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.
The topography of the metro areas is actually very similar. The area around Nashville (going out 50-100 miles) is where Nashville has better topography.
I will still say that KC is larger, more urban city and much more my style. It has more attractions and things to do IMO than Nashville.
And while KC has really done a lot in the last five years or so, Nashville is growing much more rapidly and is quickly closing in on KC. The gap between the cities is rapidly narrowing.
KC still has huge issues with regional cooperation. Not just MO vs KS, but even parts of the MO side do not seem to be on the same page. The Northland wants something different than Jackson County etc.
That combined with the total lack of corporate support for the central city is really harming KC's ability to compete and is the main reason that Nashville will likely pass KC in the next 15 years. Not to mention that KC seems to have the most conservative local developers of any big city I have seen. Luckily outside developers have started to enter the market.
KC will still be playing with their Podunk airport and trying to build another 5 miles of streetcar while Nashville starts to build light rail, a major airport terminal. Office towers along with hotel and residential towers sprout up in Nashville like KC has not seen since the 1980s. It doesn't look like KC will see major office construction downtown for decades. That will hurt KC.
So again, KC is booming with residential in the downtown area, which I don't think is sustainable when all the jobs are in the suburbs. So the lack of urban core jobs, corporate interest and the inability of metro residents to want to improve and build up (or rebuild) the city's infrastructure (transit, airport, recreation) will keep it from keeping up with Nashville and many other cities.
Even so, I would still choose KC even as it continues to lose ground to other metros. There is just a cool vibe about KC that's difficult to describe (at least in the urban core, I don't really like metro KC outside the core).
Too much to list in great detail. Nashville has grown a lot since 2010
Quote:
And how does nashville win in scenery?
Although subjective, I prefer Nashville for its dense forests, numerous waterways, lakes, and superb outdoor recreation. Nashville's rolling hills make it a charming looking city.
The topography of the metro areas is actually very similar. The area around Nashville (going out 50-100 miles) is where Nashville has better topography.
I will still say that KC is larger, more urban city and much more my style. It has more attractions and things to do IMO than Nashville.
And while KC has really done a lot in the last five years or so, Nashville is growing much more rapidly and is quickly closing in on KC. The gap between the cities is rapidly narrowing.
KC still has huge issues with regional cooperation. Not just MO vs KS, but even parts of the MO side do not seem to be on the same page. The Northland wants something different than Jackson County etc.
That combined with the total lack of corporate support for the central city is really harming KC's ability to compete and is the main reason that Nashville will likely pass KC in the next 15 years. Not to mention that KC seems to have the most conservative local developers of any big city I have seen. Luckily outside developers have started to enter the market.
KC will still be playing with their Podunk airport and trying to build another 5 miles of streetcar while Nashville starts to build light rail, a major airport terminal. Office towers along with hotel and residential towers sprout up in Nashville like KC has not seen since the 1980s. It doesn't look like KC will see major office construction downtown for decades. That will hurt KC.
So again, KC is booming with residential in the downtown area, which I don't think is sustainable when all the jobs are in the suburbs. So the lack of urban core jobs, corporate interest and the inability of metro residents to want to improve and build up (or rebuild) the city's infrastructure (transit, airport, recreation) will keep it from keeping up with Nashville and many other cities.
Even so, I would still choose KC even as it continues to lose ground to other metros. There is just a cool vibe about KC that's difficult to describe (at least in the urban core, I don't really like metro KC outside the core).
When I visit these two cities on google map I find that Nashville has more urbanised street and infrastructure than Kansas City, you don't think that ?
When I visit these two cities on google map I find that Nashville has more urbanised street and infrastructure than Kansas City, you don't think that ?
Hmmm. Both cities down to their core, you will find that KC is much more urban that Nashville. Google maps can be very deceptive I guess.
Hmmm. Both cities down to their core, you will find that KC is much more urban that Nashville. Google maps can be very deceptive I guess.
Yes, Kansas City feel more urban in the core but Nashville look more urban in a greater perimeter, not only in the core. Kansas City tend to be more spread, if you move away from the core, you noticed that some street look quite rural...
Yes, Kansas City feel more urban in the core but Nashville look more urban in a greater perimeter, Kansas City tend to be more disprayed, some street look quite rural...
Could it be in part because Nashville has close to ~200 square miles more than KC, either ways both cities are very suburban once you leave out the core, I have been to Nashville and in no way I will say that Nashville is urban in the greater perimeter, it is as sprawling as KC just on a larger scale you could say.
I find that Nashville has more urbanised street and infrastructure than Kansas City, you don't think that ?
No. The urban part of Nashville is quite a bit smaller and less urban than the urban part of KC. And it's a great deal more spread out. Even if Nashville continues growing as fast as fast as it currently is, it would take a long while for it to catch up in sheer size, and the way Nashville is currently growing, it's unlikely to catch up in terms of urbanity.
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.
