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.
There is a reason why you don't post on KCRag anymore. Guys like KCPOWERCAT, KCMax, AllthingsKC, and Fang were sick of your crap. Go over there. There's an entire thread about your pungent rants over there.
Yeah, the underhanded mean-spirited childness is out of hand. He makes Clay Chastain look reasonable. Am from STL and can be critical but don't go over there creating thread after thread shoving their weaknesses down their throat, under the guise of 'just trying to have a conversation' and then pounce when people react to his approach. His obsession to do this is whack, as bipolars behave - needs to get out and enjoy life in his new town and let go of his OCD to correct all the errors of his old home. Trying to shove his urban purist nerdness down everyone's throat is as bad as a xian fundie.
Geez kcmo, there is more to KC than downtown, which seems to be the only gauge you use to determine a cities lifeline. The Crossroads district along with Crown Center, Mid-Town and the Plaza are always packed with people. Downtown draws a respectable crowd for the PnL district and events at the Sprint Center and Kauffman Performing Arts Center, plus concerts at the midland theater.
There is a reason why you don't post on KCRag anymore. Guys like KCPOWERCAT, KCMax, AllthingsKC, and Fang were sick of your crap. Go over there. There's an entire thread about your pungent rants over there.
Not sure what your point is since I have never only talked about the Downtown Loop. But the reason I don't post much at KCrag is because I have little to say. If people over there are "sick of my crap", that's fine, but it has had no impact. I read that forum all the time and when I do post, I don't get any smack or anything. You do know that it was myself and powercat that started that forum right? Why? Because we wanted a place to discuss KC issues. Kinda what it's for.
Yeah I know you and KCP started it....I was one of the first 10 or so members to sign up there back in 03 or 04.
From what I read over there, they pretty much post the same stuff I do, so why preach to the choir? They don't want to hear me talk about how other cities actually have companies that are actually investing in the urban cores of their towns or how KC still needs to step things up on regional cooperation, but then they all say the same thing. No reason to get defensive about it like you are doing with myself and others that now live in other cities. KC could learn a lot from other towns. It doesn't mean KC is back country it just means that KC is still behind in a lot of ways while it has closed the gap or pass other towns in some areas (arts/theatre scene for example).
I'm telling you. When KC figures out how to get along regionally and the region focuses more on the urban core (KCMO/KCK), they will absolutely be able to compete with places like MSP, Denver and Seattle even though those are now much larger metros. It's that great of a city with that much potential. I honestly see more urban progress in other towns (similar to KC's size) and I vent. It's never that KC is a bad place, it's that it's just missing a few pieces to the puzzle that would make KC amazing. If KC were a lost cause, I wouldn't care.
And KC was bad. It was absolutely terrible in the early 2000's. I couldn't wait to get out, but still want to be a part of changing it. You have to remember that and realize that while KC has come a long way, It had a much longer way to go than most cities and it's still struggling in a lot of areas pretty bad (as I like to point out I guess).
The gist, at least amongst Phoenicians, is that a thriving core is a good thing. Of course, with a state government every bit as conservative as Kansas's we seem to have an expanding light rail system and significant development downtown.
Of course, Phoenix is a rapidly sprawling city with really no terribly unsafe neighborhoods.
Actually, it was the Embarcadero station that smelled the worst. That's where we got off and we walked from there. We rode through the Civic Center, but we didn't get on or off there, so I can't comment on those stations. It was fine once we got out on the street, but smelled like urine when we got off and the smell intensified as we walked up the steps to the sidewalk. There was a homeless guy sitting at the bottom of the steps eating Chinese food with his fingers. The most aggressive homeless person I saw was close to the Ferry Building. We had walked past the Ferry Building in a northwest direction, down the street a little. There were a lot of people out and I think a lot of people were getting off work or were already off work and jogging/walking, getting dinner, etc. And the guy was following people yelling at them. But other than the BART and a few incidents it was fine.
By the way, the one thing I wish I had done is eat some Chinese food while we were there. I saw a lot of people eating Chinese food from takeout boxes and it looked really good. My husband isn't much of a fan of Chinese food so I usually only eat it when I'm with friends or alone.
I cracked up at a couple arguing at the corner of Haight and Ashbury. The man was saying "I don't want you associating with those people! You don't know who they are!" And she said "They are fine. I looked JUST LIKE THAT 20 years ago!" I was thinking more like 30 years ago. I didn't see the people they were referring to, but I imagined pot-smoking, hippie-looking people.
It's a constant struggle in the city to keep things nice and tidy in certain areas. I should have known the transient population would migrate from the Mid-Market area since that's not a good area for panhandling. It's not a bad city at all, but as I said there are certain quality of life issues people put up with these days.
There's some decent Chinese places in Chinatown, but since the Bay Area has such a large Asian population it's pretty easy to get good Chinese food all over. If you ever get back, certainly visit some dim sum restaurants since you'll get a bit of a variety at those places.
Haight-Ashbury has its reputation. In the late 60s, tour buses used to drive through so people could get a glimpse of the 'weird' people that came to the area.
The gist, at least amongst Phoenicians, is that a thriving core is a good thing. Of course, with a state government every bit as conservative as Kansas's we seem to have an expanding light rail system and significant development downtown.
Of course, Phoenix is a rapidly sprawling city with really no terribly unsafe neighborhoods.
