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 07-06-2016, 12:14 PM
 
Location: South St. Paul, Minnesota
32 posts, read 22,905 times
Reputation: 17

Advertisements

I wish Minneapolis had annexed more. It is land locked and doesn't have much room for growth. Just under 55 square miles land area. If St. Paul and Minneapolis joined it would have a population of 710,000 in 107 square miles. 100 years ago Minneapolis almost cracked the top ten largest but now it barely cracks the top 50. It's only a matter of time before it can't even do that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-06-2016, 12:20 PM
 
2,195 posts, read 2,145,372 times
Reputation: 1916
Quote:
Originally Posted by PerseusVeil View Post
When did they take off in earnest? Or have they been slow and steady additions?
There was a big annexation (actually 1 large annexation and 1 small annexation) in 1909 that more than doubled the city's landmass to 59 square miles.

The city annexed a small belt south of Waldo and Marlborough in 1947.

The massive annexations came between 1950-63 when the city jumped from 63 square miles to 314. Since then the city has annexed a net (there have been a couple minor de annexations) of 4 square miles.

The population of the 1947 city limits is currently about 225,000.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2016, 12:21 PM
 
1,298 posts, read 983,095 times
Reputation: 658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joots View Post
I would be interested in seeing photos of urban Kansas City. I would also like to know what the city population in its core is and the square milage.
This is sort of the authoritative thread for Kansas City photos: Kansas City information thread! If you plan to visit (or move to) KC, visit this thread first...

Here's a chart showing all the urban cores in the US over 100k. But since it doesn't also list the geographic area of these cores, I'm not sure what the density within that area would calculate to in Kansas City:

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2016, 12:24 PM
 
2,195 posts, read 2,145,372 times
Reputation: 1916
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joots View Post
I would be interested in seeing photos of urban Kansas City. I would also like to know what the city population in its core is and the square milage.
About 225,000 people in 63 square miles (about 10 square miles of which is still undeveloped land).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2016, 12:24 PM
 
1,298 posts, read 983,095 times
Reputation: 658
If you really want to see every annexation, and the year it happened, here you go: https://data.kcmo.org/download/qp4g-...pplication/pdf
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2016, 12:25 PM
 
1,298 posts, read 983,095 times
Reputation: 658
Quote:
Originally Posted by s.davis View Post
About 225,000 people in 63 square miles (about 10 square miles of which is still undeveloped land).
Where does this number come from? Also, wouldn't KCK need to be included if we're calculating the population of the urban core?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2016, 12:41 PM
 
2,195 posts, read 2,145,372 times
Reputation: 1916
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwiksell View Post
This is sort of the authoritative thread for Kansas City photos: Kansas City information thread! If you plan to visit (or move to) KC, visit this thread first...

Here's a chart showing all the urban cores in the US over 100k. But since it doesn't also list the geographic area of these cores, I'm not sure what the density within that area would calculate to in Kansas City:
I'm not sure how that data is parsed out, but it is incorrect with regards to the population of KC's pre-war neighborhoods.

The River Market to Plaza corridor alone has 80,000 in only 12 square miles. Likely that data set doesn't include the Southwest Corridor, Northeast, or a significant portion of the East side (despite all those neighborhoods being pre-war "streetcar suburban" type neighborhoods).

And all that is to say nothing of urban KCK, which has 73,000 people in the primarily pre-war neighborhoods east of 635 as of 2010.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2016, 12:44 PM
 
2,195 posts, read 2,145,372 times
Reputation: 1916
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwiksell View Post
Where does this number come from? Also, wouldn't KCK need to be included if we're calculating the population of the urban core?
Number comes from adding census tracts. And on KCK (see above post), it should, but does not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2016, 12:49 PM
 
2,195 posts, read 2,145,372 times
Reputation: 1916
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joots View Post
I wish Minneapolis had annexed more.
It's a double-edged sword. It makes it very hard for a city to have a cohesive direction or sense of itself when there are such wildly disparate development patterns.

Imagine if the electorate in Minneapolis contained not only the normal NIMBYs, but a vested anti-urban voting block totalling about 1/3 of all voters. There is a reason annexation-happy cities (KC, Columbus, Louisville, Nashville, etc.) are so far being landlocked cities like StL, Minneapolis, Cleveland, etc. when it comes to urban amenities like transit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2016, 01:03 PM
 
Location: Washington, DC area
10,705 posts, read 18,493,517 times
Reputation: 5409
Quote:
Originally Posted by s.davis View Post
The short answer is that the city underwent a massive annexation spree in the 50s and 60s, hoping to capture future suburban growth, especially north of the Missouri River, but it also annexed enormous swaths to the south and east. But most of the metro's postwar suburban growth marched southwest into Johnson County, Kansas. In the last 15 years, suburban growth has begun in earnest in KC's northland, but those population gains have been partially offset by severe population decline (akin to rust belt cities' population losses) on the city's east side. To this day only about 1/2 of KC's total landmass is developed, and enormous swaths of land in the city limits are woods, waterways or even working farmland.

But even in it's prewar core, KC is not as densely populated as Minneapolis, though the 2 cities share a very similar built environment and historical development vernacular. A comparable area of urban KC to Minneapolis's 58 square miles only holds about 225,000 people. KC suffered (and continues to suffer) considerably more from the effects of white flight, segregation and ghettofication than Minneapolis.

However, had it been able to annex it's primary suburban centers (which was impossible because they are in a different state), in the way that Indianapolis, Jacksonville, San Antonio, Louisville, Nashville or Columbus did, KC's city-proper population could be more akin to those annexation-happy cities, easily pushing 800,000 in about the same landmass.
The whole KCMO annexation thing has always interested me. What's really interesting is that KCMO annexed all that land to actually attempt to prevent suburban cities from growing as fast. This is why the city invested the bare minimum in sewers and other infrastructure in most of the newly annexed areas. The suburban areas that did have sewers, improved roads etc and were growing (Ruskin, SKC etc) were eventually destroyed because the city threw all their section 8 housing out there when they started tearing down urban core "projects".

Development started marching into Kansas Johnson County. KCMO sort of shot itself in the foot trying to maintain 300 sq miles but not developing all that land. KCMO was basically the only city in the country with so much land that was STILL loosing residents while other cities with so much land were capturing most of their metro's sprawl.

KCMO's annexation only exaggerated sprawl in metro KC as development skipped past all the new parts of KCMO to places like Grandview, Lee's Summit, Independence and even far flung areas like Cass County and Liberty which are actually very close the city limits of KCMO. When you leave the city limits of Raytown, Lee's Summit, Independence, Grandview (and till recently Gladstone, Liberty, NKC, Parkville etc) you more often than not leave a developed area and enter a rural or semi rural area when crossing into the city of KCMO.

Only in the last 15-20 years has KCMO decided to play the sprawl game and it's just now starting to pay off with massive growth north of the river. It's debatable as to if having sprawl in the city really benefits the city, but if the city is going to have all that land, I personally think they may as well build it out as suburbia. KCMO's northland residents generally help subsidize the urban core.
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
View detailed profiles of:
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