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 04-14-2017, 09:03 AM
 
1,830 posts, read 3,112,552 times
Reputation: 532

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by julsstlouis View Post
You can't even get people from St. Louis to visit K.C..
What's your source on that? I run across people visting from STL often.


Meanwhile, there are more from STL moving to KC than vice versa. This says from 2010-2014 KC had a net gain from STL.

https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2...migration.html

http://kcrag.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t...ration#p562537
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-14-2017, 09:30 AM
 
112 posts, read 62,035 times
Reputation: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarketStEl View Post
So: what sorts of buildings would impact the KC skyline?

Let's start with this photo, the most iconic view of Downtown Kansas City - the view from the statue "The Scout" in Penn Valley Park:



For reference purposes, the beige skyscraper in the foreground of the skyline is the 476-foot-tall, 33-story Kansas City Power & Light Building, the tallest building in the city from its completion in 1931 until the AT&T Town Center (the building with the low pyramid top second to the P&L's right behind it) opened sometime around 1980.

We can see that there is one building that's taller than both of these. That building is the 624-foot-tall One Kansas City Place, the tallest habitable building in Missouri. (The Gateway Arch in St. Louis is taller.)

Kansas City's 443-foot-high (520 feet if you measure to the top of the mast that sits atop it) City Hall (1937-38), which I think is the tallest city hall in the country, is at the very right edge of the photo.

If I'm not mistaken, that's the H&R Block tower in front and to the right of the Town Center. I don't know what the taller building to its right is.

So we'd need some 550- to 650-foot tall buildings, or maybe one 700-footer, to make a statement on the skyline.

Now here's a photo of downtown Des Moines.



Looks to me like a couple of 32-33-story apartment towers would make a statement here easily. KC? We'd have to go bigger and taller, or at least taller.

So: How's the city economy doing these days? Is there some large company we could lure from somewhere well beyond the four-state region of Missouri, Kansas, Iowa and Nebraska? Are there enough people interested in downtown living to support a sleek, slender 700-foot apartment tower? (I'm sure the Downtown Council would be thrilled for someone to design and build one.)

I'd like to suggest that the problem may be less one of lack of imagination than that the numbers just wouldn't work.
I don't think a building would have to be a new tallest to impact the skyline. The prior rendering of the Hyatt was a building that would have impacted the skyline. It looked about the same height as the P&L building. I think anything over 400 feet would be impactful, especially if it was on the east side of downtown, away from some of the other buildings. The buildings they're building in Des Moines won't be their tallest either. Des Moines' tallest building is actually a few feet taller than KC's. So they will fit in that skyline similar to how they'd fit in here (not exactly, but similar). As far as the economics of such a building, I'm no expert. I know that height definitely adds to cost. I wonder if combining One and Two Light into a 400 ft. building instead of two 250 ft buildings would have been possible. As far as office . . . unfortunately Cerner has shown no commitment to downtown whatsoever. They're building 4 million square feet in south KC. Even a quarter of that downtown could have been a shiny new 45-story building. It was a once-in-a-generation chance to make a major impact on the downtown skyline, and it was squandered. Don't get me started on all the reasons I think Cerner messed up that decision.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2017, 11:08 AM
 
Location: Germantown, Philadelphia
3,666 posts, read 1,775,662 times
Reputation: 2210
Quote:
Originally Posted by julsstlouis View Post
You can't even get people from St. Louis to visit K.C. There's nothing there. They do have some beautiful fountains though but that's not anything I would make a family vacation out of. Kansas City is a fly-over town that's fighting for national recognition. People only go when they have to; not for vacation.
That's not what my travel-industry-insider friend here in Philadelphia says.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2017, 11:54 AM
 
112 posts, read 62,035 times
Reputation: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarketStEl View Post
That's not what my travel-industry-insider friend here in Philadelphia says.
Quote:
Originally Posted by julsstlouis View Post
You can't even get people from St. Louis to visit K.C. There's nothing there. They do have some beautiful fountains though but that's not anything I would make a family vacation out of. Kansas City is a fly-over town that's fighting for national recognition. People only go when they have to; not for vacation.
There's some truth to this. But it's not nearly as bad as you're making it out to be. There are plenty of people from around the midwest that come to KC for long weekends and such. Just like St. Louis. I will admit that St. Louis has a little bit more going for it in the touristy things. But not much. When I was a kid, and lived in Des Moines for 18 months, we drove down here for spring break one time. There's a lot of that going on. On a national scale, I would guess KC and St. Louis have pretty similar appeal in that neither is a tourist hot bed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2017, 02:04 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh PA
402 posts, read 300,890 times
Reputation: 426
KC and StLouis are nearly identical. One doesn't offer anything more to tourists than the other. I actually think most people I talk to out here would prefer to see kc for the BBQ alone. St Louis does not seem to interest many people.