The Kansas City that we are discussing is in Missouri. KCMO is much bigger than Kansas City, Kansas.
The Kansas City that we are discussing is in Missouri. KCMO is much bigger than Kansas City, Kansas.
I am well aware that we're talking about KCMO and not KCK.
The point in that Kansas seems to have an anti-urban and pro-sprawl mentality (which translates into a lack of regional cohesiveness that both the Kansas and Missouri sides of the state line have to deal with). Arizona has a very similar legislature to Kansas ideologically, yet Phoenix's urban core (which was a pathetic joke as recently as 10 years ago) is getting a significant amount of action.
One thing that i've been noticing on this site is a lot of speculation that Kansas City isn't that attractive to young people. I can't speak completely about the economy of a city and what businesses look for. But I can tell you what young people enjoy (I'm a recent grad) and to say KC isn't appealing to young people is just flat out false. Kansas City is very attractive to young people and offers what many my age look for in a city and more. As ridiculous as it seems the largest two things working against Kansas City as far as attracting young people as ridiculous as it sounds, is its name and location. Just having Kansas in your name is a pretty big deterrent that combined with being located on the Missouri/Kansas border makes many believe its a lot smaller and a lot more backwater then it is. And once many come and see for themselves it isn't what its name would suggest they fall in love with the place, especially in the past couple of years. If I were to guess why the sudden attitude change came from I'd guess that the reason is both the retention and attraction of youth. Even from me beginning college i've noticed many more 20 somethings are choosing to live here and/or stay here.
I also feel many on here are confusing correlation and what "Millennials" actually desire in life. For example, driving and public transit. People my age aren't against driving, they simply can't afford to drive/ its a pain to drive in most of the cities that are desirable. This doesn't mean that driving its self is hated. Driving in DC, Seattle the east coast etc is hated. But many of the reasons why driving is a pain elsewhere isn't present here. Owning and maintaining a car is comparatively cheaper, you don't have to pay for parking anywhere and because of the surplus of lanes and highways you can be places in less than 45 minutes and you can actually enjoy driving. Once a decent transit system is initiated the option of having both is going to be a huge advantage.
The same could be said about apartments vs single family housing. Youth don't necessarily prefer apartments over single families homes. If a house can provide the nearby amenities and price of an apartment, it becomes just as appealing.
Not that appealing to young talent seems to actually matter. Houston and Dallas, two character-less, expensive, pre-fab filled humid cities in the middle of a viciously red state are pretty unappealing, as far as the cities for what they are, to young talent and are growing faster than anywhere else. So maybe growth depends less on what a city has to offer young people and more on the money a city has to lure in companies that think they know what young people want in life.
Excellent point about driving! Most people in this country already have cars, it is the norm- so transit shouldn't be considered such a concern because you have all of these people who want to live car-free. Those are a tiny percentage of Americans-- the fact is the ones who go car free, just as you mentioned, are those in the congested cities where driving is a pain due to crushing traffic and high costs for parking everywhere. So that MIT grad that someone else mentioned who has no car probably is not that way because he/she doesn't want a car or hates driving, he/she is likely that way because the circumstances in that local area make it too difficult to have one. In most other places the car is the fastest, most convenient form of transportation- that's why there are more than 900 cars for every 1000 people in this country.
So transit is something in heavily congested places that is put in place out of need- not because so many people want to be car free. A city like Kansas City really doesn't have a huge need for that- you have great freeways that never get too congested, you have free parking at most places, so the form of transit that almost everyone already has- a car- works great for them. So I don't see the lack of some huge transit system as a con for the Kansas City metro area at all.
Excellent point about driving! Most people in this country already have cars, it is the norm- so transit shouldn't be considered such a concern because you have all of these people who want to live car-free. Those are a tiny percentage of Americans-- the fact is the ones who go car free, just as you mentioned, are those in the congested cities where driving is a pain due to crushing traffic and high costs for parking everywhere. So that MIT grad that someone else mentioned who has no car probably is not that way because he/she doesn't want a car or hates driving, he/she is likely that way because the circumstances in that local area make it too difficult to have one. In most other places the car is the fastest, most convenient form of transportation- that's why there are more than 900 cars for every 1000 people in this country.
So transit is something in heavily congested places that is put in place out of need- not because so many people want to be car free. A city like Kansas City really doesn't have a huge need for that- you have great freeways that never get too congested, you have free parking at most places, so the form of transit that almost everyone already has- a car- works great for them. So I don't see the lack of some huge transit system as a con for the Kansas City metro area at all.
It's hard to have both a wide open metro with no traffic and no congestion AND have a vibrant urban city at the same time. KC proves that. Part of city life is having people on sidewalks, in parks, using bikes, dining on sidewalk cafes, using public transit for short trips etc and the only way to really accomplish that on a large scale is for people to leave the cars at home.
I don't think there is really a need to not have a car in KC. You will generally still need a car in KC. I mean, if you live in Downtown KC, you may as well have a car parked so you can use it when you need to go to the grocery store visit friends etc. But in KC, people will go get a car and drive it five blocks and every retail establishment much have parking which really makes it difficult to create a walkalbe city.
There has to be "some" reduction in dependency on the automobile in KC. That doesn't mean urbanites need to ditch cars all together.
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.
