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 guess I'm an outlier, in that I have spent numerous years living in a pretty wide range of settings...inner city in a large metro (Chicago), inner city in a midsize metro (KC), suburban (KC metro, both sides of the state line), small town (cities of under 10k), midsize towns (30-50k), and rural/country (most of the first half of my life), and loved them all, for a variety of extremely varied reasons. I don't have any one leaning; I'm a very bloom-where-I'm-planted type, and have always embraced the variety of areas life has taken me and made it my home. I'm happy that way. It's a good thing, as I've in the past year become a military spouse and many more moves are likely in our future before returning to our KC homebase. I've loved our relocation thus far, and am ultra excited about future duty stations, including - and especially- our options abroad. It's the perfect lifestyle for somebody who loves all sorts of settings and gets excited about living new places that are different than the old places. I've always been this way, and truly met my match in my husband. I've never had any one overriding preference. I do genuinely like urban environments. But I also genuinely like rural ones. And suburban ones. And small towns. And small/midsize cities. I firmly believe that only dull, boring people are ever bored.
I always kind of pity folks who are utterly miserable in anything but one particular type of setting - it seems so rigid and limiting, and I've always found people only interested in one thing to be rather uninteresting and uninspired. Maybe I'm more flexible than most, or just more open to different experiences, but I have had a blast living absolutely everywhere I've ever lived. I can't identify with people who turn their noses up at a living experience that's different than what they've experienced, just on principle.
Well, I'm a lot like you in these ways then. I've lived in urban and suburban areas of the KC metro, in a small town, and in the country. I also can see positives and could be happy in any sort of area. Also, I agree with the part where you say only dull and people get bored. I always think that when people say there's "nothing to do" where they live and that they wished they lived somewhere else.
As far as why people are afraid of different environments and why people think the country is horrible or that urban areas are dangerous is because of lack of experience combined with what's seen in movies, etc. My step dad, who was from Springfield, Belton, and KCK almost panicked once when we ended up on some odd street (I think it was 25th just west of W Pennway) trying to get to the exit north onto I-35 just west of Penn Valley Park. I don't remember the details exactly, but he seriously acted like he thought masked armed men were going to come out of nowhere and rob and carjack us or something, like something you would see in the movies. He was very fearful in general and of course I think that's where a lot of disdain for things that are personally kind of foreign to somebody come from.
Also, I agree with the part where you say only dull and people get bored. I always think that when people say there's "nothing to do" where they live and that they wished they lived somewhere else.
To me (and this perspective comes from years of working with teens), it's just such a laughably adolescent stance. I'm always incredulous when adults play the "so boring, nothing to do" card. It really is the textbook teenage complaint.
You're one of the most insightful, open-minded (albeit blunt) posters on this site. I follow your threads/posts with great interest, mainly because you're patriotic about KC, but also not afraid to express your honest opinions when you feel something isn't right. I know you have a special connection to KC; you even stated you were born and raised here and have family that go back generations here.
But this thread (and its title) just sound way too cynical and not like you at all. It's as if you gave up and are now painting with broad brush strokes when referring to "those typical KC people" and how "anti-urban, anti-city" they are. You've talked this way about JoCo a lot, but now you're lumping the entire metro population into this category? Sometimes it breaks my heart when people tear into KC like this.
Don't get me wrong -- criticism can be good, especially if it's constructive. But I think you need to look more at the big picture and not marginalize this city based on what it lacks. It's always good to address our city's shortcomings every once in a while (especially when it's warranted). But you shouldn't do it too much, because then you run the risk of stepping on toes and getting more negative reactions from people.
Please don't feel like you need to leave this forum altogether; I personally would really hate to see you go. You may think people here hate you, but if you really think about it, that's not true at all. I've read a lot of your posts and most people on the KC forum (whether they agree with you or not) are civil and are not cold or mean-spirited.
Ignore the trolls, but don't ignore all KC residents.
For the record, there are more pro-urban/pro-city types in the KC metro than you realize (sometimes it depends on the age group). I would agree that there's not enough VOCAL people on the scene, but I wouldn't completely abandon all hope for our city's civic pride. You may think it doesn't exist, but it does.
Last edited by MidWestCityNative; 04-21-2014 at 12:48 AM..
I grew up in Missouri and as far as KC, MO. is concerned, it is an abnormality. I am a MO. native and I would rather claim Saint Louis over KC any day. The truth is, Kansas City will never be what St. Louis has become: i.e. a major U.S. inland port.
