Kansas provided ALL of Kansas City's metro job growth over the past year.... (Ferguson: credit, home)

[1greatcity]

Something I find curious: There's been such phenomenal growth in OP in the past few decades. I mean, the city must be nearing 200,000 people. Doesn't this make it like the largest suburb in the Midwest outside of Chicago? And surely there are thousands of daily commuters between OP and KC, in each direction. No matter if this pleases you or not, it is significant. So why, then, doesn't OP get the recognition it deserves? Why hasn't the Kansas City, MO-KS MSA been re-named to reflect this change? Shouldn't it be the Kansas City-Overland Park, MO-KS MSA?

[MOKAN]

Originally Posted by 1greatcity

Something I find curious: There's been such phenomenal growth in OP in the past few decades. I mean, the city must be nearing 200,000 people. Doesn't this make it like the largest suburb in the Midwest outside of Chicago? And surely there are thousands of daily commuters between OP and KC, in each direction. No matter if this pleases you or not, it is significant. So why, then, doesn't OP get the recognition it deserves? Why hasn't the Kansas City, MO-KS MSA been re-named to reflect this change? Shouldn't it be the Kansas City-Overland Park, MO-KS MSA?

Overland Park's official 2010 population was 173,372. I do believe the CSA is officially named Kansas City-Overland Park-Kansas City, MO-KS. You may be onto something though - Overland Park may be the largest suburb in the midwest, other than Aurora, IL, which was at 197,899 in 2010. Kansas City has 3 other suburban cities well over 100,000. Kansas City, KS, Olathe, and Independence, and Lee's Summit should be at 100,000 soon. Huge suburbs, especially for its size, might be part of Kansas City's problem. I'm not sure what other midwestern metros similar in size to KC has so many large suburbs, some with strong solidarity and more than enough jobs to sustain themselves.

[aragx6]

^You can definitely argue that large suburbs come with unique issues. OP is a large suburb that has seen tremendous growth to be sure, but it's not as though the area is really any denser than other suburban areas -- if you combined St. Charles, St. Peters and O'Fallon in the St. Louis suburbs you'd still be at fewer square miles than Overland Park. OP is 75 and combined the three STL suburbs are only 63 square miles yet the population of Overland Park is more than 20k lower than StC, StP and O'F.

[TabulaRasa]

Yep, Lee's Summit is just about at 100,000, although it doesn't feel like (thankfully, in my opinion as a DT Lee's Summit resident), since it's pretty spread out and lacks a crowded density in various areas. Overland Park actually covers more geographical area than LS, but it always feels more dense, to me. I like the space in LS.

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by aragx6

^You can definitely argue that large suburbs come with unique issues. OP is a large suburb that has seen tremendous growth to be sure, but it's not as though the area is really any denser than other suburban areas -- if you combined St. Charles, St. Peters and O'Fallon in the St. Louis suburbs you'd still be at fewer square miles than Overland Park. OP is 75 and combined the three STL suburbs are only 63 square miles yet the population of Overland Park is more than 20k lower than StC, StP and O'F.

The greater gains in percentage terms have shifted to Olathe and Gardner as the southern part of Overland Park is very expensive. It will be interesting to see how the decade plays out in terms of in-migration into JOCO as I have read numerous articles that have stated that mobility of the population as a whole is near record lows.

[CrownVic95]

Originally Posted by GraniteStater

The greater gains in percentage terms have shifted to Olathe and Gardner as the southern part of Overland Park is very expensive. It will be interesting to see how the decade plays out in terms of in-migration into JOCO as I have read numerous articles that have stated that mobility of the population as a whole is near record lows.

Well, if by record you're talking about the last 50 years or so, I would expect that is very true.

So many more people are struggling financially today and have more than their hands full just keeping their heads above the water line of bare necessities. Mobility costs money - lots of it in most cases. Increasingly, only the fortunate few have it.

I'm a perfect example of a formerly very mobile guy, having made several cross-country moves in the 70s and 80s - great times that we may never see again. I would be again/still today if I had the means. I'd be out of this Bay Area faster than you can blink an eye and never look back.

