U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Missouri > Kansas City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-10-2013, 11:38 AM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
7,668 posts, read 5,650,332 times
Reputation: 7512

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TabulaRasa View Post
I might be the only person who doesn't care AT ALL if people who fly in have a "What a cow town" perception. I grew up in the Midwest (although not in KC or Missouri, and had absolutely no mental image of KC whatsoever before moving here; I didn't have a negative or positive preconceived notion at all, I simply had never considered it one way or another), and have always had the "flyover country" barbs roll right off my back. I like it, and really don't care how people from either coast consider it. KC's a cool place, and if it's off others' radars, or they have an erroneous impression of what the city is like because there are lame vendor kiosks in the airport, it really doesn't bother me all that much. I've lived in overrated cities, and truly appreciate an underrated one.
You're most certainly not the only one.

KC people are sensible enough to see through a feeble attempt to turn reality on its head and to turn a big plus into a minus. No one in their right mind would rather see Camden, NJ on approach than the gorgeous grasslands that surround KCI.

The negative commentary here is just more of the same woefully tiresome drivel that KC has the good sense to ignore. So many things about the KC area, especially the airport, are better than many other metros and my hope is that sensibility will continue to prevail.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-10-2013, 12:29 PM
 
Location: Washington, DC area
10,705 posts, read 18,520,931 times
Reputation: 5415
Indy has built a new downtown football stadium, new convention hotels, all kinds of new downtown parks and trails, new airport terminal etc because the city has decided it does want to be an impressive city to outsiders and even though they may not have as busy of an airport, they have turned themselves into a pretty competitive tourism and convention city that is welcoming to visitors, even those that only set foot in the airport. Right now KC is not even competing with Indy for conventions (or other national events) even though I think KC has a lot more to offer than Indy as a metropolitan area.

If KC doesn't want to do this, then why expand Bartle, build the ballroom, P&L District etc? I never quite get the KC way of doing everything kind of half azz. If the city wants to keep its 1960's era airport that really gives the city a terrible first and last impression or not build modern convention hotels etc, then why did they even spend the money on expanding Bartle Hall or the Ballroom etc. Why even build the P&L district if they don't have convention traffic to help offset the 16 million annual subsidy for the place?

I guess I just don't get the basic mentality of KC residents. Most did not want the P&L district and to this day, the district gets a lot of negative press from locals. Nobody wanted the replace Kemper Arena. The Sprint Center was practically crammed down their throats and only passed with some very strong short term leadership from Mayor Barnes even though Kemper was practically getting mothballed right in front of them. The city actually elected Funkhouser as mayor which goes against all ideas of building a dynamic, modern and impressive city that is actually a place people want to visit, live and work. Bringing the baseball stadium downtown could not even gain traction and I can only dream of how much more vibrant downtown would be with 2 million baseball fans descending on downtown every summer. Just one more thing that would have made it easier to build new hotels and mass transit and not have to subsidize the P&L district.

Most cities want to impress others and most do. With as much of an inferiority complex KC has, I have never quite understood why the city doesn't put a little more effort into creating a complete package of a modern city that attracts new residents, companies and tourists and try to change the perception of KC which in turn would probably help it in the long run.

Luckily there are always just enough people to get some projects thru. Sprint Center, P&L District, even the little street car line are generally projects that just wouldn't have happened if the general public was in charge and the same thing may happen with the airport terminal, I don't know. But like other issues, it will not be easy to pass a city wide bond issue.

KC is a great city, but even as much as KC has to offer, the lack of local investment in infrastructure (transit, airport, recreation etc) and the lack of having a central focus of urban critical mass (locating cultural assets all over kindom come) and of course the ongoing civil war between the MO and KS sides of the metro will always keep KC a step behind cities that actually have less to offer, but will eventually pass KC (Portland, Charlotte, San Antonio, Nashville, Indianapolis etc) just like Denver, Minneapolis, Atlanta etc did long ago.

Denver has invested billions into a new airport, convention facilities, major hotels, recreational trails, downtown stadiums, region wide transit etc and has put nearly all their attractions in a central urban location even though most are funded via the entire metro area. Is it any wonder the city has completely blown past the KC area even though KC was once twice the size of Denver?

