This my Kansas City vs the World thread. I'm doing this because the city continues to be totally overlooked on this forum and generally disrespected when it does come up in a thread.
I have a serious question. Why does KC not get any respect? Is it the name "Kansas"? Is it because it's in the midwest? Is it because few people go there or have been there?
If you are interested in big cities and urban areas at all, KCMO should be on your list of places you want to see someday.
Why is the city always grouped with cities half its size?, cities that have a fraction of the culture? Cities that don't have the museums, pro sports (despite not so pro records), urban building stock etc?
I really want to know why? I now live in the DC/Baltimore area and when I tell people that KC is very similar in size and feel to Baltimore, they look at me like I'm crazy. I won't even try to tell them that the city generally has more to do and far more vibrant urban districts than Baltimore.
Some KC facts:
The city is named Kansas City because the city of "Kansas" (named after the Kansa Indians) developed before the state of Kansas was a state. Kansas City, Kansas came along much later. "KCK" as the locals call it was originally named Wyandotte, also an Indian Tribe, but they re-named themselves Kansas City to be associated with the much larger KCMO which was one of the country's most vibrant and growing urban centers at the time. KCK never became more than a blue collar suburb though. The reason I say this is because the "city" is not in Kansas and is nothing like what most people imagine KS to be like and the metro area in both KS and MO is also nothing like what people imagine KS to be like. The city is quite hilly, is full of trees and is built around rivers and lakes.
Today the KC area is home to over 2 million people. There are 2.6 million people within an hour of Downtown KC (including places like Lawrence and St Joe, which are very much part of the region). Even though the MSA of the KC area is quite large and it really throws off the stats (lawrence is not in MSA while rurual counties further away are), the continuous built up area of metro KCMO has quite average to above average density stats and the continuous built up area of KC has a population substantially higher than many of "KC's" peer cities like Charlotte and Nashville. The urban core of KCMO was built around one the nation's most intense street car systems and the urban core also is quite dense and has incredible urban building stock despite KCMO's overall density stats. So stats don't tell the entire story. You have to visit the city and I don't mean the airport which sits in a massive undeveloped area.
KCMO has several skylines and many dense, vibrant urban districts. KC has an arts and cultural scene that many cities 2-3 times the size of KC would like to have. KC is building a 450 million dollar performing arts center that will rival anything in the world. But I'm sure few will even know it exists outside of KC. The city's country club plaza area has a unique Spanish feel to it that exists nowhere else in the country and is an area that I would rank up there with the French Quarter as one of the more interesting places in the country. KC has huge warehouse districts, highrise districts, and good solid density outside the downtown CBD, something you won't find in many cities like Charlotte, Nashville, Indy or even Denver.
KC has world class art museums and attractions. The National WW1 Monument is in KC. I can go on and on and I will in this thread in future posts.
But I also want to know why the city is so overlooked. Do people realize that KC has hosted a democratic convention? KC has hosted a world series and two all star games. KC has been to two super bowls and 2 world series, not a lot, but better than some. KC has hosted major national soccer game and had some of the largest crowds in doing so. In the 70's, KC had the NHL, NBA, MLB and NFL as well as an indoor soccer team (MISL) that outdrew most NHL and NBA teams. KC had five pro sports teams and even though the NHL only lasted two seasons, the team was terrible and horribly run and didn't last much longer in Denver. Today, the city could easily support NHL and or NBA because the city is a regional city for 8 million people. The city also host major nascar races, major big 12 sporting events etc. KC has hosted more final fours than other other city by a long shot.
My point is that KC is a major league city and has been one for a long time.
So tell me why KC should be grouped with Omaha or Oklahoma City or Raleigh (not putting down those towns)? I honestly would like to know from those that think so.
People really need to get out and visit KC and I will post more photos and info on the city.
But when you think of KC, what cities come to mind that you would consider peers and if you are one of those that think the city is just another small midwestern city with little to do, little to see, horrible topography and ultra low density urban sprawl (in the city and burbs), have I at least gotten you to take a second look?
Note added by Moderator:
Note that all photos above WERE taken by the poster as he is the owner of urban-photos. Do not reuse his photos without written permission.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
