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.
Just give the Kings back to KC and all will be good (yes, I know sac is not the bay).
Oakland can give the A's back to KC too, maybe if the A's and Royals combined their wins, they could compete for a play-off spot or at least play in a nicer stadium in KC.
What's the latest on the A's, they going to San Jose?
I would agree with the below quote though. But do you have to live in Oakland or can you live anyplace in the bay. If it's Oakland only, I would probably stick to Kansas City as far as urban living over Oakland (less riff raf). But the bay area obviously has more to offer than metro KC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by publichermit
I lived in Kansas City for over a decade and currently live in Sacramento but spend quite a bit of time in Oakland. In my opinion, they are both great towns. KC tends to be more conservative, has worse weather and lacks the scenic beauty of the Oakland area. However, the Oakland has more crime, gangs and is generally more expensive. Both have great restaurants, cultural attractions and pro sports teams. You can't dismiss the benefit of having SF just over the bridge though. In KC, the nearest "city" is more than 3 hours away (Des Moines).
KC over Sacramento without a question, but KC vs Oakland is pretty much a toss up based on what is important to you.
Kansas City is better, no question about it for sure. Kansas City has a downtown where people hang out at Power Light while Oakland is just flickering with its new Fox theater dinner and bar scene. Kansas City is much more fun than Oakland with hot chics everywhere, although not as many as San Diego.
I most definitely prefer KANSAS CITY over OAKLAND ... it's a regional city with a rich history, enviable urban attributes and amenities ... spacious suburbs and "character"
Oakland is a decent city, but again, no match for a stand alone regional city like KC.
I most definitely prefer KANSAS CITY over OAKLAND ... it's a regional city with a rich history, enviable urban attributes and amenities ... spacious suburbs and "character"
Oakland is a decent city, but again, no match for a stand alone regional city like KC.
I don't see where you get part of this impression... Kansas City and Oakland became cities at about the same time. Are you trying to say that Oakland doesn't have a rich history? Ever heard of the Ohlone? The Gold Rush? The history of the Oakland Chinatown? The Black Panthers? The history of Jack London Square? I don't understand your point about spacious suburbs and "character" either. It's been historically the only major "chocolate city" on the west coast and its historically been one of the most liberal cities in America... I would say that gives it a lot of character. But I digress.
Just give the Kings back to KC and all will be good (yes, I know sac is not the bay).
Oakland can give the A's back to KC too, maybe if the A's and Royals combined their wins, they could compete for a play-off spot or at least play in a nicer stadium in KC.
What's the latest on the A's, they going to San Jose?
I would agree with the below quote though. But do you have to live in Oakland or can you live anyplace in the bay. If it's Oakland only, I would probably stick to Kansas City as far as urban living over Oakland (less riff raf). But the bay area obviously has more to offer than metro KC.
Even though you continously trash Omaha any chance you get, I still voted for KC
Oops, maybe it was somebody with a similar name. That said, KC is a place that I follow closely and visit now and then (it's only a few hours away).
I was going to say I back up omaha and promote it all the time. I think it's highly underated and an urban gem in the midwest.
Now I did rank it last in that KC/StL/Detroit/New orleans poll just because it's simply a bit too small to compare to those cities well. But it's a great city and I say so all the time on these forums.
Here is the last thing I said about Omaha...
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcmo
Nebraska. Omaha is awesome. It's a rather urban smaller city with a nice active downtown, vibrant urban recreation along the waterways, fantastic zoo. I can see Omaha taking off some day and the topography around Omaha is anything but what people imagine Nebraska to be. Hilly, forested etc. Creighton University, Midtown Omaha seems to be hot, Lincoln is a cool town too.
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.
(yes, I know sac is not the bay).