Last edited by brooksider2brooklyn; 04-14-2017 at 03:22 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2017, 02:16 PM
 
1,298 posts, read 984,909 times
Reputation: 658
Quote:
Originally Posted by julsstlouis View Post
You can't even get people from St. Louis to visit K.C. There's nothing there. They do have some beautiful fountains though but that's not anything I would make a family vacation out of. Kansas City is a fly-over town that's fighting for national recognition. People only go when they have to; not for vacation.
Ha. St Louis is calling Kansas City a "flyover town"? That's a good one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2017, 03:08 PM
 
Location: Germantown, Philadelphia
3,666 posts, read 1,775,662 times
Reputation: 2210
Quote:
Originally Posted by DallastoChicagotoKC View Post
There's some truth to this. But it's not nearly as bad as you're making it out to be. There are plenty of people from around the midwest that come to KC for long weekends and such. Just like St. Louis. I will admit that St. Louis has a little bit more going for it in the touristy things. But not much. When I was a kid, and lived in Des Moines for 18 months, we drove down here for spring break one time. There's a lot of that going on. On a national scale, I would guess KC and St. Louis have pretty similar appeal in that neither is a tourist hot bed.
"The plural of anecdote is not data," but:

--The friends I've spoken to up this way who have visited both cities have told me they prefer Kansas City to St. Louis. Now, maybe they're concerned about offending my delicate sensibilities or wounding my considerable pride, but I doubt it.

--When I took my ex to visit my mother when she was residing in St. Louis, we did dine down in the Laclede's Landing area, toured the Anheuser-Busch brewery and visited the Missouri Botanical Garden and the St. Louis Museum of Art. Nonetheless, he thought that the Central West End was the downtown! (We did not go up in the Arch, though I have done that; I went up when my aunt and uncle who live in Edwardsville, Ill., took me into the city on a visit when I was a teenager.) He was not so confused when we went wandering through Westport and the Plaza.

As for "touristy things," I'd say the two cities are closer than you might think. Yes, St. Louis has the Arch and the state's only botanical garden, but KC has the state's only President (okay, his sites are in next-door Independence) and the official national memorial and museum honoring our participation in World War I (and as this year marks the centennial of America's entry into that war, I sure as hell hope the tourism folks are marketing that up the wazoo). KC has the better culinary rep nationally, thanks largely to barbecue - though people do get confused whenever "St. Louis-style ribs" are discussed, being unaware that the phrase refers to how the ribs are trimmed and not to how they're prepared. St. Louis has the blues and W.C. Handy; we have jazz and Basie, Mary Lou, and Bird, just to name a few. There's aviation history in both cities, though neither exploits it to the degree it could be exploited. Both have kinda-funky riverfront districts and busy farmers' markets (though neither of those are what I would consider even beyond-regional draws; to find one of those, you can look up the Reading Terminal Market where I live now.

I agree with your concluding sentence, but don't think either city has it all over the other in the tourism department. I would, however, argue that KC currently has the higher profile once you leave the Midwest.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2017, 07:36 PM
 
1,298 posts, read 984,909 times
Reputation: 658
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarketStEl View Post
I would, however, argue that KC currently has the higher profile once you leave the Midwest.
I also like KC better, but I think this statement is hard to support. St. Louis is still the bigger, older, and richer city. Its cultural institutions, like the Symphony, the Zoo and the Botanical Gardens, its educational institutions, like UMSL, SLU and Wash U, plus the Cardinals and, of course, the Arch, give St. Louis the edge when it comes to national profile. IMHO.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2017, 04:06 PM
 
Location: Alamogordo, NM
5,500 posts, read 5,165,456 times
Reputation: 3277
St.Louie - the "Arch" and Cardinals. KC - barbecue and the Chiefs and Royals. National view regarding which city is more "prominent?" Man, ya got me. It's pert-near a toss-up. I'd guess St. Louis. But it's just my answer - who's ta say if it's America's Final An-sa.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2017, 08:53 PM
 
Location: KCMO (Plaza)
290 posts, read 230,412 times
Reputation: 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by DallastoChicagotoKC View Post
I agree that the urban streetscape benefits from low and mid-rise infill. I lived in Chicago for 10 years, and I loved streets like Wabash that were still lined with the old 10-15 story buildings. Even better were the skyscrapers they built but kept the old facades of the midrise buildings. The urban streetscape is obviously a different perspective than what benefits the skyline. I guess I would rather see most of the mid-rise infill take place in the crossroads, midtown and the Plaza. I'm not against it happening in downtown. I'd just like to see something that really benefits the skyline. There really hasn't been anything since the late 1980s. H&R Block, One Light and Two Light are fine. But from a distance, you can't even really tell they're there. I feel like if a metro of 600,000 can figure out a way to put up two skyline-impacting buildings, KC should be able to come up with one.
I agree about adding to the skyline. Frankly, I grew up in the Bay Area and until about 2006, the skyline of SF never really changed for years. A few high rises went up in the 1990s, but the skyline was still defined by 500' boxes that were built in the late 60s to late 80s. Thus, at times we can't judge the vitality of a city purely on the amount of high rises that exist.
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
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