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.
This is for multi family and commercial construction. I'm not sure if it includes all the downtown office tower conversions or not. I'm actually impressed that KC is basically mentioned with Austin and Nashville (known boom towns) as being one of the smaller cities ranking so high with new construction and I actually can't quite believe it based on what I have seen going up in other cities.
This is for multi family and commercial construction. I'm not sure if it includes all the downtown office tower conversions or not. I'm actually impressed that KC is basically mentioned with Austin and Nashville (known boom towns) as being one of the smaller cities ranking so high with new construction and I actually can't quite believe it based on what I have seen going up in other cities.
Very interesting, as someone looking to purchase investment properties in KC soon this makes me very happy. KC is certainly the most affordable city of those on the list.
I know I'm the one that posted this, but I still just don't get how KC ranks this high. There is a lot more going up in Downtown Baltimore than KC right now. Even if you include sort of hidden projects like P&L renovation and Commerce, I just don't see it. Baltimore is building several large and expensive towers and several more smaller buildings. KC basically just has 2 Light and it's not really all that large by large city standards.
And there is no way that DC is only three times KC. There are more tower cranes up in central DC right now than there probably has ever been in the history of KC combined.
Nashville is ranked near KC and they are pretty much in a totally different league than KC when it comes to started and proposed projects. Same with Austin, Seattle etc.
I want to believe that KC should be on this list. I just don't see it though. KC still feels very slow growth to me compared to most other cities. Downtown KC is growing faster than Downtown St Louis, but even Clayton and Midtown StL has more going on than the Plaza/Midtown KC. So I'm just confused on this. Did the entire 4 billion dollar Cerner project get thrown into stats somehow even though it's only started the first phase of two relatively small office buildings?
Nashville:
This is just the south side of downtown Nashville, there are 40 story towers going up in other parts of the city as well.
I know I'm the one that posted this, but I still just don't get how KC ranks this high. There is a lot more going up in Downtown Baltimore than KC right now. Even if you include sort of hidden projects like P&L renovation and Commerce, I just don't see it. Baltimore is building several large and expensive towers and several more smaller buildings. KC basically just has 2 Light and it's not really all that large by large city standards.
And there is no way that DC is only three times KC. There are more tower cranes up in central DC right now than there probably has ever been in the history of KC combined.
Nashville is ranked near KC and they are pretty much in a totally different league than KC when it comes to started and proposed projects. Same with Austin, Seattle etc.
I want to believe that KC should be on this list. I just don't see it though. KC still feels very slow growth to me compared to most other cities. Downtown KC is growing faster than Downtown St Louis, but even Clayton and Midtown StL has more going on than the Plaza/Midtown KC. So I'm just confused on this. Did the entire 4 billion dollar Cerner project get thrown into stats somehow even though it's only started the first phase of two relatively small office buildings?
Aren't these statistics based on metro wide construction and not just projects in the urban core? They aren't skyline changing projects per se, but right now we have two projects in the River Market, one in Columbus Park, several renovations in the Garment District, new development near Quality Hill, Commerce Tower renovation, Brookfield building renovation, and Two Light downtown, the Berlau building renovation and new apartments on Southwest Blvd, Home2Suites, and Corrigan Station in the Crossroads and others in the downtown area and south to the Plaza, but these are some I remember off the top of my head right now. I'm supportive of big skyline changing projects, but I would prefer KC take the urban infill approach of Portland, OR that has made that city such a pleasant and walk-able city to be in.
Aren't these statistics based on metro wide construction and not just projects in the urban core? They aren't skyline changing projects per se, but right now we have two projects in the River Market, one in Columbus Park, several renovations in the Garment District, new development near Quality Hill, Commerce Tower renovation, Brookfield building renovation, and Two Light downtown, the Berlau building renovation and new apartments on Southwest Blvd, Home2Suites, and Corrigan Station in the Crossroads and others in the downtown area and south to the Plaza, but these are some I remember off the top of my head right now. I'm supportive of big skyline changing projects, but I would prefer KC take the urban infill approach of Portland, OR that has made that city such a pleasant and walk-able city to be in.
I understand what you are saying. But I only mention the larger projects because it's easy to compare cities that way. Most cities easily have just as many or more smaller projects as KC does. Have you seen all the 5 story apartments buildings that are going up along Charlotte's light rail line for example? Denver, Portland etc have way more "smallish" projects than KC does. And cities like Nashville tend to build as many or more suburban homes and apartments as KC does although suburban development has drastically slowed in most cities. In metro DC, suburban residential and office is way down unless its part of high density project near metro rail station (Tysons etc). Same with Chicago. They have almost nothing going on in the suburbs despite tons of urban core development. So maybe KC really has a lot going on, but it's so spread out you don't notice it. It could be right, it's just difficult to comprehend. The Cerner project, all the new big projects in JoCo, Lee's Summit etc. I mean there is more of that going on in KC than much of suburban DC which is mostly quiet, but still would easily equal KC in shear size of the metro alone.
I'm just trying to understand this. Because on the surface, KC does not seem to be growing all that fast. Much faster than the old KC for sure, but a boom town? I don't see it.
