What is the difference between Kansas City KS and MO? I'm totally clueless (Blue Springs: crime rate, neighborhood)

[MOKAN]

To answer the original question of this thread, whether it was a troll or not, I put forth an effort in another thread to explain Kansas City, KS, in detail, which can be found here:

Downtown Kansas City, "Kansas" vs Downtown East St Louis "Illinois"

[CrownVic95]

Originally Posted by MOKAN

You must not have been around for the first 5 years. I've been present for about 10 years now.

That makes no sense - first 5 years of what? I'm talking about City-Data forums, which began sometime late 2005. kcmo has been here not quite 5 years and you a little over a year with this user name. You may well have had other accounts here, but not 10 years ago.

Mr. Gridlock, you are literally a professional when it comes to this sort of subject matter. You can't expect others without the same amount of contextual education and knowledge to really get it.

Professional? Please....he's a man with a strong opinion, just like anybody else. That his opinion is urban-centric and collectivist, with a mindset of entitlement to have his hand in the pockets of people who don't share his vision doesn't make him a "professional" or "correct" in his viewpoint.

I get you, but I also see a bit of anti-KS/JoCo bias, which I think may be ALL the others can see.

A bit of anti-KS/JoCo bias? As in....the surface of the Sun is a bit warm?

As for JoCo, had it not been JoCo, another area would have developed that played the role of JoCo. I don't see why that's so difficult to understand. The only difference is the same type of suburban area might have been on the Missouri side rather than in Kansas and might have had more interesting terrain. Most cities our size have developed corporate/big-city suburbs, which is what JoCo is, and that development simply would have occured elsewhere if JoCo were a lake or mountains, for example. Simple. JoCo does exist because of KCMO, not the other way around. Other more specific reasons JoCo exists is racism, white flight, being an open field next to a major city, and of course because Mr. JC Nichols set the trajectory for southwestward growth when he developed the Plaza and Country Club district. Had the Blue River run where state line is and the Plaza been built further east on Brush Creek, Raytown would be like NE JoCo and Lee's Summit would be like southern JoCo.

The point being what? No one contended otherwise and the same could be and is said about any other suburban area in any other metro. Why repeat this pointless assertion that kcmo made when no one contended otherwise and is completely irrelevant to the issue of these incessant and tiresome attacks on all things JoCo?

[luzianne]

Originally Posted by kcmo

Not buying it. No way. You are basically saying that KC would have turned into a buffalo had it not been for JoCo. Why? Why would a city like KC which leans more western become so economically depressed because some suburban county did not exist?

I'm not saying KC would be nothing, but it would be less without Johnson County. If you had the suburban Missouri counties and Wyandotte County, but not Johnson County - face it, Kansas City would be a far different place. You say that those people would still be in the area. Maybe they would, and maybe they wouldn't. I would say a lot of them wouldn't because some people, like me, are here specifically because they love Johnson County. There are cities without affluent suburbs. Maybe Kansas City would be more like Oklahoma City if not for Johnson County.

A lot of the people who 1) have money and 2) like culture live in Johnson County. I'm not saying that no one in any other part of the city likes those things, but I think that those things are largely supported by Johnson County. I first moved to Johnson County when I was 7 years old in 1964. Even at that age I was aware of Johnson County's involvement in Kansas City. We had a neighbor who gave his time and money tirelessly to benefit Kansas City on both sides of the state line - Starlight Theatre and the Kansas City Zoo, the American Royal, The Kansas City Philharmonic, Shawnee Mission Park, etc, etc. He really is the one who introduced me to everything Kansas City. He taught me to swim at Tomahawk Hills Country Club. He spent time and money helping Barstow. He taught me to ice skate at King Louie. He took me to the zoo, the American Royal, Starlight Theatre, the symphony, the circus. He was a fairly prominent business person in the Kansas City area at that time and he gave a lot to both sides of the city. It wasn't a Johnson County against Kansas City, Missouri thing at all. He lived in Johnson County, worked in Kansas City, Missouri, and worked to support both sides of the state line.

