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.
Great thread here. Thanks for the informative posts. I think that Kansas City is the runaway winner here. Omaha is in the sphere, but it's too closely aligned with the upper midwest. Wichita is too small to be a "capital" city. This could be Denver's title based on geography alone, but Denver hates being labelled a Plains city. Denver is a West Coast city for all intensive purposes. Conversely, KC embraces the Plains. OKC is not a bad choice, but OKC is not culturally a Great Plains place.
Also, the 100th Meridian runs through the Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. So the city should be in one of those states. Sure, KC is mostly KC Missouri, but the psychology of the place is very much Kansas. For example, the place is overflowing with Jayhawks alumni from KU. On that note... when the Big 8 athletics conference was going strong, with KC hosting the conference basketball tournaments, KC really was the hub of the plains, with fans from Nebraska, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, etc rolling into town every spring. Losing Colorado and Nebraska (and other teams) was really bad for the conference's regional character.
Also, the 100th Meridian runs through the Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. So the city should be in one of those states. Sure, KC is mostly KC Missouri, but the psychology of the place is very much Kansas. For example, the place is overflowing with Jayhawks alumni from KU. On that note... when the Big 8 athletics conference was going strong, with KC hosting the conference basketball tournaments, KC really was the hub of the plains, with fans from Nebraska, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, etc rolling into town every spring. Losing Colorado and Nebraska (and other teams) was really bad for the conference's regional character.
This native Missourian son of a Jayhawk mom understands what you're saying 100 percent.
It's also what John Guinther recognized back in 1946 when he wrote in his book Inside U.S.A. that Kansas City, Mo., was "the capital of a state it's not even in."
I've never really forgiven the Texans for hijacking the Big 8. The addition of those four schools to form the Big 12 was the first step towards the disintegration of the athletic conference of the Plains.
I'd also finger Missouri's bolting the conference for the SEC as another, even greater, blow. That brought to an end the football rivalry that (naturally) gripped Kansas City every year: MU-KU.
Great thread here. Thanks for the informative posts. I think that Kansas City is the runaway winner here. Omaha is in the sphere, but it's too closely aligned with the upper midwest. Wichita is too small to be a "capital" city. This could be Denver's title based on geography alone, but Denver hates being labelled a Plains city. Denver is a West Coast city for all intensive purposes. Conversely, KC embraces the Plains. OKC is not a bad choice, but OKC is not culturally a Great Plains place.
Also, the 100th Meridian runs through the Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. So the city should be in one of those states. Sure, KC is mostly KC Missouri, but the psychology of the place is very much Kansas. For example, the place is overflowing with Jayhawks alumni from KU. On that note... when the Big 8 athletics conference was going strong, with KC hosting the conference basketball tournaments, KC really was the hub of the plains, with fans from Nebraska, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, etc rolling into town every spring. Losing Colorado and Nebraska (and other teams) was really bad for the conference's regional character.
I would not even consider Las Vegas a west coast city let alone Denver. Denver is part of the mountain west through and through.
Great thread here. Thanks for the informative posts. I think that Kansas City is the runaway winner here. Omaha is in the sphere, but it's too closely aligned with the upper midwest. Wichita is too small to be a "capital" city. This could be Denver's title based on geography alone, but Denver hates being labelled a Plains city. Denver is a West Coast city for all intensive purposes. Conversely, KC embraces the Plains. OKC is not a bad choice, but OKC is not culturally a Great Plains place.
Also, the 100th Meridian runs through the Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. So the city should be in one of those states. Sure, KC is mostly KC Missouri, but the psychology of the place is very much Kansas. For example, the place is overflowing with Jayhawks alumni from KU. On that note... when the Big 8 athletics conference was going strong, with KC hosting the conference basketball tournaments, KC really was the hub of the plains, with fans from Nebraska, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, etc rolling into town every spring. Losing Colorado and Nebraska (and other teams) was really bad for the conference's regional character.
I'm not usually "that guy" but the saying is "intents and purposes". I'm not being rude, just thought you'd want to know.
