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 disagree. Louisville blows KC out in every food metric from variety to restaurant strips to James Beard chefs to national press. I tell you what, post some links to the national press recognizing KC's food scene and produce lists ranking it as a top 20 foodie city.
I disagree. Louisville blows KC out in every food metric from variety to restaurant strips to James Beard chefs to national press. I tell you what, post some links to the national press recognizing KC's food scene and produce lists ranking it as a top 20 foodie city.
What? How does Louisville's food scene "blow" Kansas City out of the water? In the 2015 James Beard Awards, Louisville received two awards both of which where in Best of Southwest. Kansas received twice as many awards, including one for Best Pastry Chef and Most Outstanding Restaurant nationwide.
If that Travel and Leisure link up above is from 2015, it also ranks Louisville and Kansas City among the best food cities in the US...but Louisville is #16 and Kansas City is #3. Anthony Bourdain put a KC restaurant on his 13 Places to Eat Before You Die. KC gets featured in shows like Man vs Food and Andrew Zimmern has been praising KC's food scene for his show.
Don't get me wrong, Louisville is a good food city, but it is completely comparable to Kansas City, not to mention Kansas City has a well-known signature food. That said, some of those lists put Louisville and KC above places like New York and Chicago which is flattering...but a bit of a stretch.
No knock on the others. All are very good, very healthy cities.
But KC stands out to me as being the best of this bunch. The city has great jobs, a very good inner urban fabric and (like Omaha) is within an 8 hour drive to a very diverse array of some very cool places. More so than the others.
Indianapolis and Columbus are MUCH closer to a diverse array of big cities. Columbus is only 2-3 hours from Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Pittsburgh, not to mention Columbus itself.
Indianapolis is only 3 hours from Cincinnati, Louisville, and the crown jewel of the midwest, Chicago. Kansas City is the most remote of all these cities by far. Honestly, I think since Kansas City is the most remote it's made itself into kind of a mecca of Missouri/Kansas. It's the dominant city in the area and THE place to go. But in no way shape or form is it as centrally located as the other three cities.
Indianapolis and Columbus are MUCH closer to a diverse array of big cities. Columbus is only 2-3 hours from Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Pittsburgh, not to mention Columbus itself.
Indianapolis is only 3 hours from Cincinnati, Louisville, and the crown jewel of the midwest, Chicago. Kansas City is the most remote of all these cities by far. Honestly, I think since Kansas City is the most remote it's made itself into kind of a mecca of Missouri/Kansas. It's the dominant city in the area and THE place to go. But in no way shape or form is it as centrally located as the other three cities.
Actually, it's the most centrally located major metropolitan area in the United States. (I get your point, but you didn't phrase it properly.)
Actually, it's the most centrally located major metropolitan area in the United States. (I get your point, but you didn't phrase it properly.)
I phrased it fine.
Kansas City may be more at the center of the United States, but Louisville, Indianapolis, and Columbus are centrally located to a lot of important midwest metro areas, and much closer.
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.