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.
Okay, first off, that population for KC is it's CSA which includes Lawrence and St Joseph. That puts KC's population at 2.4 million. Although I actually think Lawrence should be part of KC's population and KC's CSA is very similar in size and population to StL's CSA, I would have to agree that the StL metro area has always been and still is the larger of the two. Although KC has been closing the gap over the past generation.
Does StL feel that much larger than KC? Not really. The only reason it feels larger to me is because most of its suburbs are on one side of the metro and so the suburbs go on forever to the west (40 plus miles), where KC's suburbs go in all directions about 25 miles and downtown is more in the middle.
The urban cores of metro KC and StL feel about the same despite StL once having a very dense and high population and still having much of the dense infrastructure left. KC is just no pushover when it comes to urbanity, although some of the newer parts of the city limits can even be rural.
Generally KC and StL both feel like metros of about 2.5 million. KC actually feels bigger than it is and StL smaller unless you get out into its far flung suburbs.
As far as which one outshines the other. I think both cites have certain things that outshine each other, but neither city is really outshining the other overall.
Kansas City tends to punch above its weight and StL tends to punch a little below, so despite their size differences they are nearly equal. So I guess one could say the second largest city in Missouri may be doing a bit better in that regard. Personally, as much as I like KC and think it's highly underrated, I would prefer StL over KC. It's more my style.
this is arguable. I'm a big fan of the Bay Area but I think there's a significant chunk of the populace that holds higher regard for LA.
Once again, this all depends on the kind of people we're talking about. LA is a bigger magnet of people looking to make it big in the entertainment industry whereas the Bay Area is a much bigger draw for Ivy League grads and those looking to make it big in tech and finance.
Also, the Bay Area has somewhat higher home prices, significantly higher median income levels, has the largest concentration of large corporations in California, which does speak to the region's desirability.
Also, it's noteworthy that nearly all of California's elected statewide officials are from the San Francisco Metro Area
US Senator Dianne Feinstein is from San Francisco
US Senator Barbara Boxer is from Marin County
California Governor Jerry Brown is from Oakland
California Lt Governor Gavin Newsom is from San Francisco
California State Attorney General Kamala Harris is from San Francisco
California State Treasurer Bill Lockyer is from Hayward
California State Schools Superintendent Tom Torlakson is from Antioch
vs.
California Secretary of State Debra Bowen is from Los Angeles
California State Comptroller John Chiang is from Torrance
The only other statewide elected official is Dave Jones, State Insurance Commissioner and he is from Sacramento.
This despite Southern CA having 23 Million people and Northern CA having 15 Million people, Northerners dominate statewide offices and that wouldn't happen if Southerners didn't vote for them.
How the hell does Austin outshine Houston or Dallas?
KC is the most populated metro in Missouri but it plays second fiddle to St. Louis. As a matter of fact many people think St. Louis is much bigger. It does have a bigger urban core, but KC metro is bigger overall.
I think Austin seems t ohave a bigger national buzz, or always had. It's viewed as "cooler with a great vibe" whether true or not. Houston or Dallas are just big sprawls to me.
How the hell does Austin outshine Houston or Dallas?
KC is the most populated metro in Missouri but it plays second fiddle to St. Louis. As a matter of fact many people think St. Louis is much bigger. It does have a bigger urban core, but KC metro is bigger overall.
Not sure where you get your info or what you're smoking, but St. Louis is a much bigger metro area (about 2.9 million) than Kansas City (about 2.2 million). KC has a higher city population, due to the fact that it comprises 319 square miles as opposed to STL's 61 square miles. Nevertheless, St. Louis remains the much older, larger and more urban metropolis than Kansas City.
*Metro areas are determined using a specific criteria as set forth by the United States Census. So yes, the St. Louis metro area includes its suburbs in Illinois, but KC's metro area numbers include the Kansas side as well. Even still, there are more people on the Missouri side of the St. Louis metro area than the Missouri side of the Kansas City metro area. So Missouri doesn't really factor into this thread, because Kansas City does not overshadow St. Louis at all, and St. Louis is the largest metro area in the state.
I wonder if they're including East St. Louis on the Illinois side. Oh well, KC has been the biggest metro for the most part. Perhaps St. Louis population has caught up and surpassed it. In either case, KC was bigger than St. Louis at one point, but people still perceived St. Louis as being the premier city in Missouri. People know almost nothing about KC, and think it's a one horse town, while they look at St. Louis as an actual city that can contend with other midwestern big cities like Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland, MLPS, and Cincinnati.
Yes, they're including the Illinois suburbs just as Kansas City is including the Kansas suburbs. Historically St. Louis has always been much much larger of a metro area compared to Kansas City.
Only recently has Kansas City started to creep up on St. Louis - but it's still hundreds of thousands away.
I wonder if they're including East St. Louis on the Illinois side. Oh well, KC has been the biggest metro for the most part. Perhaps St. Louis population has caught up and surpassed it. In either case, KC was bigger than St. Louis at one point, but people still perceived St. Louis as being the premier city in Missouri. People know almost nothing about KC, and think it's a one horse town, while they look at St. Louis as an actual city that can contend with other midwestern big cities like Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland, MLPS, and Cincinnati.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Kansas City has never, ever, ever, ever, in the history of its existence, EVER been a larger metro area than St. Louis. You must be getting your "facts" from Mother Goose.
Iowa - This might be the strangest state of all when it comes to cities and their "pull". Des Moines is the largest city of the state, but only about 20% of the state lives in the metro area (one of the smallest proportions of largest city/rest of the state of any state). Once you get about an hour away, people look to other metros as their hub. Sioux City is the hub of the northwestern part of the state, Council Bluffs/Omaha is the hub of the southwestern portion, Cedar Rapids/Iowa City anchors the east-central part of the state, and the Quad Cities for the far eastern part. Not one city seems to outshine the others.
I dunno, historically I would have agreed with this, but not over the past 25 years or so. Des Moines woke up and started growing very fast (for Iowa) around the mid 1990's and hasn't stopped. It's currently growing around 10,000 per year, far more than anywhere else in the state. It's by far the largest metro in the state and it's pulling away more and more every year. My parents live in Iowa City which is the other fast growing metro in the state, but they'll do the 90 minute drive to Des Moines all the time for broadway shows and other events. It's clearly the center of the state's power, population center, etc. I mean I like Iowa City more, but Des Moines use to just be a fairly small population center that was going nowhere, and now it's much more of a beast in Iowa than ever before.
Metro grew from around 400,000 in 1990 to 500,000 in 2000 to almost 600,000 today. Meanwhile the state has been fairly flat.
I think Austin seems t ohave a bigger national buzz, or always had. It's viewed as "cooler with a great vibe" whether true or not. Houston or Dallas are just big sprawls to me.
Don't be fooled as Austin has sprawl, traffic, crime and lots of homeless people. True it is a quirky state political software/tech intellectual hub with a massive university, but it can barely touch Houston and Dallas on arts, sporting teams, logistics, and GDP.
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.