KC has this thing about being a gigantic small town. I guess that's why I never did really fit in there very well. But cities and urban planning is my thing, so crownvic, if you don't like it, then ignore it.

Even with my rather aggressive stance on topics like this, you are the only one that comes in and acts childish with the likes of "woefully tiresome drivel". If anybody has little to contribute to a conversation other than trolling comments. It's you.

I respect those that love KCI or have reasons to leave it the way it is. I don't agree, but I respect them and will simply debate my personal ideas. Not sure how many agree with your stance to just do away with the TSA. At least I'm realistic.

Last edited by kcmo; 04-10-2013 at 12:46 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2013, 12:41 PM
 
220 posts, read 359,902 times
Reputation: 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by TabulaRasa View Post
I might be the only person who doesn't care AT ALL if people who fly in have a "What a cow town" perception. I grew up in the Midwest (although not in KC or Missouri, and had absolutely no mental image of KC whatsoever before moving here; I didn't have a negative or positive preconceived notion at all, I simply had never considered it one way or another), and have always had the "flyover country" barbs roll right off my back. I like it, and really don't care how people from either coast consider it. KC's a cool place, and if it's off others' radars, or they have an erroneous impression of what the city is like because there are lame vendor kiosks in the airport, it really doesn't bother me all that much. I've lived in overrated cities, and truly appreciate an underrated one.
Completely agree. We aren't Chicago or NYC or anything, why even try to compare? I like KC how it is, laid back, polite, and not full of tourists complaining about everything we enjoy.

I've never had an issue with full parking at the terminals, but I also never fly Southwest, and I never care too. Last week I few into/out of terminal C, parked on the third level ~4 parking spots away from the entrance to the escalators which take you right up to the ticketing/check-in area. The only way I could have parked closer is if I parked on the curb in front of the ticketing/check-in area. The people on the flight behind me were out of townees commenting on the cows next to the runway as we landed, didn't bother me at all.

Some people like the city, some like the country, and KC is a good mix between the two. Not sure why we need to appease people who don't live here by making it into an overcrowded noisy city like where they are from, instead I'd prefer us to be unique.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2013, 12:59 PM
 
220 posts, read 359,902 times
Reputation: 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcmo View Post
I respect those that love KCI or have reasons to leave it the way it is. I don't agree, but I respect them and will simply debate my personal ideas. Not sure how many agree with your stance to just do away with the TSA. At least I'm realistic.
TSA should be done away with, giant expense, massive headache, hasn't prevented a single terrorist attack. The lack of a major airport has long inhibited the growth of KC. We were one of the first major hubs and let it slide by, while Minneapolis built a giant nice airport and became a center for growth for the community. We never built the runways for the jumbo jets, and we always had an odd terminal set up to kill any chance of having connecting flights. To top it off we built the airport far away from anything and there's no real mass transit to get from the airport to anyplace anyone is going.

Ideally we'd have a huge airport right next to a huge train hub with high speed rails going off to cities in all directions, but where would you put it? What we really need is a rail system similar to the L in Chicago, connect the Legends, Downtown, the Stadiums, all to the airport with trains running out to each of the major burbs and meeting in a central station. Problem is the urban core, who wouldn't even be paying for it, would cry racism unless the trains stopped on every street there, effectively killing any hopes of such a project. Even when the residents pass a tax for it, the city leaders are somehow able to take that money and use it for something else instead.

Also, the stadiums are where they are at because massive amounts of parking for tailgating is how KC does sports. You'd kill off a favorite past time of the locals if you put the stadiums downtown so visitors can enjoy the P&L district. The games at Sprint might be fun but the atmosphere before and after the game sucks unless overpaying for drinks in crowded bars is your idea of a great time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2013, 01:33 PM
 
Location: Denver, Colorado U.S.A.
14,174 posts, read 22,518,252 times
Reputation: 10428
Quote:
Originally Posted by MidWestCityNative View Post
Stereotyping much?
Only based on my own family. I grew up in KC
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2013, 01:47 PM
 
Location: Washington, DC area
10,705 posts, read 18,520,931 times
Reputation: 5415
Quote:
Originally Posted by kc chris View Post
The lack of a major airport has long inhibited the growth of KC. We were one of the first major hubs and let it slide by, while Minneapolis built a giant nice airport and became a center for growth for the community.
That's all I have been saying...

