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, 02:19 PM
 
Location: Chicago
2,364 posts, read 2,032,594 times
Reputation: 2191

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by rwiksell View Post
It's a bit of a false dichotomy to compare "annexation happy" cities with the other kind. Every big city had some kind of annexation boom in its history, otherwise they would never have topped 1 square mile. It's more a question of when they annexed, how much they annexed, and when they stopped annexing.

There's also the question of what happened to that land after it was annexed. Did people set out to develop it right away? Or did it sit vacant for decades, serving more to hamper development than encourage it?
That's why I asked when the annexation occurred. Chicago, for example, certainly had a history of annexation, but the city's boundaries were essentially by the beginning of the 20th century. It's last major annexation, as far as I'm aware, is what became O'Hare after WWII.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-06-2016, 02:22 PM
 
Location: Chicago
2,364 posts, read 2,032,594 times
Reputation: 2191
Quote:
Originally Posted by s.davis View Post
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.
The Twin Cities do better than most when it comes to regional cooperation at least. Meanwhile you have the landlocked City of St. Louis fighting with St. Louis County about which MetroLink expansion should come first. One that primarily serves the county, and would go to the County seat, Clayton, or one that would run north/south through the city into the County, but primarily serve the city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2016, 07:57 AM
 
1,301 posts, read 993,557 times
Reputation: 663
Quote:
Originally Posted by s.davis View Post
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.
I think the 107,000 number is referring to people in the "urban core", not just pre-war neighborhoods. So streetcar suburbia would be excluded. My understanding is that there's a density criterion that would rule out all single-family housing neighborhoods, except maybe the very densely packed shotgun arrangements, with no front or back yards to speak of.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2016, 08:00 AM
 
1,301 posts, read 993,557 times
Reputation: 663
Quote:
Originally Posted by s.davis View Post
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.
If you're going to make comparisons, you should try to match the cities up better by population. You mention the landlocked cities:

Saint Louis
Minneapolis
Cleveland

...and the annexation cities:

Kansas City
Columbus
Louisville
Nashville

But all three of the first set are larger than all four of the second set. So it's natural that they would have more extensive urban amenities that have nothing to do with annexation or lack thereof.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2016, 05:48 AM
 
Location: Germantown, Philadelphia
3,740 posts, read 1,817,961 times
Reputation: 2275
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwiksell View Post
It's a bit of a false dichotomy to compare "annexation happy" cities with the other kind. Every big city had some kind of annexation boom in its history, otherwise they would never have topped 1 square mile. It's more a question of when they annexed, how much they annexed, and when they stopped annexing.

There's also the question of what happened to that land after it was annexed. Did people set out to develop it right away? Or did it sit vacant for decades, serving more to hamper development than encourage it?
The first great wave of municipal annexations began with the consolidation of the city of Philadelphia with the surrounding townships, boroughs and districts of Philadelphia County into a single municipality in 1854. Many cities in the Northeast and industrial Midwest annexed adjacent territory, much of which had already become "suburbs" and included several existing municipal governments (Philadelphia County had no unincorporated territory in 1854), over the next half century or so; the last of the great annexations/consolidations of this period was the one that created the present-day City of New York in 1898.

Kansas City was a pioneer of the second wave, which differed from the first in that the cities doing the annexing gobbled up large tracts of undeveloped land around their borders.

There were, and are, two main reasons for these annexations/consolidations. One is to capture extant or potential suburban growth. An influential book written by former Albuquerque, N.M., Mayor David Rusk back in 1993 titled "Cities Without Suburbs" noted that those cities that liberally annexed surrounding land and thus captured their suburban growth have performed better on just about all metrics (economic development, quality of city services, integration...) than those that didn't. Kansas City couldn't fully execute this strategy thanks to the state line, but it did what it could on the Missouri side.

The other was to provide the benefits of city services to a larger territory. Interethnic violence was a serious problem in the communities that bordered the pre-1854 City of Philadelphia; nativist riots and fights were prevalent throughout the 1840s. The consolidation allowed the city police to patrol a larger area and tamp it down. City water and sewer services were also extended into these districts that often lacked them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcmo View Post
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.
Your chronology's a bit off. Johnson County began to develop in the 1920s, largely as spillover from J.C. Nichols' successful development of the Country Club District next door. Fairway had its commercial district before World War II occurred, and Prairie Village, Nichols' answer to Levittown, was developed right as the war came to a close.

