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.
I wouldn't say nothing, but probably less than other Midwestern cities. However, like you said, the most logical reason for that is because KC is one of (if not the) furthest large metros from Chicago, retaliative to the Midwest. Hell, even outside the region, Pittsburgh is closer, and even Toronto gives KC a run for it's money in terms of distance.
KC faces West. I have family and friends from KC who've all been to or live(d) in Chicago, but still KC thinks of Chicago as much as Chicago thinks of KC I'm sure. Not until I moved to Indy did I really become curious about the Windy City.
You are absolutely right that "KC faces West." This is definitely true as KC has more influences from the Great Plains region overall and its social norms and culture than the core of the Midwest eastward. The built environment of KC couldn't be more different than cities like Chicago or St. Louis as KC is a heavily suburban metropolitan city with an extreme car culture with everything being so spread out. KC has the most highway lane miles per capita of any metro area in the US. Having grown up and lived in the KC metro area for many years I can tell you for a fact that KC residents are more inclined to travel to Colorado, California, Texas, or Florida more often than Chicagoland, the Northwest, Minneapolis, or anywhere in the eastern US.
Location: Jefferson City 4 days a week, St. Louis 3 days a week
2,709 posts, read 5,092,866 times
Reputation: 1028
Quote:
Originally Posted by GraniteStater
You are absolutely right that "KC faces West." This is definitely true as KC has more influences from the Great Plains region overall and its social norms and culture than the core of the Midwest eastward. The built environment of KC couldn't be more different than cities like Chicago or St. Louis as KC is a heavily suburban metropolitan city with an extreme car culture with everything being so spread out. KC has the most highway lane miles per capita of any metro area in the US. Having grown up and lived in the KC metro area for many years I can tell you for a fact that KC residents are more inclined to travel to Colorado, California, Texas, or Florida more often than Chicagoland, the Northwest, Minneapolis, or anywhere in the eastern US.
And that means Kansas City can't be a part of the Midwest...horsesh*t. Kansas City is culturally, demographically, linguistically, and especially with respect to the Great Migration, historically...a Midwestern city. It has the most in common with Omaha. And I would never say that KC has more in common with Denver or Dallas than STL or Chicago, even if people travel to those other places more.
And that means Kansas City can't be a part of the Midwest...horsesh*t. Kansas City is culturally, demographically, linguistically, and especially with respect to the Great Migration, historically...a Midwestern city. It has the most in common with Omaha. And I would never say that KC has more in common with Denver or Dallas than STL or Chicago, even if people travel to those other places more.
Hmmm. I actually don't think that Denver and Dallas are very similar, and I don't think KC and Chicago are very similar. I actually would say that KC and Dallas are probably the most similar of the four.
And that means Kansas City can't be a part of the Midwest...horsesh*t. Kansas City is culturally, demographically, linguistically, and especially with respect to the Great Migration, historically...a Midwestern city. It has the most in common with Omaha. And I would never say that KC has more in common with Denver or Dallas than STL or Chicago, even if people travel to those other places more.
No, I never indicated that with regard to your first point. KC just doesn't have much at all in common with the Great Lakes cities in the present time period.
Location: Jefferson City 4 days a week, St. Louis 3 days a week
2,709 posts, read 5,092,866 times
Reputation: 1028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefox
Hmmm. I actually don't think that Denver and Dallas are very similar, and I don't think KC and Chicago are very similar. I actually would say that KC and Dallas are probably the most similar of the four.
What you think doesn't square up with what's true. In what sense? From a cultural, linguistic, and demographic standpoint, KC has the most in common with Chicago, not Dallas. I don't see what you're getting at here. If KC and Dallas are the most similar, then Chicago is the most similar to Nashville of any city.
Location: Jefferson City 4 days a week, St. Louis 3 days a week
2,709 posts, read 5,092,866 times
Reputation: 1028
Quote:
Originally Posted by GraniteStater
No, I never indicated that with regard to your first point. KC just doesn't have much at all in common with the Great Lakes cities in the present time period.
Then neither do Des Moines, Omaha, or Minneapolis. KC has more in common with Great Lakes cities than with cities like Denver or cities in the South. KC, Omaha, Des Moines, and Minneapolis are all "western Midwest" cities.
If people want to say the Midwest can't exist as one region, they should take a look at the South and realize it has just as much diversity.
No, I never indicated that with regard to your first point. KC just doesn't have much at all in common with the Great Lakes cities in the present time period.
Kansas City actually doesn't have anything in common with anything that exists in the 3-Dimensional world AT ALL.