I would not even consider Las Vegas a west coast city let alone Denver. Denver is part of the mountain west through and through.
Geographically speaking, though, it sits at the point where the Plains give way to the mountains. The rise to 5,280 feet above sea level is a gradual one as you head west across western Kansas and eastern Colorado.
And one of Denver's nicknames, believe it or not, is "The Queen City of the Plains."
But given the now-stronger association between the city and the mountains to its west, not to mention KC's stronger ties to the agricultural economy of the Plains (Denver's ties are stronger to the extractive industries of the Intermountain West), the case for Kansas City as the capital of the Great Plains remains stronger.
That's a great point. The Kansas City economy is closely associated with Great Plains commodities. All you have to do is drive around downtown Kansas City and look out for what is being hauled around by rail cars. Whereas the story of Denver's impressive skyline has historically been the story of the oil and gas industry.
To speak to your other point, there are definitely two Denvers. The "imagined Denver" that we know from media--an urban utopia surrounded by snowy peaks, green forests, and high-end ski resorts-- and there's the real Denver you experience on the ground, which is still urban but grittier, flat, brown, and a bit scrubby at the edges (particularly the easterly edges). Personally I prefer the latter, but Denver's marketing people definitely don't!
The other strange irony is that Kansas City is way more hilly and green than its depictions in the media. People who haven't been to KC sometimes envision a hard-scrabble city sitting in the middle of a desolate dust bowl (though there are cities like that which shall not be named).
Smack dab in the middle of the Great Plains. It's large enough to assume the role and it's also historically an E-W transportation transportation nexus for the country.
Denver would be second but even though it's technically Great Plains, it's oriented too far west.
"Great Plains" seems more of a natural or ecological boundary than a political boundary. I only lived in Norman OK for 4 years, but it didn't feel like the great plains like Wichita or even Denver. I like your definition of the (western edge) of the Cross Timbers being the start of the great plains, because it did feel much more "great plains" starting somewhere between Guthrie and the Kansas line.
Norman is fascinating in that the city of Norman is literally on the edge of the plains (as is OKC, Edmond). Basically the city of Norman is in the plains (as there were no trees in Norman prior to settlement) yet just 3 miles east of Norman you are in the thick of the crosstimbers. By the time you are 5 miles east of Norman you are in one of the thickest part of the entire crosstimbers region. Thick, thick woods.
That's a great point. The Kansas City economy is closely associated with Great Plains commodities. All you have to do is drive around downtown Kansas City and look out for what is being hauled around by rail cars. Whereas the story of Denver's impressive skyline has historically been the story of the oil and gas industry.
To speak to your other point, there are definitely two Denvers. The "imagined Denver" that we know from media--an urban utopia surrounded by snowy peaks, green forests, and high-end ski resorts-- and there's the real Denver you experience on the ground, which is still urban but grittier, flat, brown, and a bit scrubby at the edges (particularly the easterly edges). Personally I prefer the latter, but Denver's marketing people definitely don't!
The other strange irony is that Kansas City is way more hilly and green than its depictions in the media. People who haven't been to KC sometimes envision a hard-scrabble city sitting in the middle of a desolate dust bowl (though there are cities like that which shall not be named).
So you've obviously been to Kansas City, then.
I try to make the point you make in your last paragraph to everyone I know. I did, however, get into an interesting argument with someone whose definition of "flat" had less to do with the actual topography of the place in question and more to do with whether one could see mountains or high hills somewhere terminating the vista. Using that metric, Kansas City is "flat" even though it isn't, while Los Angeles isn't flat even though most of the city stretches out in a flat plain that's ringed by mountains.
Still, my definition of "flat" is Chicago. No other Midwestern city I've been in save maybe Indianapolis matches it for unbroken stretches of flat land stretching into infinity.
And KC is definitely one of the greenest cities in the country. By "green" here I'm referring to the amount of trees, shrubs and the like lining the streets and scattered around the landscape, not to any particular level of eco-consciousness.
I voted for Oklahoma's largest city, also known as Dallas.
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.