And Ruskin Heights, etc., had sewers precisely because they were part of the city by the time they developed. There's little point in building infrastructure when nobody's building, which is why Tiffany Springs Parkway north of the river was nothing more than a freeway off-ramp from the time it was plotted on a map in the early 1970s until development caught up with it. The Parks and Recreation Board had actually plotted extensions of the boulevard system into the Northland but didn't create them until the time was ripe to do so. (I should note here, however, that the transformation of Chouteau Trafficway into a boulevard was quite impressive.)

Rusk's argument, and I think he's right, is that "suburban" growth is really urban growth, and that land that urbanizes should be included in the urban government. But there's as strong a cultural bias against bigness in this country as there is a willingness to accept it, and the tension between the two means that things like annexations wax and wane over time.

Someone else here noted that Kansas City, Kansas, is not counted as part of the core city in that table upthread. If you look at the population stats, you will see that St. Paul isn't either, despite its being part of the metopolitan area name; that 382,600 figure for the "core city" is the population of Minneapolis alone. OTOH, I note that Philadelphia's "urban core" has a population larger than that for the "core city" (the aforementioned consolidated city-county above), which means that whoever put that table together is counting territory in an adjacent municipality over the Philadelphia city/county line as part of the "urban core." (My guess is Upper Darby Township in Delaware County, which is where the main east-west subway line in the city has its western end.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2016, 06:00 AM
 
Location: Germantown, Philadelphia
3,740 posts, read 1,817,961 times
Reputation: 2275
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcmo View Post
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.
Also: Kansas City's population peaked in the 1970 census at 507,330. The development of the annexed areas did add to the city's population, as the city had hoped. The emptying-out of my side of the old built-up city didn't begin in earnest until around the time I left for college in 1976.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2016, 10:37 AM
 
8,859 posts, read 9,691,171 times
Reputation: 6714
Kansas City wanted to be known as the Home office to the world. Kansas City Kansas had already been hollowed out to make way for part of 435. We moved out of the old Quindaro township in 63 because our home ( that my father built) was sold to whoever was building 435. TWA left in 64.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2016, 01:10 PM
 
1,301 posts, read 993,557 times
Reputation: 663
Quote:
Originally Posted by thriftylefty View Post
Kansas City wanted to be known as the Home office to the world. Kansas City Kansas had already been hollowed out to make way for part of 435. We moved out of the old Quindaro township in 63 because our home ( that my father built) was sold to whoever was building 435. TWA left in 64.
Are you sure you don't mean 635, instead of 435? I'm pretty sure they didn't have to tear anything down to build 435 through Wyandotte County. And the Quindaro neighborhood is by 635.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2016, 03:21 PM
 
8,859 posts, read 9,691,171 times
Reputation: 6714
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwiksell View Post
Are you sure you don't mean 635, instead of 435? I'm pretty sure they didn't have to tear anything down to build 435 through Wyandotte County. And the Quindaro neighborhood is by 635.
Yeah it had to be 635, where we lived was north of I-70 and North of K-5. In some parts of our Neighborhood we grew up thinking that Park College was ""the Castle." We could see it from across the river in the distance as it sat seemly in the forest surrounded by trees.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2016, 06:58 PM
 
2,195 posts, read 2,166,845 times
Reputation: 1916
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarketStEl View Post
...Kansas City, Kansas, is not counted as part of the core city in that table upthread. If you look at the population stats, you will see that St. Paul isn't either, despite its being part of the metopolitan area name; that 382,600 figure for the "core city" is the population of Minneapolis alone.
Pretty sure that is not correct vis-a-via the stats for Minneapolis/St Paul. In fact, there's a note at the bottom of table suggesting St Paul is included. Regardless, the take away is that Minneapolis is and always has been, considerably "bigger" than KC in most real-world ways, especially with the inclusion of St Paul. Pre-war Kansas City, in fact, fell somewhere between Minneapolis and St. Paul population wise, and Kansas City today feels a great deal more like St Paul than it does Minneapolis.
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