What City is the most similar to KC (Kansas City, Harrisonville: neighborhoods, live)

[WiseOwlSaysHoot]

I voted for STL just to annoy all the STL posters who think the two cities are in no way comprable . I realize the cities have their obvious differences, but they are not worlds apart, as some may suggest.

In reality, the most similar city that I've been to (haven't been to all on the list) would probably be Milwaukee. I feel like the cities have a similar laid back vibe with lots of trees and green.

I think there are also a number of similarities to Detroit (although a considerable difference in size). A lot of the architecture is similar. They've both got grit and decay (obviously Detroit is worse) and have good art scenes with artists working to revive moribund parts of the city.

[denverian]

Originally Posted by aragx6

The architecture is very similar (loads of bungalows), the general nature of the people, a rather sleepy bedroom community vibe, more spread out than many of the more eastern cities ...

edit: it's a place like St. Louis with which I really see very few similarities ... other than them both being in Missouri of course.

I'm from KC, lived in Denver 10 years. I don't see much in the way of similarities.

Denver is denser (about a million more people in the same area as KC metro), bigger, busier downtown (although with the P&L district, KC is doing better), more Western culture, no Midwestern accent, very outdoorsy attitude, more tourist-oriented, less churchy, more connected to the West Coast culturally, much more edgy music-wise (and much less country music), much drier, doesn't have the older art deco architecture downtown (at least not in skyscrapers), more liberal/progressive, willing to take big risks for big gains...

I voted for Cincy. That place really reminded me a lot of KC. Indy and Columbus do too.

[aragx6]

I don't think sleepy inherently equals boredom. I mean more laid back, somewhat more family oriented. Even here in Volker there are far more families than we ever saw in many similar Chicago neighborhoods.

[xenokc]

^Ah, got it.

[TabulaRasa]

Originally Posted by xenokc

I'm confused by the sleepy town comments. I hangout with very active people who don't comprehend the idea of boredom. It's not east coast vibe but compared to when I lived in STL, I hang out with much more adventurous, creative, want to make things kind of people. Yeah, there are some unadventurous, stay at home people in KC, but that can be found in any city.

For me, the beauty of KC is that it can be as sleepy or bustling as suits you. The activities are there, but so, too, is the space and quiet to withdraw and relax and be a homebody with great ease. For myself, this is great. I certainly enjoy and take advantage of all the amenities, but I also really love that I can sit out on my porch on my quiet street, and if you didn't know you were in a metro of 2 million, you might mistake it for being any given street in my small hometown with a population under 1,000, because the vibe is chill and homey. Enjoying staying home in its time and place does not = unadventerous. I'm not sure that I consider "sleepy" pejorative.

[aragx6]

Originally Posted by denverian

I'm from KC, lived in Denver 10 years. I don't see much in the way of similarities.

Denver is denser (about a million more people in the same area as KC metro) yes, but in the older city neighborhoods the density differences are negligible, bigger, busier downtown (although with the P&L district, KC is doing better) Yes, that's a certainty, more Western culture, no Midwestern accent both places have a pretty flat accent, very outdoorsy attitude this is the key difference without a doubt. I wish we had mountains here, more tourist-oriented again mostly bc of the mountains, less churchy it's been discussed here previously that KC is hardly that church oriented, more connected to the West Coast culturally really? how?, much more edgy music-wise (and much less country music) I rarely hear country music here and find the scene pretty sufficient, much drier, doesn't have the older art deco architecture downtown (at least not in skyscrapers) I think you're understating the Art Deco in downtown. A quick search brought me to this page which notes 6 buildings with Art Deco detailing in downtown: DenverInfill.com - The Downtown Denver Historic District, More information: Historic Denver | Resources | Art Deco more liberal/progressive somewhat, willing to take big risks for big gains... that's what a lot of people would like to see KC move toward. Emulating Denver would be worthwhile in this regard.

I voted for Cincy. That place really reminded me a lot of KC. Indy and Columbus do too.

Really curious to hear more about the ties to the west coast. I'm not sure most coasties would agree really ...

[xenokc]

Denver has a LOT of SoCal transplants. KC has a lot too but Denver by far more. In Denver, they call it Californication and many of the indigenous don't seem to welcome it, though probably well past it by now.

If Denver and KC have anything more in common it's that both have more Latinos than most of the rest of midwest - much more in Denver.

[kcmo]

I remember the first time I drove into Cincy. I was floored at just how much it reminded me of KC, right down to the proctor and gamble twin towers (which reminded me of the American Century towers).

And they are about as close in size and feel as you can get. But Cincy's urban core is considerably more dense and they have different architecture and thier suburbs don't feel like KC's at all really. That's why I said Omaha and Cincy are closest. Somebody said Milwaukee and I would put them with KC too. Like xenokc says, it's kind of a mix.

Over all Cincy is closest though IMO.

Des Moines? Not at all really. I guess West Des Moines is like a mini JoCo. That's about it.

