his claims and comparisons are ridiculous though and kinda laughable (less interesting Fortune 500 Cos.; "tries to be cool but is stiff"). I mean it's one thing to prefer one area over another, but it's a pretty sad comparison between two great cities. He had almost NOTHING good to say about Minneapolis, and everything good to say about KC. That's just not the reality for most people.
Yes, alot (probably most) of my comments were stupid and ridiculous and unfounded, I'll admit that. As I stated somewhere else, I was being passive-aggressive. But, I still think Kansas City is an up-and-coming city with potential, and definitely has some strong points. And really the Jazz/blues/barbecue culture in KC is very cool. But I'll agree with all of you, Minneapolis is the better city. I don't know if I was being a troll (I certainly don't think I was, but what do I know), but I was being passive-aggressive and sort of "venting" in an indirect way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unity77
I've read through his posts and it seems as though he is simply going off pictures and negative things others have said. IMO, it's clear he hasn't spent enough time in Minneapolis - St. Paul, if any time at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by west336
I sort of got that impression too. I don't understand the Jeckyl and Hyde perspectives, either.
It is a personal problem for me. In real life, I am not that way, but I'm still not very good as expressing my dark feelings (and I am not very direct about them on the online message boards most of the time).
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackOut
The Jekyll-and-Hyde perspective is one trait of trolls. JmanAA is a prime example and it's only a matter of time before he starts posting under a different username.
Maybe so. I am not going to argue with you since I don't know. What I will say, is that I'm not, in any way, trying to be a nuisance or a "pest" or anything like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Earth
JmanAA:
I saw your comment in the Minneapolis-St. Paul forum where you stated that your main reason for souring on Minneapolis was because you felt that as an African-American man, you were not treated well in Minneapolis. You should probably have stated that here if that's what motivated these comments. There is nothing wrong with it if that's the way you feel, but people should know if that's what is motivating your attitude.
Understood.
Quote:
I like both Minneapolis and Kansas City. I have family in both cities. But I'm not African-American. Overall, there are about the same number of African-Americans in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metro area as there are in the Kansas City metro area. But Kansas City metro does have a higher African-American percentage, because the Kansas City metro is smaller. The city of Kansas City, MO also has a higher African-American percentage (about 30%) than the city of Minneapolis, MN (about 17%). Kansas City, MO also has a richer African-American history and culture, with barbeque, jazz, Negro Leagues baseball, etc. I can see how you would feel as an African-American that Kansas City feels more comfortable to you than Minneapolis.
That does not mean that I think that Minneapolis is unwelcoming for African-Americans. I don't think that is the case. Minnesota's African-American population has grown by 300% over the last two decades (since 1990), with most of them moving to the Minneapolis-St. Paul metro area. Clearly, black people have been voting with their feet by moving to Minneapolis, so there must be something that they like about it. But Minneapolis has historically had much more of a northern European-based culture.
I agree and disagree with some of the things that you said in your recent comments comparing Kansas City and Minneapolis. In short, overall as a metro area and as a city, I think Minneapolis beats Kansas City. Minneapolis is larger, has a better economy, is cleaner, has less crime, better schools (even in the city, KCMO city schools are worse than MPLS city schools), better public transit, better airport, more professional sports, and a more well-designed urban grid.
BUT, Kansas City, when you look at individual components like museums, theaters, architecture, train stations, shopping, KC Central library vs Minneapolis Central library, the Plaza vs. Nicollet Mall, etc. Kansas City does have some things that are better than Minneapolis on an individual level.
I'm sorry that you had bad experiences that you perceived as racism in Minneapolis. There is nothing wrong with going where you feel most comfortable. But I would caution against judging Minneapolis too quickly based on a few experiences.
Exactly. You know, I'm no better than a "racist" or any prejudice person by generalizing an entire population based on a few bad experiences. Thank you for the "head smack."
Also. I wouldn't say I was more comfortable in Kansas City because there was a higher percentage of black people there, but because I did not get the kinds of reactions down there that I had received here in Minneapolis. But you know, this could be a case of the "Minnesota Nice" that everyone seems to talk about on this board. See, I'm doing it again...
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrizzle
If you read his older post, he didn't stay in KC very long from what I could tell... so he doesn't really have any reason to have a personal attachment to KC that I could see.
I will say that I think Minneapolis has more going on for it for KC, but as I said in my original post about this topic... I don't think it's leaps and bounds better...
I love Minneapolis, but if I wanted a change from KC I wouldn't move there... I don't find it to be a significant difference. There are 3 things that jump out as better to me..
1. Very friendly people (and I think KC people are extremely friendly, I find Minneapolis to be EVEN moreso...)
2. Very healthy people.. KC you can live very well without a lot of money. I think that combined with our car focused economy makes it easy for people to very lazy.
3. Transportation is way better... KC sucks in this department. Our train station is nice, to bad Amtrak as a whole in our region blows.
After that I think there are some things KC does way better, and some things that are just really comparable. Which is why as I stated before, if I wanted to get something different from KC I'd look to Chicago, Seattle, Miami, Denver, or even Pittsburgh... and of course a lot of places... just not Minneapolis. The same as I wouldn't choose Cleveland, Indianapolis, Milwaukee, etc... Minneapolis is 2nd best in the Midwest after Chicago... but the difference between a city like Minneapolis and KC is small when you look at the difference between Minneapolis and Chicago.
The sad reality though is, in my opinion KC should be a city that competes with Minneapolis... and it doesn't... and we need to improve on that. Hopefully we get somewhere with our new mayor, who seems to have a better vision.
You're right, I didn't stay in KC very long. I was only in KC for three months, then moved back to Wichita(which is not my hometown, but I did spend a couple of years there). Then saved my money, and decided to make the move to Minneapolis (Seattle was also at the top of my list, but at the end I went with Minneapolis).
Minneapolis has a "first tier" university in the heart of the city.
Something KC lacks to some degree and a major reason Minneapolis wins over KC. Having said that, it's a bit rude to call any university a "joke", especially a university like UMKC. Tell that to the people that spent 4-5 years attending the university and taking similar classes and now working right along side the KU engineers at HNTB.
What UMKC lacks is a major NCAA sports program and a vibrant urban and self sustaining campus atmosphere, which can be found in urban campuses around the country.
The satellite city of Lawrence doesn't add as much to the quality of life in KC that the university of Minnesota does to the quality of life of Minneapolis because lawrence is a separate isolated town while the UM campus and the city are intertwined.
But still, UMKC is a great school. They just need a larger resident student body and a higher tier sports program. Think St Louis University.
Well, I think the reason why UMKC is not on the same level as the University of Minnesota or the University of Kansas (KU), is because UMKC is NOT the main University of Missouri campus. I'm not trying to be a smart arse or anything like that. The main University of Missouri campus is in Columbia, and from well-known info. as well as things I've heard from people who attended that school, it's basically on the same level as KU and the University of Minnesota, and Columbia is just as much a college town as Lawrence. UMKC, from my view, is just a branch. I'm not saying UMKC is a bad school, it's not going to be a top tier university since it's part of a state university system, in which, the anchor happens to be in Columbia. I guess the University of California system is the exception with several schools (UCLA, UC Berkeley, I guess UC San Diego) all being very good schools, but I think in most state unversity systems there's usually only ONE main/dominant school that's accompanied by other lesser tier schools.
Last edited by JmanAA; 06-25-2011 at 12:02 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
