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.
Does anyone happen to have an idea of how KCMO metro population growth has been spread across both Kansas and Missouri? I was under the impression that Kansas' overall share was increasing at the expense of Missouri's, but I could be mistaken.
In St. Louis, Missouri's population share is increasing at the expense at Illinois'.
Pretty sure it's evenly split, roughly. Most of the KC metro is in Missouri, but the "boom" suburbs (Overland Park, Olathe) are in KS.
I know there's a lot of division between KS/MO, however I think both sides enjoy the population growth, for the most part. Though KCMO (the city) definitely gets more love than KCK. So I guess in your comparison, KCMO is more like St Louis, and KCK is more like East St Louis (though not nearly as extreme).
Is like to point out Detroit, Milwaukee and Baltimore don’t have particularly small city limits.
Like Detroit sized metros that are smaller cities than it are Boston, Seattle, San Francisco, Miami, Minneapolis. About the same size is Philly, Tampa, Atlanta, Denver and larger is Phoenix, Dallas, Houston,
Agreed, St. Louis should be like the Boston of the Midwest. Detroit should be something more similar to Philadelphia. De-industrialization and urban renewal really tapered their trajectories.
Detroit put all its eggs in one basket and in 1950, when two thirds of all the world's automobiles were in the US, it seemed like it should have been a safe bet.
Unfortunately it's not a major city so it doesn't belong on this poll. Same reason Toledo isn't here.
Anyway, I'd say a lot of these cities peaked and did reach their full potential like Pittsburgh, Cleveland or Cincinnati. Cincy peaked in the 1800s so I think a lot of people mistakenly think it didn't reach national significance because it was so long ago and they don't realize but it did and shouldn't be voted for. Chicago is the #3 largest city in the country and the 3rd largest metro and is a massive, global force to be reckoned with so I'm going to say it's reached it potential.
St. Louis could've really been something much bigger so it has my vote. Detroit had such a meteoric rise and a catastrophic fall, I would've liked to have seen how it could've evolved if it hadn't crashed so quickly.
Pretty sure it's evenly split, roughly. Most of the KC metro is in Missouri, but the "boom" suburbs (Overland Park, Olathe) are in KS.
I know there's a lot of division between KS/MO, however I think both sides enjoy the population growth, for the most part. Though KCMO (the city) definitely gets more love than KCK. So I guess in your comparison, KCMO is more like St Louis, and KCK is more like East St Louis (though not nearly as extreme).
Not exactly what I was going for with the KCK and ESL comparison, but I see what you mean.
As metro St. Louis has grown since the 50s though the Missouri footprint has pushed further west and the Illinois footprint has pushed further east. East St. Louis is now only the fifth largest city in the Metro East suburbs, and it's obviously a shell of its former self. None of the cities that are adjacent to the St. Louis proper across the Mississippi are doing well, although Granite City isn't in as bad of shape as the rest of them. If you want the desirable areas you need to go even further east these days.
The Illinois suburbs also weren't hurting metro St. Louis' population growth until this last decade as well, but the counties started losing population just like the rest of the state.
Just curious... how much more could Chicago be? Its already a top #3-4 American city.
Further, Chicago stole a lot of thunder from St. Louis, which I think is more or less the winner of this poll.
Interesting point. St. Louis was solidly developed around the Civil War time and was the dominant city in the "West"; Chicago was just coming along. But then, Chicago really boomed during the post-war Industrial Revolution and was positioned to really exploit the rapidly expanding, new-fangle 19th century transportation technology: the railroad.
Chicago began to rival NYC in population in the 1920's-30's....it got passed by Los Angeles as it lost nearly a million people and is now dealing with being a peer to Houston. I'm pretty sure that's not the future they had in mind in the roaring 20's.
A peer to Houston in what terms? Population, sure. But that is about it...
It's probably more pseudo-sunbelt, like Columbus or Indianapolis. But id doesn't feel like it can be compared well to the older, industrial Great Lakes/Northeastern cities like Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Detroit, and Milwaukee.
I haven't been to KC yet but from the pics I've seen, it has an impressive density of older brick lowrises and midrises.in its core that seemingly gives it a more historic aesthetic than Indianapolis and Columbus. Although it's a more historic city, Cincinnati may be a good comparison seeing as though it's essentially a Rustbelt-lite city and had only about 50K more people than KC in 1930.
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.
