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.
KCMO is my all time favorite city. I could go on and on about it.
All the midwest, tho, can have oppressive summers with no breezes.
KCMO is the only city out of the 5 I'm considering (Cleveland, Cincinnati, Indy, St Louis) that I've been to. I go there just to hang out, occasionally. I like the place, I get a really laid-back vibe from it. Far too many highways though. I feel like I can't go anywhere without getting on a highway.
KCMO is the only city out of the 5 I'm considering (Cleveland, Cincinnati, Indy, St Louis) that I've been to. I go there just to hang out, occasionally. I like the place, I get a really laid-back vibe from it. Far too many highways though. I feel like I can't go anywhere without getting on a highway.
I've long said that my forever hometown is a drive-everywhere sort of place. Yes, it has a bus system, and it seems everyone loves the downtown streetcar, but the streetcar's just a circulator for now. (It is being extended south to the Country Club Plaza and the UMKC campus.)
According to stats I'm familiar with, Kansas City has more freeway lane-miles per capita than any other sizable U.S. city. And according to another data set I've seen (I think it's the Tom Tom Traffic Index), Kansas City has the least congestion of any large city in the Western Hemisphere. Or did: the latest index puts it fourth from the bottom among large (800k+ residents) cities worldwide, tied with Indianapolis and outranked by only Knoxville and Dayton. If you limit the survey to cities (metros) of 2 million or more - a bar Kansas City clears but the other three cities don't - then Kansas City actually has the lowest traffic congestion of any large city in the world.
(The latest INRIX Global Traffic Scorecard, based on more recent data, ranks Kansas City 198th most congested of 220 large cities worldwide. 13 U.S. cities, all of them significantly smaller save for #200 St. Louis, rank lower on the congestion scale.)
I don't consider this an argument for the pave-the-earth approach to handling traffic, however. When I visited the city in 2014, most of my travels around the older built-up part avoided the freeways completely - only one, Bruce Watkins Drive, went anywhere near where I was or where I wanted to go, and the same applied to my commute from my East Side home to The Kansas City Star when I lived and worked there. The city also has a well-developed network of arterial streets that IMO take the pressure off most of the freeways.
I've long said that my forever hometown is a drive-everywhere sort of place. Yes, it has a bus system, and it seems everyone loves the downtown streetcar, but the streetcar's just a circulator for now. (It is being extended south to the Country Club Plaza and the UMKC campus.)
According to stats I'm familiar with, Kansas City has more freeway lane-miles per capita than any other sizable U.S. city. And according to another data set I've seen (I think it's the Tom Tom Traffic Index), Kansas City has the least congestion of any large city in the Western Hemisphere. Or did: the latest index puts it fourth from the bottom among large (800k+ residents) cities worldwide, tied with Indianapolis and outranked by only Knoxville and Dayton. If you limit the survey to cities (metros) of 2 million or more - a bar Kansas City clears but the other three cities don't - then Kansas City actually has the lowest traffic congestion of any large city in the world.
(The latest INRIX Global Traffic Scorecard, based on more recent data, ranks Kansas City 198th most congested of 220 large cities worldwide. 13 U.S. cities, all of them significantly smaller save for #200 St. Louis, rank lower on the congestion scale.)
I don't consider this an argument for the pave-the-earth approach to handling traffic, however. When I visited the city in 2014, most of my travels around the older built-up part avoided the freeways completely - only one, Bruce Watkins Drive, went anywhere near where I was or where I wanted to go, and the same applied to my commute from my East Side home to The Kansas City Star when I lived and worked there. The city also has a well-developed network of arterial streets that IMO take the pressure off most of the freeways.
Ah, so my feelings of KC having an excessive amount of highways isn't just my imagination, there's data to back it up.
But yes, Kansas city is rather easy to get around in. The low traffic congestion is a major positive for me. One of the reasons I ruled out Pittsburgh is because of the ridiculous amount of traffic congestion it has for a city its size.
KCMO is my all time favorite city. I could go on and on about it.
All the midwest, tho, can have oppressive summers with no breezes.
No, not exactly. There are plenty of areas of the Midwest with nicer summer temperatures, just not in areas that have large populations. Some places with nice summer temperatures in the Midwest: Duluth, Eau Claire, Green Bay, Marquette, St. Cloud, Grand Rapids, etc. All of those places have high temperatures in the 70s to low 80s most of the time from June through August. KC is at the southwest edge of the Midwest, and really has VERY LITTLE in common in terms of climate with most areas of the Midwest, but does share many climate attributes of areas to the south and west of it, especially during the summer.