I just don't see why all the hatred for Johnson County. The "if there were no Johnson County other areas of the metro would take over that role" argument is kind of ridiculous. So you would be okay with it if that were the case, as long as all the affluent suburbs were on the Missouri side? Why does it matter what side of the state line they are on? If they are helping to support Kansas City (and Johnson County does), what difference does it make? Why do you love to hate Johnson County? I don't see why it has to turn into an argument. Johnson County contributes to the economy of the entire Kansas City metro. Some people prefer to live on the Missouri side and some prefer to live on the Kansas side. Why isn't that okay?

I see that some are making it a race/white flight issue. Maybe that's the reason people began to move away from the urban areas of Kansas City, but I don't believe it's the reason people live in Johnson County today. I don't have a problem living in a neighborhood with anyone of any race. I don't like urban areas; they just don't appeal to me. There is nothing wrong with liking the suburbs. I don't care if Ward and June Cleaver live on one side of me and the Huxtables live on the other side. George Jefferson and JJ Walker can move in across the street if they want to, as long as they are moving to the suburbs because they want the same things from their neighborhood that I and my neighbors do. If they want to move in and not take care of their property and sell drugs from the house - well then yeah, I'd have a problem with that.

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by CrownVic95

A half million people fail to recognize his vision of utopia and he simply cannot cope or accept it. A half million people know that Johnson county living is better than Kansas City living and better than Denver living, weather and geography aside, and his life's quest is to right that "wrong".

Same copy and pasted blather for 5 years now and, like a Terminator, he will not stop as long as he has an account here. I don't know what we can do outside of leaving the theater when he walks on stage. It's really sad.

Well if you're going down that road Douglas county, CO is a better place to live than Johnson county, KS.

[luzianne]

Originally Posted by GraniteStater

Well if you're going down that road Douglas county, CO is a better place to live than Johnson county, KS.

The point is that it shouldn't be someone's personal vendetta to make sure that anyone relocating to the Kansas City area doesn't consider Johnson County. The truth is that, like CrownVic said, half a million people think Johnson County is THE best place to live in the Kansas City area. I don't have a problem with people relocating to Kansas City who like urban living and choose to live downtown. I state the reasons that *I* prefer Johnson County to other parts of the metro. But is it really necessary for some people to make it their life's work to put down Johnson County? We get it already. A few people here hate Johnson County. I hate Jackson County, specifically the urban core, but I'm not spending my life here to make sure no one relocating to Kansas City wants to move there.

As much as some people would like for Johnson County to go away, it's not going to. It's here, it's reality; you might as well deal with it. Some people don't like the manicured lawns and the "cookie cutter" houses. Well, some of us prefer that to urban living. Why isn't that valid?

Isn't it pretty much true that in all cities, as the urban core ages people tend to move away from there to newer, nicer developments? That is what is happening and I don't see the point in railing against it incessantly. If people wanted to stay in the urban core, they would - and the development of suburbs would be a moot point. If there were no demand for them, it wouldn't happen.

I just don't see why EVERY comment praising Johnson County has to be met with comments about how bad Johnson County is. Johnson County is not bad. It is a more affluent area of the metro (though not as much as it used to be maybe), where you find low crime, nice neighborhoods, newer housing, excellent schools, and a great place to raise kids. Nothing wrong with that, and exactly the reasons that many of us prefer Johnson County to any other part of the KC metro.

And P.S. - It would be perfectly fine with me if Johnson County were kept a secret and we have our own private little utopia over here and no one crashing it. But it's not fair to prospective relocators to not tell them about all areas of the Kansas City area and let them decide for themselves where they want to live. I would be upset if I were dissuaded from moving to Johnson County based on the kinds of things that are said about it here, only to realize on relocating here that Johnson County is EXACTLY where I wanted to live. That's why I think, aside from what anyone reads on this forum, they need to just come to Kansas City and visit the whole area, including Johnson County. If I moved here knowing nothing about the city, and ended up in another area based on recommendations, and then discovered Johnson County, I'd be upset that I hadn't been told about it (or been told the truth about all areas of the city, including schools, crime stats, etc) so I could make the best decision for me.

[CrownVic95]

Originally Posted by GraniteStater

Well if you're going down that road Douglas county, CO is a better place to live than Johnson county, KS.