You obviously don't know what you're talking about if you think Kansas City is anything BUT a West Coast-Deep Southern Mountain West/Pacific Northwest Desert/Jamaican-Russian hybrid city. Kansas City's location was strategically placed OUTSIDE OF THE MIDWEST CORE so that no one IN THE MIDWEST CORE would have to lay claim to being associated with it. The in-migration patterns of Kansas City also has nothing in common with THE MIDWEST CORE. Lately, the entire populations or Arizona, Texas, Colorado, and every state to the SOUTH AND WEST of Kansas City have been moving into the southern portion of Johnson County. Again, these migration patterns will DRASTICALLY ALTER KANSAS CITY'S NON-MIDWESTERN CORE CULTURE FURTHER SEPERATING IT FROM THE MIDWEST CORE, THE MIDWEST, AND THE ENTIRE COUNTRY OF THE UNITED STATES. Furthermore, the CLIMATE of the MIDWEST CORE is absolutely nothing like Kansas City in relation to the amount of annual precipitation Kansas City recieves COMPARED TO THE MIDWEST CORE
We can easily see that even though Kansas City recieves more precipitation than CORE MIDWESTERN CITIES like Cleveland, Detroit, and even Chicago, THE ANGLE OF THE SUN IN THE SUMMER AND WINTER SOLSTICE CREATES A VASTLY DIFFERENT CLIMATE IN KANSAS CITY COMPARED TO THE MIDWEST CORE. Kansas City HAS A CLIMATE OF A SUNBELT DENVER-DALLAS HYBRID that is not even remotely similar to anything in THE MIDWEST CORE.
Kansas City also has nothing in common with THE MIDWEST CORE in terms of it's suburban sprawl. CITIES IN THE MIDWEST CORE don't even have suburbs, everyone lives in an urban setting in red brick rowhomes and skyscrapers. AGAIN, THIS SEPERATES KANSAS CITY FROM THE ACTUAL MIDWEST AND MIDWEST CORE. NONE OF THE CORE MIDWESTERN CITIES HAVE SUBURBAN SPRAWL IN ANYWAY.
I have lurked this forum for 7 years and in my time doing so, I have never seen a person with such a bias against Kansas City as you, GraniteStater. You alienate Kansas City from it's own region and make it out to be nothing like anything that is your hysterical idea of the nonexistant "midwest core." I was born in Chicago, grew up in Kansas City and moved back here for my job and honestly, Kansas City felt more like Chicago than Minneapolis, Des Moines, and even Duluth, the times that I lived in those cities (I might add that I only have lived in the urban cores of the cities listed, including KC). I honestly do not know if you're delusional about Kansas City or if you're just being really insecure about your own hometown.
What you think doesn't square up with what's true. In what sense? From a cultural, linguistic, and demographic standpoint, KC has the most in common with Chicago, not Dallas. I don't see what you're getting at here. If KC and Dallas are the most similar, then Chicago is the most similar to Nashville of any city.
I was thinking more in terms of density. Dallas (3518 ppsqm) and Kansas City (1471 ppsqm) are more similar than Chicago (11,864 ppsqm). Not talking about metro, just city here. KC and Dallas are also more similar to each other with regard to public transportation, walkability, etc. than either is to Chicago.
Regarding metro area, there are much larger cities in the KC metro area, similar to Dallas (i.e. Fort Worth). Chicago is far and away the largest city, and the next ones are pretty much farther flung suburbs in the low 100k populations, literally a small fraction of the size of Chicago. There are just bigger cities in the Metroplex (Fort Worth, Arlington, Plano) and the KC Metro (Overland Park, Kansas City, KS) above and beyond the anchor cities themselves than there are in Chicago.
Culturally, linguistically, okay I could see the similarities to Chicago, historically speaking. Would even also say maybe in terms of architecture.
However, not sure what makes Kansas City more demographically similar to Chicago than Dallas. All three have similar black populations, but both Chicago and Dallas have far bigger Hispanic populations than KC, and much smaller non-Hispanic white populations.
Then neither do Des Moines, Omaha, or Minneapolis. KC has more in common with Great Lakes cities than with cities like Denver or cities in the South. KC, Omaha, Des Moines, and Minneapolis are all "western Midwest" cities.
If people want to say the Midwest can't exist as one region, they should take a look at the South and realize it has just as much diversity.
I think using geography as this sort of catch-all (cultural) boundary is sort of a misnomer. Minneapolis has a heck of a lot more in common with Milwaukee or Cleveland than it does with KC. Indianapolis has a heck of a lot more in common with KC than it does with Chicago or Cincinnati, which are both much closer.
But, I agree with what I think is the crux of your post here....which is, cities in the Midwest have more in common with one another than they do with cities of other regions. I think as a rule of thumb, that's true. I think KC is culturally pretty similar to Omaha, and a little too established and a not deep red enough politically to have much in common with OKC (which is Southern, to me). Both KC and Omaha have more in common historically, I'd think, with Chicago than with Denver....or San Francisco....or LA....
What it means to be "west" facing or "east" facing, I don't really know. I think all other Midwestern cities sort of gravitate towards-- and orbit around-- Chicago. That is our New York in the Midwest. It is our LA. In fact, we think about Chicago much, much more than either NY or LA. So, if you're east of Chicago in the Midwest, I would think you'd be westward facing; if you're west of it, eastward facing. But I agree with you for the most part that KC-- and other cities on the edge of the region, but still decidedly in the Midwest-- feel Chicago's pull in so many ways (culturally, politically, economically, socially) stronger than they do anything to the west...
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.
