KC's anti urban/city mentaility (Kansas City, Denver: 2015, houses, neighborhoods)

[TabulaRasa]

I think it's a case of "You see what you are looking to see."

These forums are the only place I see any significant "anti-KC" sentiment. In real life, it's negligible, and not unlike any other metro, where you will always have your people who are strongly suburban and for whatever reason enjoy running down anything nonsuburban. I lived in the city, in a MO side suburb, and in a KS side suburb. They're all fine, each setting had pros the others didn't have, and each had cons the others didn't have.

[skrizzle]

This is a weird post to me kcmo, and I'd prefer you stick around. I'm not on here tons anymore... but I feel the urban core is growing and getting better and improving all the time. I see more people moving there. Most 20 somethings that move to KC are moving to the urban core. Downtown keeps growing all the time. Streetcars are the right direction. Theres more events and things taking place in the urban core, in fact it's easy to find something go there almost any day of the week. The suburbs are what they are... I have a kid now, and while I used to live downtown, I'm in the burbs now cuz it's my only choice. I'd love to live in Brookside, Hyde Park, or Waldo, but I can't afford private schools. If I go out to dinner it's normally somewhere downtown or in Westport or the Plaza. If I go to the movies and want cheap I go to Cinemark on the Plaza... if I want an awesome theater and the experience I find myself more and more going to Alamo Drafthouse.

I don't now, and never have thought the attitudes of certain people on this forum reflects the city as a whole. Your post just seems very negative man. I don't get it... is KC perfect? No... but I still love it, and think it's improving and HAS improved very fast. The biggest negative is 1. schools in the urban core and 2. the border wars. I see nothing wrong with nice suburbs that as you say compliment the city. They are what they are. About the only other thing that bothers me is some of the things that end up in the suburbs that should be in the city... but I've been all over the US and this happens everywhere. LA, NYC, Chicago, Miami, etc...

EDIT: And it seems like you are focusing on downtown corporate growth... not sure KC can do anything about it. They can bring companies, but still lose current ones to KS... Brownback won't agree with Nixon to cooperate at all. What exactly can KC do given the circumstances?

[PVPete]

I think the problem is kcmo seems to be evaluating KC's "urbannness" on HQ towers and skyscrapers, which causes him to overlook the thousands of residential and retail projects underway. Yea, KC isn't building new skyscrapers. Frankly, this is a good thing IMO. I'd rather have mid-rise buildings full of people on evenings and weekends, than more half-empty monuments to capitalism filled only from 9-5.

Check out this development map and then tell me KC doesn't have anything going on downtown:

https://mapsengine.google.com/map/vi...thuser=0&hl=en

[kcmo]

Originally Posted by skrizzle

This is a weird post to me kcmo, and I'd prefer you stick around. I'm not on here tons anymore... but I feel the urban core is growing and getting better and improving all the time. I see more people moving there. Most 20 somethings that move to KC are moving to the urban core. Downtown keeps growing all the time. Streetcars are the right direction. Theres more events and things taking place in the urban core, in fact it's easy to find something go there almost any day of the week. The suburbs are what they are... I have a kid now, and while I used to live downtown, I'm in the burbs now cuz it's my only choice. I'd love to live in Brookside, Hyde Park, or Waldo, but I can't afford private schools. If I go out to dinner it's normally somewhere downtown or in Westport or the Plaza. If I go to the movies and want cheap I go to Cinemark on the Plaza... if I want an awesome theater and the experience I find myself more and more going to Alamo Drafthouse.

I don't now, and never have thought the attitudes of certain people on this forum reflects the city as a whole. Your post just seems very negative man. I don't get it... is KC perfect? No... but I still love it, and think it's improving and HAS improved very fast. The biggest negative is 1. schools in the urban core and 2. the border wars. I see nothing wrong with nice suburbs that as you say compliment the city. They are what they are. About the only other thing that bothers me is some of the things that end up in the suburbs that should be in the city... but I've been all over the US and this happens everywhere. LA, NYC, Chicago, Miami, etc...

I was just reading through the recent threads (I don't come here too often) and they seem to be the same old thing. A few people on here that actually know urban kcmo, but then those that think urban living is a fad and the only people that live there are the ones that can't afford the burbs. I know KC is doing better. It's all relative. Compared to old KC, the city is doing very well. Compared to most other cities, I think there are many areas that could be easily improved. KC is a very slow paced town that really takes a long time to implement changes. It's happening though to some extent, I know.

[kcmo]

Originally Posted by PVPete

I think the problem is kcmo seems to be evaluating KC's "urbannness" on HQ towers and skyscrapers, which causes him to overlook the thousands of residential and retail projects underway. Yea, KC isn't building new skyscrapers. Frankly, this is a good thing IMO. I'd rather have mid-rise buildings full of people on evenings and weekends, than more half-empty monuments to capitalism filled only from 9-5.

Check out this development map and then tell me KC doesn't have anything going on downtown:

https://mapsengine.google.com/map/vi...thuser=0&hl=en

I live 1000 miles away and still know about every single project in metro KC without looking at a map.