OKC? Even less than Des Moines. KC couldn't be more different other than it being in the middle of the country.

St Louis? Similar but still quite a bit different. I like how the urban cores of the cities are layed out in a similar linear corridor (River to Plaza vs River to CWE). But overall, StL just feels more built up and "big city" than KC, especially when comparing entire metros.

Denver? Same amenities, but that's about it. Completely different vibe and feel there and really sort of doing its own thing.

Tulsa? A little bit (much more than OKC), but when I'm there, it doesn't really make me think of KC that much.

Indianapolis? Not really at all like KC if you ask me, closer than OKC though.

Columbus? A little bit, but not really.

Wichita? Umm, no.

So Cincy with a touch of Omaha is still my answer.

[s.davis]

Cincy, for all the reasons KCMO listed. Population, density (though cincy has denser core neighborhoods, they both have about 300K in 75-80 sq. miles, and nearly identical metro pop. and density), demographics, politics, vibe, relationship to their state governments and big-brother cities, culture, climate, transit options and walkability, etc. etc.

Now, obviously they are not twins, there are some differences one could point out (Cincy is more balkanized/nodal, KC is physically more of a single cohesive city, Cincy is hillier, KC has objectively better signature cuisine)...but in the end I think you'd have a hard time picking a better peer for either one of them.

KC:Cincy = StL:Cleveland.

And for the record, I think of every city on the list as being sleepy and pretty laid back, including the biggest ones with the most traditionally "urban" built environments. I've been to most of these cities pretty extensively, and I've seen them all bustle a bit here and there, but I've seen a lot more rolling up the awnings early...

What's more, I'll repeat what I've said before about the spectrum of peer cities: In my experience people who pretend St Louis doesn't have much in common with KC either have an obvious homerist agenda or are participating in a (pretty harmless) form of self-delusion, just like people who pretend Omaha or Indianapolis don't have a great deal in common with KC.

Sidenote: The first time I was in Cincy, I was at dinner with a couple who had moved there from StL. I was gushing about Cincy (which, like Cleveland, is one of my favorite cities in America) and a mentioned how much I thought it was like KC. The husband bristled and began huffing and puffing about how Cincy and St Louis were like "sisters" and how KC was a "dusty cowtown" and wasn't anything like them (omitting, somehow, the fact that Cincy was once called Pork-opolis due to its preeminence in the hog slaughtering industry). As proof he asked me "Is Kansas City even on a river?". This man was a retired professor from Wash U.

[Alicia Bradley]

Originally Posted by denverian

I'm from KC, lived in Denver 10 years. I don't see much in the way of similarities.

Denver is denser (about a million more people in the same area as KC metro), bigger, busier downtown (although with the P&L district, KC is doing better), more Western culture, no Midwestern accent, very outdoorsy attitude, more tourist-oriented, less churchy, more connected to the West Coast culturally, much more edgy music-wise (and much less country music), much drier, doesn't have the older art deco architecture downtown (at least not in skyscrapers), more liberal/progressive, willing to take big risks for big gains...

I voted for Cincy. That place really reminded me a lot of KC. Indy and Columbus do too.

There is no such thing. I think you're referring to the slight Southern accent exhibited by a lot of people in the outer fringes of KC (especially on the MO side.. when you get out as far as Harrisonville, for instance, almost everyone speaks with a slight-to-significant [I hate this word but I'm going to use it just this once] 'twang'). You will run across people in the central part of the KC metro area (and on the "Kansas side") who have this accent, just not nearly as many. The prevalence of fundamentalist Christian churches in the KC area is related to this phenomenon.

The 'flat' accent that Coloradans have is an extension of an accent ('General American,' for lack of a better term) that *begins* in the Great Plains of the Midwest. (Get it? Great Plains? Flat? Hurr, durr. I'll accept the ridiculous 'flat accent' term for the purposes of this post. It used to drive me crazy, though. I think it was first coined by Sid Caesar, in a dream about those scary 'flat' places far to the west NYC, where people twalked so fwunny.) In fact, Colorado is itself *in* the American Great Plains, partially. Have I mentioned that I find "Midwestern" to be a generally meaningless, annoying term? Conceptually, it's a convenient imaginary scapegoat, though.

The only inversion of this phenomenon I've ever seen is in the general 'Missouri' section of C-D, where posters will go absolutely livid if you suggest (the rural parts of their state, with some tapering as you go north but not as much as would be intuitive) *aren't* 'Midwestern.' I wouldn't actually suggest such a thing if I could control the terms used for the categories myself. It's just that they insist on using (that troublesome bugbear of a word) "Midwestern" to mean "Northern" - or something mutually incompatible with "Southern."

Why do I continue replying to these 'these are my cathartic emotional fantasies of US geography; see how closely they match what the entertainment industry teaches us? wheee!' posts. City-Data is eating my soul, I tell you.