Why isn't Kansas City, Kansas booming? (Fairfax: homes, live, area)

[safetywire]

Look KCMO, MarketSTel, carry on you two gaslighting Narcissistic old dudes! Safetywire out.

[idaeus]

Oh for Christ sake!

[MOforthewin]

Would you consider KC Missouri a sun belt city like some call it? IMO it's a bit too far north.

If it were located around Springfield I would consider it a sun belt city. Springfield is considered one and that area is growing as well pretty fast.

I think Springfield and Kansas City are in the future going to be the booming areas.

Except Springfield region it's because you have people retiring there because of the mild climate around Springfield and south of Springfield.

[MarketStEl]

Originally Posted by MOforthewin

Would you consider KC Missouri a sun belt city like some call it? IMO it's a bit too far north.

If it were located around Springfield I would consider it a sun belt city. Springfield is considered one and that area is growing as well pretty fast.

I think Springfield and Kansas City are in the future going to be the booming areas.

Except Springfield region it's because you have people retiring there because of the mild climate around Springfield and south of Springfield.

Who's called KCMo a "Sunbelt" city?

It is too far north.

But if what they mean is that population and economic growth in the region hews closer to the trajectory of Sunbelt than Rust Belt cities, I think that assessment is true, at least from the numbers I recall seeing.

[MarketStEl]

Originally Posted by safetywire

KCMO - you said "where the city includes reimbursement of the etax as part of an incentive package for companies. It has been mostly used for very large scale redevelopment projects like the H&R Block HQ and is also part of the incentive package for the Cerner development in SKC."

Exactly one post back you said that was not true..... So when I say it, it's dumb and not true, you say it, it's truth. Got it.

You may be out, but your initial assertion was that the earnings-tax credits were the reason KCKs wasn't booming.

It still seems to me that even though I was wrong about no companies getting such credits, they weren't the deciding factor in keeping the Missouri-based H&R Block and Cerner in Missouri. But I will admit that I'd need to go into the details of the incentive packages Kansas and Missouri were offering each to know for sure.

However: That 2016 Next City article I linked to showed that Kansas showered far more tax breaks on companies headed west across State Line Road than Missouri did on companies crossing it eastward. Given how much everyone says taxes make a big difference, then if KCK's not booming despite that, there must be something else at work.

[Versatile]

Originally Posted by dom1_4802

As the title suggests, I'm curious as to why Kansas City on the Kansas side isn't booming, or even growing at rates that are admirable. Are businesses not interested on this side of the line, if so, why not?

There's plenty of vacant (& cheap) land along State and Parallel east of 18th Street in downtown that could serve for some impressive offices, hotels, a music theatre, a tourist attraction, a small downtown stadium, or even just a revitalization of the area.

Plus it would be within a half-mile of the confluence of the two rivers.
Not to mention, pretty impressive surface infrastructure for such a measly downtown with ample access to 635, 670, 70 and 35, US 69 and the 18th Street Expressway. Plus with 70, direct access to downtown KCMO could really work to their favor.

Or even outside of the downtown area, there is plenty of vacant land west of 635, why isn't Johnson County density housing being built or already exist? I mean, Olathe has twice the population density than KCK, and it's technically an exurb!

I guess what I'm getting at is why a city of 124 square miles that's already established with decent street infrastructure in a hot market isn't bigger than it is. Why isn't there a skyline competing with Missouri? St. Paul and Minneapolis have a pretty healthy competition, economically speaking, and both have competing skylines that are beautiful and complement each other.

Why isn't downtown getting a lot of attention, other than the odd shop that opens, which would be exciting for the downtown of a town like De Soto or Oak Grove, but not for a city of 150,000 people.

Are companies not interested in the Kansas side?

Even though there may be confusion from the national view, why isn't KCK building an identity that separates it from KCMO, even using the fact that they share a name to their benefit through some clever marketing or something, get creative. Even looking into a street car going along State from 5th to 635 to really solidify an area of wanted commercial growth.

Is the state looking to do something to help incentivize the growth of the downtown of its once largest city?
Or is the Unified Government? Why isn't the UG working on replacing dilapidated downtown buildings and urban blight with beautiful high-density downtown housing.

It's just a sad situation and seeing that so much could be done to fix the dilapidated conditions of downtown, but not.

I've lost count of the number of hotels and towers that are in the planning or construction phases in Kansas City, Missouri. Back to my biggest question... Why isn't anybody interested in the Kansas side? (Land is so much cheaper, too.)

And don't get me wrong, I love KC, MO. I love my city and wider metro area as a whole. I love the culture of the city. But to see not all of it thrive is what's concerning to me.

Please civil comments only. No unnecessary, unfounded claims of one side being just better than the other, which are all too common with threads regarding the two cities. I want constructive comments only. Please!

