Would you chose KC over Denver as a place to live? (please see details) (Kansas City: sales, find a job)

[DOUBLE H]

I lived in the Denver area for over 40 years before moving to the Grand Junction area. I also get to the K.C. area 2 to 3 times a year as I have friends in Omaha, St. Joseph, and Gladstone (15 miles north of K.C. proper.) One issue I would like to comment is the highway system. It is MUCH superior to Denver's. I've been through the downtown area lots of times and have never been stuck in a jam. I'm sure there will be lots of posts that prove me otherwise. But I drove hundreds of thousands of miles in Denver and it was pure aggravation. I like the way the highway system is laid out. It is a lot easier to get around than Denver. On the subject of mountains, I like them. But there is this little problem called making a living. There are jobs in K.C. I remember several times in the 80's to '92 where Denver's unemployment rate hit 8%, sometimes up to 10%. Does that happen in K.C.? Mountains are nice, but you know what? You can't eat scenery.

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by DOUBLE H

I lived in the Denver area for over 40 years before moving to the Grand Junction area. I also get to the K.C. area 2 to 3 times a year as I have friends in Omaha, St. Joseph, and Gladstone (15 miles north of K.C. proper.) One issue I would like to comment is the highway system. It is MUCH superior to Denver's. I've been through the downtown area lots of times and have never been stuck in a jam. I'm sure there will be lots of posts that prove me otherwise. But I drove hundreds of thousands of miles in Denver and it was pure aggravation. I like the way the highway system is laid out. It is a lot easier to get around than Denver. On the subject of mountains, I like them. But there is this little problem called making a living. There are jobs in K.C. I remember several times in the 80's to '92 where Denver's unemployment rate hit 8%, sometimes up to 10%. Does that happen in K.C.? Mountains are nice, but you know what? You can't eat scenery.

1) The traffic is lighter in the Downtown area due to the fact that population density is quite a bit lower than Denver. Also, the Downtown areas of KC have not had much population growth at all for several decades. That could be changing in KC, MO, but the population is still decreasing in KC, KS.
Meanwhile, traffic congestion is increasing along I-435, especially the southside.
2) The Kansas City metro counties of Jackson and Wyandotte have never really had a great economy. Unemployment rates in Wyandotte County hit 11% in 2002 I believe. It is now down to between 6-7% for Wyandotte. Jackson County currently has an unemployment rate at around 6%. The suburban areas typically have very good paying jobs and low unemployment rates.
3) The cost of living in Kansas City metro area might be low, but often times the most affordable properties are in questionable neighborhoods in bad school districts. This is an issue many large cities have.
4) At least with KCI you can get to more "scenic" destinations in a relatively short period of time. This comes in handy when the weather is undesirable for long periods of time during the summer and winter.

[kcmo]

Downtown KC is not congested because of the highways, not because of the lack of population or population density. Urban KCMO is very similar to urban Denver in population or built up density.

Downtown KC has EIGHT highways coming out of it (the loop), the rest of the metro is served well with several major through interstates and beltways are everywhere.

If all of KC was built along I-35 and downtown just had 35 running through it with 35 and 70 meeting north of downtown (like 25&70 do in Denver), KC would have horrible traffic too. Denver is just now getting some other highways like E470, but they are not as built up, wide or close in as the beltways around KC.

The worst congestion in KC is along the 435/470 corridor in the south metro area.

KC has had a much better job rate than Denver. I know a few people that moved to Denver and moved back because of the job market in Denver.

[denverian]

[quote=kcmo;3404318]Downtown KC is not congested because of the highways, not because of the lack of population or population density. Urban KCMO is very similar to urban Denver in population or built up density.
quote]

I doubt it. Denver has built so many condos and apartments downtown in recent years, there are 4 highrise condos under construction right now ranging from 32 to 50 stories, plus there are a few older condo towers. The surrounding neighborhoods are denser than Midtown KC and have the added benefit of not being cut off from downtown by freeways.

