Quote:
Originally Posted by Tryingtostart
brooksider2brooklyn that is a really good point. I have been to the Bay Area a few times on vacations and love it, but realistically know that I cannot afford to live there without winning the lottery. Kansas City would be considerably closer to family (although still decently far), but Sacramento may have better weather. Honestly the most important thing is being in a progressive city, that is decently walkable/bike-able, has a lot to do,has a thriving gay community and won't break the bank... It sure is a dilemma  |
I'll be honest with you. KC's bicycle infrastructure sucks. I enjoy urban cycling and have biked in most major cities, and KC is WAY behind in having marked bike lanes, (let alone dedicated bike lanes), urban off road paths such as levee trails etc. They are just now getting some basic marked bike lanes in the downtown area. Even though the city is full of parks and has two major rivers running through it, there are very few cycleways, or paths that go anywhere or connect to anything.
But...With the amount of people moving into the downtown/midtown areas of KCMO, I think they have a pretty good chance of rapidly catching up on some of this stuff. There is no other city with so many people living in a downtown area with so few urban recreation options. The residents have to start demanding more from the city at some point, especially residents that have lived in other major cities and are used to having much better recreation and cycling infrastructure. So KC needs more people like you to move there.
Having said that. If you like to cycle, you can easily enjoy KC even though it lacks a lot of infrastructure. It's a really cool city to bike around, but the urban core is pretty hilly compared to Sacramento.
I like Sacramento and I might choose it over KC but only because of its proximity to the SF Bay area.
But as far as the city vs the city, I personally would take KC over Sacramento. I just feel like KC has a lot more urban charm. To me, the city is just a lot more "interesting". All the mixes of architecture, just enough grit to give it some character and flavor. I honesty think KC has more to do as a city than Sacramento. More pro sports, more attractions (amusement parks, museums etc). KC seems more like a stand alone metro that is actually a regional destination while Sacramento is in the shadow of SF and people go to SF for the "big city". I'm not gay, but it seems like KC's gay community is no different than any other large city. KC has a very vibrant arts scene. I would say KC's arts, theater etc can compete with cities much bigger than KC.
KC's biggest downfall compared to Sac is being in the middle of the country in a metro that lives in two conservative states run by right wing politicians (KC's urban core is very liberal and the suburbs are moderate) . KC is surrounded by mostly farmland, no national parks, mountains, oceans, etc like you have near the east and west coasts. The Lake of the Ozarks are other parts of Missouri are nice, but a few hours away.
But KC's not so great location is also a positive. KC is a fantastic place to live if you want to travel and see the entire country. There is not a long flight from KC. You can be in any major city on either coast within 2-3 hours by plane and most of the country is within a day's drive. It's a great home base if you like to travel and not live in a bubble like most people do in areas like the Bay area.
I would imagine you would be happy in either Sac or KC.
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.