I grew up in KCMO near Martin City. Perception is a major factor. Back then you as a white person you were in danger by going to KCKS. I am 67 and as a teenager went to where we were told not to go. I only made it to SW Boulevard in KLCMO when a guy ran out from a billboard cussing us and shooting at us as we drove by. We never went to downtown kcks at night. To be fair we got ourselves in trouble on the Est Kc side as well.

Fast forward to 2002. I was recruited by a lodge at about 16th and Wash irrc. This lodge was all white in KCKS! These were left overs from the white flight in the 60's I think. I recruited a few guys from my area but all quit because it was just dangerous. Two new recruits had a very bad experience by going to the apartment complex across the street. Combine the idea od my own personal safety to driving alone and having possible car trouble with the racist white lodge members i quit.

Iknow a man; who used to be a prominent KC CLUB member and he owned 7 or more major buildings in downtown KCMO. When i asked if he owned and buildings in KCKS. ; he just rolled his eyes!!

Money and Racism is my answer.

[rwiksell]

Originally Posted by MOforthewin

Would you consider KC Missouri a sun belt city like some call it? IMO it's a bit too far north.

If it were located around Springfield I would consider it a sun belt city. Springfield is considered one and that area is growing as well pretty fast.

I think Springfield and Kansas City are in the future going to be the booming areas.

Except Springfield region it's because you have people retiring there because of the mild climate around Springfield and south of Springfield.

Uhh... I know this is off-topic, but I lived in Springfield for 20 years and NOBODY called it a Sunbelt City. Due to its higher elevation, it gets basically the same weather as KC does.

If anybody is retiring in Springfield, it's not because of the "mild climate". The climate is not mild. It's probably because of the lakes, or Branson. But all those are at least an hour from Springfield proper.

[MOforthewin]

Originally Posted by rwiksell

Uhh... I know this is off-topic, but I lived in Springfield for 20 years and NOBODY called it a Sunbelt City. Due to its higher elevation, it gets basically the same weather as KC does.

If anybody is retiring in Springfield, it's not because of the "mild climate". The climate is not mild. It's probably because of the lakes, or Branson. But all those are at least an hour from Springfield proper.

There is a BIG difference in climate between Springfield and KC. In Jan the average high temps in Springfield are quite a bit warmer than KC. Less snow too and a number of mild days as well. The average high in springfield is 4 degrees warmer than KC in the coldest period. Average high for KC is 38 in middle of Jan while 42 for the high in Springfield. Average wise in winter that's a decent gap.

I'm from St. Louis and a big difference in weather between the two cities. Like in the winter down in springfield you will get a number of mild days where temps will climb well into the 60s or 70 while in Stl it's only 50 degrees and a cold rain. Also, spring weather starts soon and more southern type severe storms down there.

Overall the climate of the southern quarter of Missouri is quite different than along and north of the Missouri river. Basically same climate as middle and eastern TN in the southern quarter of Missouri. Granted same latitude.

I think St. Louis is just a tad too cold for me but somewhere like Bull Shoals, Table Rock, Springfield, Joplin I can tolerate the climate as when it does snow it does not stay long and usually get mild temps in a few days. St. Louis it sticks around longer and seems more colder and cloudy.

[rwiksell]

Originally Posted by MOforthewin

There is a BIG difference in climate between Springfield and KC. In Jan the average high temps in Springfield are quite a bit warmer than KC. Less snow too and a number of mild days as well. The average high in springfield is 4 degrees warmer than KC in the coldest period. Average high for KC is 38 in middle of Jan while 42 for the high in Springfield. Average wise in winter that's a decent gap.

I'm from St. Louis and a big difference in weather between the two cities. Like in the winter down in springfield you will get a number of mild days where temps will climb well into the 60s or 70 while in Stl it's only 50 degrees and a cold rain. Also, spring weather starts soon and more southern type severe storms down there.

Overall the climate of the southern quarter of Missouri is quite different than along and north of the Missouri river. Basically same climate as middle and eastern TN in the southern quarter of Missouri. Granted same latitude.

I think St. Louis is just a tad too cold for me but somewhere like Bull Shoals, Table Rock, Springfield, Joplin I can tolerate the climate as when it does snow it does not stay long and usually get mild temps in a few days. St. Louis it sticks around longer and seems more colder and cloudy.

I'm going to agree to disagree with you regarding the weather differences. But either way, there's really NO case to be made for Springfield as a Sunbelt City. That is all.

[luzianne]

Originally Posted by rwiksell

I'm going to agree to disagree with you regarding the weather differences. But either way, there's really NO case to be made for Springfield as a Sunbelt City. That is all.

And I'm going to disagree with you. There is indeed a difference in weather between Springfield and Kansas City. My parents moved just south of Springfield for that very reason. The weather was almost always milder where they were. Less ice, less snow, temperatures 5 to 10 degrees or more warmer than Kansas City much of the time,