I see the freeway loop around downtown KC as a major flaw. There really aren't any nice neighborhoods where you can walk to downtown, other than if you live in a River Market/Downtown loft. Granted, this was being done in many cities around the country at the time, so KC isn't alone in this. Hopefully the P & L District will help put life back in downtown.

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by kcmo

Downtown KC is not congested because of the highways, not because of the lack of population or population density. Urban KCMO is very similar to urban Denver in population or built up density.

Downtown KC has EIGHT highways coming out of it (the loop), the rest of the metro is served well with several major through interstates and beltways are everywhere.

If all of KC was built along I-35 and downtown just had 35 running through it with 35 and 70 meeting north of downtown (like 25&70 do in Denver), KC would have horrible traffic too. Denver is just now getting some other highways like E470, but they are not as built up, wide or close in as the beltways around KC.

The worst congestion in KC is along the 435/470 corridor in the south metro area.

KC has had a much better job rate than Denver. I know a few people that moved to Denver and moved back because of the job market in Denver.

Yes, Kansas City does have a lot of highways. The acronym "King of Concrete" is quite appropriate for the city.
In terms of population density Kansas City does not come even close to Denver. When considering total county boundaries Denver County is about 2.5X as dense as Jackson County Missouri. However, the comparison would be rather biased due to the fact that Denver County is quite small in geographical size.
In the suburban areas you are beginning to see "the urbanization of suburbia." What I mean by that statement is that density is beginning to increase over time in areas like JOCO with more mixed use developments becoming common. Another sign of increased urbanization is all of the lovely sound barriers that have gone up along the Interstates over the past several years.
The main issue that has been a problem for Kansas City, MO is a big sprawl problem. I can't think of any other major city in the country where the city limits span three separate counties. Not even Atlanta has this problem!

Denver was hit fairly hard by the economic recession in 2001-2002. Douglas County has had the most population and economic growth of all the counties in metro Denver for many years.

In terms of non-farm employment growth I can tell you based on the statistics that: Overall the suburban counties are doing quite a bit better than urban areas, but I would not call the overall job growth rates fantastic.
Jackson County MO- has lost around 6% of total non-farm employment since 2000.
Wyandotte County KS- has lost around 1% of total non-farm employment since 2000.
Johnson County KS- has gained around 3% of total non-farm employment since 2000.
Clay County MO- has gained about 2%.
Platte County MO- has gained about 2%
Cass County MO- has gained over 10%.

[kcmo]

I guess we are going to turn this into a Denver vs KC thing .

First off, I'm an urban planner and have worked within the traffic and planning field for 12 years. I do know what I'm talking about.

Now, I said that urban KC is similar to urban Denver. It Is. Does Downtown Denver have a larger residential population? Yes. Does that residential population create massive traffic congestion on I-25? No....

What causes that congestion? The entire city is built along I-25. Imagine if all of KC was basically within five miles of 70 or 35. Imagine if we did not have 435 or 635 or 71 or 29. Just 35 and 470. We would have similar congestion.

I agree that the loop chokes our CBD, that’s why you have to look beyond the loop when you think of Downtown KCMO. It’s more than just the loop.

But my point is that in downtown KC, you are never more than a few block from a freeway entrance ramp. 670, 71, 169, 9, 29, 35, 70 are all right there. This is what creates little congestion on not only the freeways, but the downtown surface streets.

KCMO also has a large urban population. People forget about the plaza area. Back when Denver had little to no urban condos, KC had the plaza which has more high-rise and other urban condos and apartment buildings than most big city downtowns. Just because the CBD of KCMO is just now taking off when it comes to residential doesn't mean KC did not have comparable choices for urban living.

Now, when it comes to density, you have to look at "urbanized area". I don't care if Platte County goes all the way to Omaha and makes KCMO's density stats look ridiculous. It won't change how dense the "continuous urbanized area" is. Metro KC's continuous urbanized area is very similar to Denver. Metro KC's urbanized population is also very similar to Denver. What that means is from Olathe to Liberty or Blue Springs to KCK, Belton to Gladstone. Just like Denver's is from Highlands Ranch to Northglen, Aurora to Golden etc.