I agree with you on the towers. But KC needs corporations too. Downtown has lost 25% of it's jobs in the past ten years (worst of all major cities), despite one of the most aggressive revitalization efforts in the country. You need to have jobs too. People will commute to the city from suburban jobs, but it's MUCH easier to fill urban housing if jobs are there too.

I know KC has added 1000's of housing units and it finally starting to see rent high enough to justify new construction, which is good because infill construction is desperately needed ,especially in crossroads and east of Grand.

My point is that KC still seems "sleepy" to me. I'm there a few times a year and the parks, streets etc are just empty. You can point to mill creek park, but come on. Most cities now are just different. Hard to explain. I think it really is the fact that most people in metro KC stay in the suburbs and there is just not enough activity yet to have a fully functioning urban core yet. Most metros have TOD in the suburbs. Metro KC has none. KC is just behind and everybody there is fine with that. I guess it's no longer really my type of city.

[skrizzle]

Originally Posted by kcmo

I was just reading through the recent threads (I don't come here too often) and they seem to be the same old thing. A few people on here that actually know urban kcmo, but then those that think urban living is a fad and the only people that live there are the ones that can't afford the burbs. I know KC is doing better. It's all relative. Compared to old KC, the city is doing very well. Compared to most other cities, I think there are many areas that could be easily improved. KC is a very slow paced town that really takes a long time to implement changes. It's happening though to some extent, I know.

If they think the city is for people who can't afford the burbs they need to look again. Rent is on the rise downtown, 2 bedroom condos cost more than 4 bedroom 2000+ McMansions.

I don't know how to compare it to growth in other cities though... but I feel a lot more people support the urban core in KC then don't.

[denverian]

Originally Posted by shindig

For what it's worth, the Denver downtown hasn't changed much since the late 1980's (height wise), except for a few new hotels being built recently. And yes, I have been to Denver on numerous occasions, just recently in March.

Maybe not changed in a HUGE way, but since I've lived here (9 years now), downtown has added a 40 story Hyatt, 41 story condo tower, 32 story condo tower, 45 story hotel/condo tower, 22 story Xcel Energy tower, two 21 story condo towers, and at least 2 or 3 other office towers in the 20 story range. A 32 story apartment tower is supposed to break ground soon, and then so many mid rise housing towers that I can't list them.

What has KC built in the downtown loop since 1991? The 17 story H&R Block building and a 10 story court house. Which added very little to the skyline.

[denverian]

Originally Posted by kcmo

I live 1000 miles away and still know about every single project in metro KC without looking at a map.

I agree with you on the towers. But KC needs corporations too. Downtown has lost 25% of it's jobs in the past ten years (worst of all major cities), despite one of the most aggressive revitalization efforts in the country. You need to have jobs too. People will commute to the city from suburban jobs, but it's MUCH easier to fill urban housing if jobs are there too.

I know KC has added 1000's of housing units and it finally starting to see rent high enough to justify new construction, which is good because infill construction is desperately needed ,especially in crossroads and east of Grand.

My point is that KC still seems "sleepy" to me. I'm there a few times a year and the parks, streets etc are just empty. You can point to mill creek park, but come on. Most cities now are just different. Hard to explain. I think it really is the fact that most people in metro KC stay in the suburbs and there is just not enough activity yet to have a fully functioning urban core yet. Most metros have TOD in the suburbs. Metro KC has none. KC is just behind and everybody there is fine with that. I guess it's no longer really my type of city.

I toured downtown KCMO last July when in town and was surprised by how dead it seemed in the middle of a work day. In no way did I see the amount of infill housing going up like Denver has.

Even Westport has some odd suburban style development mixed in. Westport should be developing like LoDo has in Denver. The new P&L District was the highlight of my tour and definitely done well. It's a start

[shindig]

Denver and the twin cities are different because they are the only major cities in their states and don't have much competition. Missouri has two major cities that have to not only compete with each other for jobs and residents, but also outlying, smaller cities like Omaha, DesMoines and Wichita, and Chicago of course. Denver really has no major competition. I like Denver and would live there, but I have a great job in KC and my family are all close. Denver is just a different animal. Great city and nice to visit. Love the mountains

[luzianne]

Originally Posted by skrizzle

If they think the city is for people who can't afford the burbs they need to look again. Rent is on the rise downtown, 2 bedroom condos cost more than 4 bedroom 2000+ McMansions.

I don't know how to compare it to growth in other cities though... but I feel a lot more people support the urban core in KC then don't.

No one said that. I said when *I* lived in urban KCMO in the 80s when I was in my 20s, it was because I couldn't afford to live in the suburbs. No one has suggested that that is the case now. In general, you can still rent for less in the areas of KCMO other than downtown or the Plaza, though, than in the suburbs.

I really don't get why people think Kansas City has to compete with any other city, though. What most people like about Kansas City is that it is NOT the same as other cities. Why can't Kansas City just be Kansas City? If I wanted New York, I'd move to New York.