Here's the thing, though...you're not "telling it like it is." You're "telling it like it is..." for you. No more. No less. We've all got opinions. Yours don't matter any more or less than anybody else's, and they certainly don't matter to anybody but you. You (as well as anybody)can explain why you have them if you want to, but that's really about all.
Seriously, most of the idiocy that goes on on these threads (and in life in general, let's be real) is rooted in people who a. can't seem to grasp that others may have different preferences, priorities, and values, and make their life choices in ways that reflect these, and b. feel like it's necessary to be DEFENSIVE about their particular choices and preferences if others don't happen to make the same choices or hold the same preferences in similar esteem. Honestly, who cares if you like suburbs and somebody else doesn't? Who cares if you think suburbs are as dull as dirt, and somebody else thinks they're paradise on earth? We all make the choices to live the lives we want, where we want to live them.
I grew up in Missouri and as far as KC, MO. is concerned, it is an abnormality. I am a MO. native and I would rather claim Saint Louis over KC any day. The truth is, Kansas City will never be what St. Louis has become: i.e. a major U.S. inland port.
And I also am a Missouri native, and I would claim KC over St. Louis any day. There is nothing about St. Louis that impresses me at all, and crime higher than KC. No, thank you!
I grew up in Missouri and as far as KC, MO. is concerned, it is an abnormality. I am a MO. native and I would rather claim Saint Louis over KC any day. The truth is, Kansas City will never be what St. Louis has become: i.e. a major U.S. inland port.
Does the new BNSF Kansas City Logistics Park intermodal facility ring a bell? It's going to be huge when fully built out.
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:
Exactly....Dallas and Houston are perfect examples of "what you don't want your downtown to be". Yeah, both downtowns have nice, 50-70 story office towers, but after 5pm, their downtowns are completely dead. I think Dallas has less than 6,000 residents that live downtown? Pathetic for a city that size.
Interesting that people like KC_Sleuth, Garethe and denverian are able to discuss this topic, compare the difference (positives and negatives) of KC to other cities, while others, generally locals just pull out the trolling card and have little else to say.
I'm sorry, but KC is a slow paced city and just lacks an urban "pulse", the city streets are empty during a weekday and completely empty on most weekends unless you are down there during an event and near that event. The parks are generally empty as well. If it's nice outside, when you drive to places like Penn Valley Park, Berkley Park etc, you "should" actually have a problem finding parking because there are so many people enjoying the parks. In KC, you have the entire freaking park to yourself for the most part. I actually feel a bit unsafe in KC’s parks due to the lack of use and people in most of them, when such feelings never cross my mind in most other cities. Mill Creek and Loose are very small parks for such a large city.
Growth in urban KC has been minimal. Sure things are happening, but it's very much on the slow end of cities nationwide. You can take whatever KC is doing with urban residential construction and use that as a minimum. EVERY city has been doing at least what KC is doing when it comes to new urban housing (new construction or rehab). I'm not saying the Cordish tower or all the other projects going on in KC are nothing, I'm saying, it's nothing out the ordinary and honestly probably pretty quiet compared to most major cities.
And residential is really the only good news about downtown KCMO because when it comes to commercial construction, the city is FAILING big time. Downtown has lost 25% of its jobs in the same ten years it has spent billions to bring downtown back. I keep bringing this up and people keep ignoring this fact. I bring this up because this loss of jobs and lack of urban commercial investment is a direct side effect of KC’s pro suburban corporate environment. Most cities are still losing ground to suburban office parks to some degree, but none are taking it on the chin like KC continues to do. What is the problem in KC? Why can’t this be discussed? Why is the local business community basically completely not interested in the urban core. Even the Plaza, one of the most interesting and charming mixed use urban developments in the country can barely compete with suburban KC and has become very slow growth compared to similar areas in other cities.
Yet KC has PLENTY of commercial growth. It's just all in the suburbs and 80% of that is in JoCo. KC needs to be more balanced.
Companies in KC are overwhelmingly choosing suburban over urban in KC at a rate much higher than almost any other metro in the country. This has a dramatic impact on KC’s ability to build market rate urban housing. Not just in downtown high-rises, but in low rise complexes, row houses and single family homes. If your job is at 435 and State Ave, 151st and Nall etc, the vast majority of potential employees are not going to look for an urban area and commute. They will just find an apartment out by their job.