I think the urbanized population of Denver is about 1.4 million. The urbanized population of KC is about 1.3 million. That’s how you compare density, not by looking at the sq miles of counties.

When you drive around the central city of Denver, it also feels similar to the central city of KCMO.

BTW, Denver has just as big a sprawl problem as KC. They are a step ahead of KC when it comes to transit, TOD and new urbanism developments, but they still build like crazy in the burbs. The Tech Center and all the areas south of the DTC along 25, the office parks popping up along the Boulder Turnpike and along 470 and the front range? Denver has its share of sprawl problems.

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by kcmo

I guess we are going to turn this into a Denver vs KC thing .

First off, I'm an urban planner and have worked within the traffic and planning field for 12 years. I do know what I'm talking about.

Now, I said that urban KC is similar to urban Denver. It Is. Does Downtown Denver have a larger residential population? Yes. Does that residential population create massive traffic congestion on I-25? No....

What causes that congestion? The entire city is built along I-25. Imagine if all of KC was basically within five miles of 70 or 35. Imagine if we did not have 435 or 635 or 71 or 29. Just 35 and 470. We would have similar congestion.

I agree that the loop chokes our CBD, that’s why you have to look beyond the loop when you think of Downtown KCMO. It’s more than just the loop.

But my point is that in downtown KC, you are never more than a few block from a freeway entrance ramp. 670, 71, 169, 9, 29, 35, 70 are all right there. This is what creates little congestion on not only the freeways, but the downtown surface streets.

KCMO also has a large urban population. People forget about the plaza area. Back when Denver had little to no urban condos, KC had the plaza which has more high-rise and other urban condos and apartment buildings than most big city downtowns. Just because the CBD of KCMO is just now taking off when it comes to residential doesn't mean KC did not have comparable choices for urban living.

Now, when it comes to density, you have to look at "urbanized area". I don't care if Platte County goes all the way to Omaha and makes KCMO's density stats look ridiculous. It won't change how dense the "continuous urbanized area" is. Metro KC's continuous urbanized area is very similar to Denver. Metro KC's urbanized population is also very similar to Denver. What that means is from Olathe to Liberty or Blue Springs to KCK, Belton to Gladstone. Just like Denver's is from Highlands Ranch to Northglen, Aurora to Golden etc.

I think the urbanized population of Denver is about 1.4 million. The urbanized population of KC is about 1.3 million. That’s how you compare density, not by looking at the sq miles of counties.

When you drive around the central city of Denver, it also feels similar to the central city of KCMO.

BTW, Denver has just as big a sprawl problem as KC. They are a step ahead of KC when it comes to transit, TOD and new urbanism developments, but they still build like crazy in the burbs. The Tech Center and all the areas south of the DTC along 25, the office parks popping up along the Boulder Turnpike and along 470 and the front range? Denver has its share of sprawl problems.

Thanks for your detailed descriptions. You get a rep point from me.

[denverian]

Originally Posted by kcmo

I guess we are going to turn this into a Denver vs KC thing .

First off, I'm an urban planner and have worked within the traffic and planning field for 12 years. I do know what I'm talking about.

Now, I said that urban KC is similar to urban Denver. It Is. Does Downtown Denver have a larger residential population? Yes. Does that residential population create massive traffic congestion on I-25? No....

What causes that congestion? The entire city is built along I-25. Imagine if all of KC was basically within five miles of 70 or 35. Imagine if we did not have 435 or 635 or 71 or 29. Just 35 and 470. We would have similar congestion.

I agree that the loop chokes our CBD, that’s why you have to look beyond the loop when you think of Downtown KCMO. It’s more than just the loop.

But my point is that in downtown KC, you are never more than a few block from a freeway entrance ramp. 670, 71, 169, 9, 29, 35, 70 are all right there. This is what creates little congestion on not only the freeways, but the downtown surface streets.