I understand what you are saying. But I only mention the larger projects because it's easy to compare cities that way. Most cities easily have just as many or more smaller projects as KC does. Have you seen all the 5 story apartments buildings that are going up along Charlotte's light rail line for example? Denver, Portland etc have way more "smallish" projects than KC does. And cities like Nashville tend to build as many or more suburban homes and apartments as KC does although suburban development has drastically slowed in most cities. In metro DC, suburban residential and office is way down unless its part of high density project near metro rail station (Tysons etc). Same with Chicago. They have almost nothing going on in the suburbs despite tons of urban core development. So maybe KC really has a lot going on, but it's so spread out you don't notice it. It could be right, it's just difficult to comprehend. The Cerner project, all the new big projects in JoCo, Lee's Summit etc. I mean there is more of that going on in KC than much of suburban DC which is mostly quiet, but still would easily equal KC in shear size of the metro alone.
I'm just trying to understand this. Because on the surface, KC does not seem to be growing all that fast. Much faster than the old KC for sure, but a boom town? I don't see it.
I can't really disagree. KC has a lot going for it, and I feel it has a lot of great things to rival cities such as Portland and Denver from an urban core standpoint. Yet, it's still going to be a slow process for KC to match the size and rate of projects occurring in such cities. Unfortunately, I don't foresee any new office projects occurring in the urban core (there's the Plaza project, but it's still in a holding pattern right now) such as even found in Clayton currently. KC just has to continue building itself up under the radar until things heat up enough to start attracting the attention of developers outside the region that see the area of the Crossroads and other areas as prime places to make money.
I can't really disagree. KC has a lot going for it, and I feel it has a lot of great things to rival cities such as Portland and Denver from an urban core standpoint. Yet, it's still going to be a slow process for KC to match the size and rate of projects occurring in such cities. Unfortunately, I don't foresee any new office projects occurring in the urban core (there's the Plaza project, but it's still in a holding pattern right now) such as even found in Clayton currently. KC just has to continue building itself up under the radar until things heat up enough to start attracting the attention of developers outside the region that see the area of the Crossroads and other areas as prime places to make money.
The city also still needs to figure out how to spend some money and bring in federal matching dollars. I'll bring up Nashville again.
They want to spend 6 billion over the next 25 years building a regional transit system. They are going to spend 1.6 billion on a new airport terminal. A serious regional transit system is not even on the drawing board in KC and the city loves its old outdated airport terminal...
In 20 years, Nashville will be considerably larger than KC and it won't be by accident.
Leaving money out of the discussion for a moment, why is Nashville culturally more accepting of growth, but KC seems uncomfortable by it? Is Nashville a younger city? I'm trying to compare the two from a different angle, but I haven't been to Nashville in many years, so I have zero context or expertise.
Strong leadership, especially regional cooperation and regional leadership will easily overcome the stubborn portion of the population that loves status quo and is against change/growth. KC seriously lacks this, especially regionally.
Nashville will blow past KC over the next couple of decades just like Denver did in the 1980's and Charlotte in the 1990's. Indy, Austin, even OKC down the road will eventually pass KC, mostly because they have an actual desire to progress and grow and invest in their cities/metros where KC simply does not.
KC will continue to just get by, but it will also continue to lose ground to other cities. For a historically large city west of the core of the rustbelt with a diverse economy etc, KC has really dropped the ball and should be a much larger city today than it is.
Watch while KC is begging for a 20 million dollar fed grant to help fund 2 more miles of streetcar, Nashville will get hundreds of millions of fed money to build a first class regional transit system which will spur billions of regional transit oriented development in their area, bringing in more young people and more development. KC will continue to raise sales taxes to give back tax money (that could be going to transit) to developers to develop suburban greenfields in areas already saturated with retail. Does nothing for the overall economy of the metro other than create blight somewhere else. You do the math...
Strong leadership, especially regional cooperation and regional leadership will easily overcome the stubborn portion of the population that loves status quo and is against change/growth. KC seriously lacks this, especially regionally.
Nashville will blow past KC over the next couple of decades just like Denver did in the 1980's and Charlotte in the 1990's. Indy, Austin, even OKC down the road will eventually pass KC, mostly because they have an actual desire to progress and grow and invest in their cities/metros where KC simply does not.
KC will continue to just get by, but it will also continue to lose ground to other cities. For a historically large city west of the core of the rustbelt with a diverse economy etc, KC has really dropped the ball and should be a much larger city today than it is.
Watch while KC is begging for a 20 million dollar fed grant to help fund 2 more miles of streetcar, Nashville will get hundreds of millions of fed money to build a first class regional transit system which will spur billions of regional transit oriented development in their area, bringing in more young people and more development. KC will continue to raise sales taxes to give back tax money (that could be going to transit) to developers to develop suburban greenfields in areas already saturated with retail. Does nothing for the overall economy of the metro other than create blight somewhere else. You do the math...
The cities that have entered into the discussion during the past few comments are:
Nashville
Denver
Charlotte
Indianapolis
Austin
Oklahoma City
What do all of these cities (save one) have in common? They are CAPITAL CITIES.
These cities do not just represent themselves, they represent their states as a whole (except maybe the weirdo, Austin) and thus are more investment-prone. In addition to city leadership, you have state leaders who want to spruce up their showrooms, and are willing to spend the political capital to do it.
The exception - Charlotte - should be an example for what Kansas City could do if they really tried. Especially since Charlotte is a relatively evenly split bi-state metro.
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.