I wouldn't argue that point, GS, but prime factors would be weather and scenery....which is another debate altogether as neither area can help the hand nature dealt them. Additionally, Castle Rock and surrounding areas are in their infancy compared to Johnson County, are they not? A fairer comparison might be between Johnson County today versus Douglas County in 40-50 years.

But the elephant in the room is this....and a crucially important question to you as the moderator of this forum. Why do some think it is acceptable to set a tone here of incessant condemnation of Johnson County and Kansas? How does it help new forum viewers who come here for honest and fair appraisals of life choices in the KC metro to have a structural bias in place whereby commentary is skewed toward conclusion that Missouri=The Good Side and Kansas=The Bad side?

In your post above, you express no quarrel with my comparison between Johnson County living vs. KC or Denver, but still felt the need to somehow put Johnson County in a negative light. Some of us feel quite strongly that this structural bias hurts the overall quality of the content of this forum and should be brought to an end.

And I'll go a step further. I strongly feel that there should be a sticky at the top of this forum stating that attacks across and based on state line issues and biases will not be tolerated and dealt with harshly. It is time to take this on and move this forum in a new positive direction that does not revolve around the pointless and tiresome state line bickering.

[MUTGR]

Originally Posted by luzianne

I just don't see why EVERY comment praising Johnson County has to be met with comments about how bad Johnson County is. Johnson County is not bad. It is a more affluent area of the metro (though not as much as it used to be maybe), where you find low crime, nice neighborhoods, newer housing, excellent schools, and a great place to raise kids. Nothing wrong with that, and exactly the reasons that many of us prefer Johnson County to any other part of the KC metro.

People vote with their feet. Everyone I know who lives in Johnson County, and I know several, love it.

[kcmo]

Wow people, this is not rocket science. I was not saying people “like” one area over the other or any of that. I simply disputed the thought that if JoCo didn’t exist, than those areas would simply exist in other areas of the metro. Maybe you wouldn’t live in KC, maybe another 5000 of you like JoCo so much that you would simply not live in KC if it were not for JoCo. But they would be replaced by 10,000 others that like whatever else KC might offer.

There is simply no way that KC would not have basically grown at the same rate, or faster with no joco than with a joco.

Maybe Sprint would be in a campus by the speedway or in towers in downtown KCK, or maybe they would be spread out across the metro or maybe they would be in a similar campus in Lee’s Summit or god forbid a complex of towers in downtown KCMO that alone would have put KC up there with Denver and Charlotte of cities to watch out for in the 90's.

Places like Lee’s Summit, Liberty, Gladstone etc would have developed into much larger suburbs if JoCo didn’t exist. They too would have more white collar jobs etc and with that would come more affluence that has instead gone to JoCo. Lee’s Summit and Blue Springs and Liberty are simply bedroom suburbs much like JoCo is inside of 435. If you were to add the office component, those areas would have also developed into more “corporate” type suburbs and more affluent residents and more upscale retail would have developed. It simply would have built out more like west county/st Charles county in St Louis rather than the more middle class commuter suburbs they are today. You don’t think that if Lee’s Summit or Liberty had companies like Sprint and Black and Veatch that they too would have the revenue to build out into higher end suburbs?

I’m not saying this is better or worse than JoCo. I’m saying it would have happened and KC would still have 2.1 million people, only 470 would be ten lanes wide and I-70 would sprawl out to Odessa much like St Louis does to the west rather than into IL.

That part is a wash.

Now I think that if this were to occur, Metro KC “might” be in better shape because there would be more people and more power (affluence) on the MO side to get things done in Jeff City and DC. There would likely be less (although still quite a bit) of poaching from the suburbs. There would likely be more regional structure in place to fund transit, the zoo, the museums, the stadiums etc because Jackson County would probably be over a million, Clay over a half million etc. So more people in fewer counties all in the same state. This would likely lead to more regional cooperation and get more people on the same page for more things. While there would be typical migration to the suburbs, it would be impossible for a place like Lee’s Summit to offer 50 million dollars to a company like AMC to move. This would have either kept them downtown and kept downtown more vibrant, or they would have moved to LS and actually paid taxes. Ultimately maybe KC wouldn’t have crazy high sales taxes because of that or the fact the more of the metro is paying into stadium taxes and cultural taxes keeps taxes lower for everybody.