No, not exactly. There are plenty of areas of the Midwest with nicer summer temperatures, just not in areas that have large populations. Some places with nice summer temperatures in the Midwest: Duluth, Eau Claire, Green Bay, Marquette, St. Cloud, Grand Rapids, etc. All of those places have high temperatures in the 70s to low 80s most of the time from June through August. KC is at the southwest edge of the Midwest, and really has VERY LITTLE in common in terms of climate with most areas of the Midwest, but does share many climate attributes of areas to the south and west of it, especially during the summer.
The weather in the four states that just about center on Kansas City - Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri (local weathercasts on KC TV stations show maps with all four states when they go to the local/regional forecast) - is more like that of Kansas City than like that of the Northern Midwest states that are home to the cities you list above. Granted, Iowa and Nebraska have fewer tornadoes than Missouri and Kansas, but aside from that, the temps are similar in summer and winter, and the balance between those two seasons is closer to even than it is in the northern tier of the Midwest.
And don't forget that the four states to Kansas City's west - both Dakotas, Nebraska and Kansas - are also part of the Midwest. KC lies not at its southern edge but just south of the center of the "agricultural Midwest" (the "industrial Midwest" lies east of the Mississippi).
The weather in the four states that just about center on Kansas City - Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri (local weathercasts on KC TV stations show maps with all four states when they go to the local/regional forecast) - is more like that of Kansas City than like that of the Northern Midwest states that are home to the cities you list above. Granted, Iowa and Nebraska have fewer tornadoes than Missouri and Kansas, but aside from that, the temps are similar in summer and winter, and the balance between those two seasons is closer to even than it is in the northern tier of the Midwest.
And don't forget that the four states to Kansas City's west - both Dakotas, Nebraska and Kansas - are also part of the Midwest. KC lies not at its southern edge but just south of the center of the "agricultural Midwest" (the "industrial Midwest" lies east of the Mississippi).
In terms of summer high temperatures KC is hotter than just about anywhere in the Midwest period, unless you include Wichita, which is an even more peripheral city in the Midwest at best. You are correct that the Corn Belt is to the north of KC, I don't think anyone would dispute that. There are a few counties in Kansas that are solidly in the Corn Belt like Nemaha, Brown, etc, but they are on the Nebraska border.
The Great Lakes region has infinitely better summer temperatures than the Great Plains.
I am relocating to KC this summer. I have visited many times, and love KC. That said it's not for everyone. KC is a great city, but it imo lacks most in outdoor recreation. If that is a deal breaker for you St Louis maybe a better fit. Otherwise I think there is a good chance you will like KC. It is truly a hidden gem, with much to offer for its size.
I've lived in St Louis and KC and prefer KC. The two cities are a lot more alike than their citizens would ever admit but there are some big differences. I live in KC but have in laws in St Louis so I visit StL multiple times per year. I'm not from either city so I'm not a total homer.
the cool parts of KC are much more connected. From River Market south to Waldo is pretty much the best of KC with very few bad areas in between. St Louis has some really rough spots between Soulard, Downtown, CWE, the Hill, The Loop, etc. KC has a lot of crime too but I think the good areas of KC are much further removed from the rough areas.
St. Louis has better Italian food. KC has better Mexican food and BBQ.
Forest Park is awesome and better than any park in KC.
KC is kind of a cross between Texas/the west and the Midwest. St Louis is decidedly Midwest. Weather is about the same but I'd say KC has more sunny weather and maybe a little more wind. It rains a little more in St Louis.
Hockey is big in StL but not big at all in KC. KC has pro baseball, football and soccer. St Louis has pro baseball and hockey. Baseball is bigger in St Louis. The Cardinals are just HUGE there. College sports are bigger in KC.
KC people are a little more welcoming and friendly, imo. KC seems to have more people not from KC.
KC is a better young people city, the cool areas of KC where young people live (River Market south to Plaza) are much more concentrated and close to each other. St Louis young people areas are more spread out and disjointed.
Traffic is about the same. Probably slightly better in KC bc of the grid system of streets but not a huge difference. People drive a little faster and more aggressively in St Louis.
I am relocating to KC this summer. I have visited many times, and love KC. That said it's not for everyone. KC is a great city, but it imo lacks most in outdoor recreation. If that is a deal breaker for you St Louis maybe a better fit. Otherwise I think there is a good chance you will like KC. It is truly a hidden gem, with much to offer for its size.
Eh St Louis isn't much better in that regard. St Louis is a little closer to the Ozarks and the far sw burbs are ozark-y but the cities themselves aren't much different.
What outdoor stuff do you like? I know the hiking/biking trails pretty well and most of the other outdoors stuff here. I might be able to give you some good suggestions.
People drive a little faster and more aggressively in St Louis.
You are being too polite about St Louis drivers.
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.