KCMO also has a large urban population. People forget about the plaza area. Back when Denver had little to no urban condos, KC had the plaza which has more high-rise and other urban condos and apartment buildings than most big city downtowns. Just because the CBD of KCMO is just now taking off when it comes to residential doesn't mean KC did not have comparable choices for urban living.

Now, when it comes to density, you have to look at "urbanized area". I don't care if Platte County goes all the way to Omaha and makes KCMO's density stats look ridiculous. It won't change how dense the "continuous urbanized area" is. Metro KC's continuous urbanized area is very similar to Denver. Metro KC's urbanized population is also very similar to Denver. What that means is from Olathe to Liberty or Blue Springs to KCK, Belton to Gladstone. Just like Denver's is from Highlands Ranch to Northglen, Aurora to Golden etc.

I think the urbanized population of Denver is about 1.4 million. The urbanized population of KC is about 1.3 million. That’s how you compare density, not by looking at the sq miles of counties.

When you drive around the central city of Denver, it also feels similar to the central city of KCMO.

BTW, Denver has just as big a sprawl problem as KC. They are a step ahead of KC when it comes to transit, TOD and new urbanism developments, but they still build like crazy in the burbs. The Tech Center and all the areas south of the DTC along 25, the office parks popping up along the Boulder Turnpike and along 470 and the front range? Denver has its share of sprawl problems.

I mostly agree with you, but I still like the setup of downtown Denver better. You can't argue that it's bigger and much more lively. I know KC is moving in a positive way to create a lively downtown, and the P&L district plus the Sprint center will do a lot to put people on the streets of downtown.

Suburban lots in the Denver metro area are overall smaller than in KC, where lots seem oversized to me, which adds to overall density a bit. I certainly wouldn't argue that Denver has no sprawl. Of course my view may be skewed a bit as I rarely leave the urban core other than going to the airport.

[OA 5599]

Originally Posted by DOUBLE H

I lived in the Denver area for over 40 years before moving to the Grand Junction area. I also get to the K.C. area 2 to 3 times a year as I have friends in Omaha, St. Joseph, and Gladstone (15 miles north of K.C. proper.) One issue I would like to comment is the highway system. It is MUCH superior to Denver's. I've been through the downtown area lots of times and have never been stuck in a jam. I'm sure there will be lots of posts that prove me otherwise. But I drove hundreds of thousands of miles in Denver and it was pure aggravation. I like the way the highway system is laid out. It is a lot easier to get around than Denver. On the subject of mountains, I like them. But there is this little problem called making a living. There are jobs in K.C. I remember several times in the 80's to '92 where Denver's unemployment rate hit 8%, sometimes up to 10%. Does that happen in K.C.? Mountains are nice, but you know what? You can't eat scenery.

Denver has (or at least had) somewhat of a boom-and-bust economy, with lot of jobs related to mining and petroleum. In the 80's, when oil prices fell, and due to fluctuations in the prices of minerals, a lot of people went out of work. I had a boss who was a geologist from the Denver area, but he luckily landed more in the environmental sector which is much more immune from fluctuations in the economy. I'm not sure if Denver is still like that, I'd imagine it is to some degree, but being such a large city it has probably diversified quite a bit.

[WestCoDude]

Growing up in Denver (and being ruthlessly angry at the Chiefs), there's no way I would have ever thought KC would be better than Denver. To be sure, the Chefs are still losers. But KC is much better city than Denver.

Why?

It's not very beautiful, it's smaller, less cosmopolitan, and there's no mountains. But what seals the deal for me is the people. Amazing, amazing people. There's just something very welcoming to families--a real neighborliness and genuine sensibility that you don't have in over-priced and over-rated Denver.

I've always found the folks in KC to be very open and friendly. Great churches and suburbs. Just a great place.

Denver's fine if you're 20 and you want a few years of skiing and hiking before you grow up.

And when you finally DO decide to grow up (have a family), you move to KC.