Even in Baltimore, a slow growth city compared to most is far exceeding KC with existing major corporate presence downtown and continued investment and that has led to major thriving urban neighborhoods from historic such as Federal Hill and Fells Point to new construction such as Harbor East. KC not only lacks a busy downtown with actual traffic, sidewalk cafes etc, but lacks neighborhoods around downtown. Places like Union Hill are nice, but they are almost suburban in how they feel. Nobody on the streets or sidewalks, no sidewalk cafes, not basic urban amenities that you can really walk to. KC has pockets of places you can live in the city but lacks the comprehensive urban atmosphere that many cities have now. Rivermarket and Westport being KC’s best examples of what I’m talking about only on a relatively small and unchanged scale. People don't drive from Overland Park to Union Hill to dine for example, because it has not developed to a point of having anything other than just some housing. Margarita Corner is a start though.
All I’m saying is that feels off. Like it’s done everything it can and has everything in place to be a vibrant and very popular city, but it’s still waiting for its residents and business community to react. If you are not from KC, the city will at first feel very slow, if not completely dead or deserted because few people there really take advantage of urban assets. Do you think that places like Denver and Austin and Minneapolis are vibrant by city dwellers alone? No way. Their entire regional populations enjoy those cities, filling the parks, streets etc in the city.
And there is not as much city vs suburb mentality. I stand by my opinion that KC has one of the worst such mentalities the country. St Louis is not too far behind, but even StL has much more regional pride in the city than KC does. People drive from the suburbs to Forest Park, Central West End, The Loop, they visit and help pay for the Zoo, Science Center, Museums etc, They attend all of their sporting events Downtown and like it that way. And St Louis is quickly closing the gap on KCMO when it comes to downtown and midtown housing and investment.
In KC you have to go clear out to freaking Shawnee Mission Park to get even a taste of what an active park is like. I can’t think of a city that doesn’t have such a park “in the city”.
My point is that KC is a suburban city (residents and businesses) and it shows in many ways. Maybe that will change. Call me a troll for saying this. People notice it though. Is it enough to dislike the city? Not really, KC has a lot to offer. Personally I prefer what KC offers as far as amenities combined with a more progressive and active population where nice suburbs co-exist with a strong thriving urban core. That is just not happening in KC yet and I’m not sure it ever will at least comparatively speaking.
Are you just cut-and-pasting this screed of half-truths, pessimism and bile every 2 weeks or so now?
You have always thought KC was exceptionally bad at all the things nearly EVERY midwestern metro is bad at, and its just tiring. All the positives don't count in KC and all the negatives are THE WORST EVAR! with you.
"KCMO has empty parks, except the ones that are always full don't count..."
"KCMO doesn't have as much streetlife as it should, even though its just as lively as St Louis, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Omaha, Indianapolis"
"KCMO doesn't have good neighborhoods with ammenities, except the Westside, Volker, Roanoke, West Plaza, the Plaza, South Plaza, Crestwood, Brookside, Waldo, Westport, Downtown, the River Market, the Crossroads, Midtown, Hyde Park, but THEY DON'T COUNT!"
"No one from the suburbs comes to KCMO like they do in other cities, except to the Nelson, the Kauffman Center, the ballparks, Brookside, the Plaza, Waldo, Westport, the P&L, the Sprint Center, restaurants all over the core from Bluestem to Town Topic, to the Zoo, to Plaza for shopping but in St Louis they go to Forest Park, so that's all that matters!"
"Suburbs everywhere else cooperate with their cities, just look at Cincinnati, Cleveland, St Louis, no one in suburbs of those cities hates or fears the city or writes negative comments on the newspaper website about crime, danger, cramped urban living, city government corruption or graft or other phony red herrings. Plus in those cities no one is moving into the suburbs faster and 80% of the growth isn't in their suburbs either and even if it is it DOESN'T COUNT because their suburbs are not in KANSAS so they are not as bad."
"Even though KC's urban corridor which is the size and density of Cincinnati's and Indianapolis's and Columbus's has stable population and a booming downtown, it doesn't count because of not enough new skyscrapers. Even though inner Baltimore is shrinking it doesn't count because Fell's Point is hopping and even though its pretty much exactly like Westport, that doesn't count either because they have a nice airport and a downtown ballpark and nothing is wrong in Baltimore."
"Even though downtown Cincy has an enormous subsidized cookie cutter development with little organic spin-off, KC's is not as good because Cincy is getting as streetcar that's exactly the same as KC's but no one in Cincy worked against it or tryed to stop it and plus in Kentucky no one steals businesses from Cincy and no one in Hamilton county steals businesses either."
"Everything wrong with KC is the worst wrong ever. Everything working is not working as well, or does not count."
Hmmmm, sounds like KC isn't the only city with with divisive suburbs...but kcmo would never admit to that. This only happens in KC, even though the article doesn't even mention KC.
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.
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.
What's going on here?