BTW, KC Has THREE long runways (plenty long enough for the biggest planes) which are generally wasted because they are way more capacity than the airport could ever use due to the terminal situation (it's the terminals that actually can not accommodate many large planes). KCI's runways could easily handle three times its current traffic without having any taxi delays including landing two planes at the same time. Makes you wonder why the city built a third runway when it didn't fix the terminal problems.

As far as cows outside the airport and the distance KCI is from the city? These are two things that don't bother me in the least. I think the new terminal should be built south of the field with new access to I-29 which would put it only 15 minutes from Downtown. The current airport is only 20 minutes from downtown, but that extra 4-5 miles makes the airport seem 50 miles further away because you have to go north and drop into the airport and it also makes people take 435 to the terminal rather than 29 or 152 where it's developed nearly to the airport. I think the city is making a huge mistake by replacing terminal A, but it sounds like that's the new plan.

Lots of airports are a lot further away from the city than KCI is. Depending on the flight pattern, you can sometimes fly over a lot of development (I typically fly over the entire northland and can see downtown, crown center etc from BWI), but even if you don't, big deal. I don't think that translates into much real impression of KC as much as the airport itself. Denver, DC, Houston etc all have airports that make KC's seem like it's in town, but they also have airports that make KCI (and Kansas City)seem like it's in the dark ages of air travel.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2013, 02:00 PM
 
1,830 posts, read 3,113,536 times
Reputation: 532
'kcmo' (you have got to get a new ID), I think you are assuming no one in KC supports a new terminal. Many do, many don't. There are many civic projects in most any city that have a portion of people who oppose it. If the Feds were to pay for a bigger chunk of the new terminal (Indy apparently got Fed help), it might get greater support. A lot of people do like the simplicity of KCI - you and I don't like the overall design and understand the bigger picture but the reality is, KCI is one of the easiest to use airports and gets recognition for it. Is understandable some want to keep it simple. There is good reason some are not for it, especially lower fares that will go up with a new one. If it were a run down airport, I'm sure most everyone would be for a new one.

The bottom line is that KCI is functional as a whole (maintaining traffic better than other markets) but the airport itself is not as ideally laid out as it could be. If KCI were completely failing, it would be a different story. Since it's functioning better than other comparable markets (look at Cincy, Cleveland, etc - ouch), it's not a clear cut obvious thing to spend $1.2B on (even though I support it). Especially with the unknowns of the airline industry that is hurting airports much larger than KCI.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2013, 02:16 PM
 
Location: The Carolinas
1,987 posts, read 1,906,133 times
Reputation: 6010
Default I don't base a city by its airport.

Pure and simple. You seem to have some financial stake it building a new one. Pumping up your stock portfolio a bit?

Usually an airport is what it is. It's a way of arriving and leaving.

Leave it alone and others: stop feeding the troll.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2013, 02:21 PM
 
Location: Washington, DC area
10,705 posts, read 18,520,931 times
Reputation: 5415
But why are you always comparing KC's airport to Cincy, Cleveland, etc. I think a better comparison would be Salt Lake City, Denver, Phoenix.... Why put a hub in Cincy when there are 10 other busy airports within 500 miles?

KC's location and geographically huge airport that could easily be a great major airport (sort of the gateway airport to the west).

And it's getting expensive to fly into KC. Prices have doubled in the past two years for flights to KC and I think it has a lot to do with the lack of competition / flights or something there. It used to be expensive to fly into MSP or DEN, now those seem reasonable while KC's prices seem to be rising to third tier city type levels where little choice in flights increases prices. (OKC, Omaha etc).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2013, 02:30 PM
 
1,830 posts, read 3,113,536 times
Reputation: 532
I'm just saying that $1.2B is a lot when KCI is reasonably functional and is considered one of easiest to use in the world (for locals). It's not as clear cut decision. If it were a run down airport, it would get huge support. But with the airline consolidations going on, $1.2B is even riskier than 5-10 years ago. Again, I'm still for it. There's just good reason some people aren't, especially those who aren't ecodev minded as you and I are.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Missouri > Kansas City
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top