[kcmo]

Kansas City has become "Kansas" City. While KCMO has really done amazing things with its downtown over the past decade or so, it's now clearly obvious when I visit KC that that city will probably never recover from the corporate and residential economic migration to the KS side. The damage is just too extensive and continues to occur. There is just too much blight and not enough private investment in too much of Jackson County while KC has corporate suburban areas that rival similar areas near Chicago and LA and DC. KC is WAY too small to have such large corporate suburbs that have sucked so much life out of central kc.

Having said that, it's great to see the city of kcmo not giving up. They are doing everything they can possibly do to give people reasons to come back or stay in the city. But too many people in metro KC have more pride in Kansas than Kansas City and like I said, that's more obvious now than it has ever been to me.

But I gotta say, KC outside of the downtown and plaza areas (and some nicer suburbs) is downright depressing and not very impressive at all. Just way too many run down areas and very excessive sprawl.

[TabulaRasa]

Originally Posted by kcmo

But I gotta say, KC outside of the downtown and plaza areas (and some nicer suburbs) is downright depressing and not very impressive at all. Just way too many run down areas and very excessive sprawl.

I have to disagree. We were all over town during the weekend preceding the All Star Game, not just downtown and Plaza, and I don't think it's depressing at all, overall (show me a city that doesn't have a ghetto, though). Nobody who comes and visits us here finds it anything short of enchanting, though, and our out-of-state/region guests are always surprised, because as first-time visitors, they didn't really have KC on their radars as anything cool. And they're not from backwater places, either.

[xenokc]

Originally Posted by kcmo

While KCMO has really done amazing things with its downtown over the past decade or so, it's now clearly obvious when I visit KC that that city will probably never recover from the corporate and residential economic migration to the KS side.

Obviously the corporate poaching is a problem but it's going both ways to some degree - still ridiculous and a waste of tax dollars. As far as residential migration, nearly every core county in the US is still losing population to the burbs - even hot growth metros like Seattle, Dallas, Houston. DC is one the few exceptions. With the exception of the E Side, KCMO is functionally better than 10-20 years ago and continues to improve.

[kcmo]

Originally Posted by TabulaRasa

I have to disagree. We were all over town during the weekend preceding the All Star Game, not just downtown and Plaza, and I don't think it's depressing at all, overall (show me a city that doesn't have a ghetto, though). Nobody who comes and visits us here finds it anything short of enchanting, though, and our out-of-state/region guests are always surprised, because as first-time visitors, they didn't really have KC on their radars as anything cool. And they're not from backwater places, either.

Central KCMO itslef is very impressive (mostly becasue people come to kc expecting Topeka), but central KCMO can compare to any city out there and many cities quite a bit larger than KC when you look at it all together. The only things I notice about central kcmo vs peer cities is just the lack of traffic and pedestrians outside of the the plaza. It just lacks that critical mass that is really needs.

I just spent a week in kc mostly from the viewpoint of a tourist and around tourists. The area around Bartle was busy till the asg left. after Tue, downtown KC was very dead, even during the lunch hour of a business day. It's just the way KC feels compared to other large cities. I'm not trying to be mean or anything. Downtown just comes across as being small and very quiet. I think it has a lot to do with the freeways and how downtown is sort of divided up (crown center, cbd etc).

As far as the rest of the metro. When you drive around metro KC. It has a run down feel to it in huge areas of the metro. 70 from downtown all the way out to 470. 70 downtown all the way out to 435 in kck. The entire stretch of 435 on the MO side from holmes to 35 etc. Even with the new bridge 35 out of downtown up to libery is kinda run down. The area around the ballparks is terrible.

KC is a great city, but I really think sprawl and the corporate and money migration to joco is getting the best of it and keeping kc from being a much better place.

Having said that. KC's downtown to plaza corridor is still amazingly intact and seeing a lot of improvement despite the shift to the KS side. It could be far more vibrant though if metro KC was on the same page. KCMO has set the table. Now the residents and corporate community need to respond.