Finally, if JoCo didn’t exist, I truly believe that not only would KCMO have a more vibrant downtown. (I would bet that more than one office tower would have gone up downtown in the past 25 years), but KCK would also have a vibrant, and built up downtown core to compliment KCMO. Much like St Paul is to Minneapolis or Covinington is to Cincy. I also think the midtown parts of KCK would be in far better shape and suburban KCK would have developed and places like Bonner Springs would look more like Olathe.

So that’s what I think. You can think what you want.

[Nikki0417]

You don't belong in this conversation if you thought KCK is too far away to be a part of the metro. I mean, come on. KCK is one of the original cities in the area, along with Independence and North Kansas City, that formed the KC metro before JoCo and the other modern suburbs existed. Downtown KCK is right next door to downtown KCMO, in the center of the metro. KCK is much more of an independent city than it's been given credit for, the place has enough jobs and always has to be self supporting and even draw others in. While KCK was always more blue-collar and not as urban, it was once a much denser city with a bustling downtown and it suffered drastically from white flight, racial issues, etc., just like KCMO. KCK faired worse through all that because it was smaller. Many original KCK residents moved to JoCo, as well, just like KCMO residents did to escape city problems. Look at a map or better yet go back a page or 2 and look at the fantastic perspective KCMO's photos give showing KCK's downtown and location in relation to KCMO. That said, it would not surprise me if the "light reading" you did was written by the guy named KCMO in this very thread, which is kind of funny.

---

As for JoCo, had it not been JoCo, another area would have developed that played the role of JoCo. I don't see why that's so difficult to understand. The only difference is the same type of suburban area might have been on the Missouri side rather than in Kansas and might have had more interesting terrain. Most cities our size have developed corporate/big-city suburbs, which is what JoCo is, and that development simply would have occured elsewhere if JoCo were a lake or mountains, for example. Simple. JoCo does exist because of KCMO, not the other way around. Other more specific reasons JoCo exists is racism, white flight, being an open field next to a major city, and of course because Mr. JC Nichols set the trajectory for southwestward growth when he developed the Plaza and Country Club district. Had the Blue River run where state line is and the Plaza been built further east on Brush Creek, Raytown would be like NE JoCo and Lee's Summit would be like southern JoCo.

I don't go to KCK as much therefore I'm not allowed to have input on KCMO and JoCo? How does not being to one city often discount my opinion about another? The light reading I did was a few articles I found about KCK's history and background, not Kcmo's past posts. Don't leap to assumptions based on one sentence.

Most of what Kcmo was saying was that JoCo siphons business and money from KC. If JoCo didn't exist and those businesses were placed in another county outside of KC, whether it's KS or MO, people would still go where the jobs are. Those counties would still be "tumors" on the metro area. But apparently that would be okay as long as they were on the MO side. I'm starting to think if JoCo were in MO, this thread would be a pride battle over how wonderful JoCo is in comparison to Leavenworth or Wyandotte.

Does it really matter which area made which? They both exist now, and it's not like anyone in this forum was around to help create JoCo or KC. So why the silly pride war over who exists because of who?

[CrownVic95]

Originally Posted by Nikki0417

I don't go to KCK as much therefore I'm not allowed to have input on KCMO and JoCo? How does not being to one city often discount my opinion about another? The light reading I did was a few articles I found about KCK's history and background, not Kcmo's past posts. Don't leap to assumptions based on one sentence.

Most of what Kcmo was saying was that JoCo siphons business and money from KC. If JoCo didn't exist and those businesses were placed in another county outside of KC, whether it's KS or MO, people would still go where the jobs are. Those counties would still be "tumors" on the metro area. But apparently that would be okay as long as they were on the MO side. I'm starting to think if JoCo were in MO, this thread would be a pride battle over how wonderful JoCo is in comparison to Leavenworth or Wyandotte.

Does it really matter which area made which? They both exist now, and it's not like anyone in this forum was around to help create JoCo or KC. So why the silly pride war over who exists because of who?

Thank you, Nikki.

It's great to get a fresh and clear perspective from a relatively new member.