HELP!!! Working in Downtown KCMO but would rather live in KS? (Kansas City: place to live, vs)

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by northbound74

I am not a progressive. Conservative-libertarian might be the best pigeon-hole if you must.
Yes I have my strong beliefs, but at the end of the day each one has to decide for themselves what they are going to do.

I've held these opinions about society since I was young. I did not get them directly from my parents or television although I won't deny their influence. They are just based on my observations looking at how life works in the suburbs, small towns and rural areas I've known and lived in.
I grew up sitting in the pews of a very, very conservative evangelical-type of church (small town in south nonetheless) and hearing sermons saying pretty much the same things I said in my earlier post about how people simply do not interact with each other very well. They talked about how we've created that lifestyle partly in how we live right down to how we build our homes. The older generations lamented it, and I thought they were just being old people wishing things never changed.
The longer I live in a suburb, the older I get (mid-30's before you write me off as said old guy) the more I believe they were on to something.

Anyway, the whole overweight and walking thing. Well of course you can walk as much as you want no matter where you live.
Fit and fat exist everywhere and I know it.
To be fit, one must make a very strong effort to be so usually.
Fat is easy. Just merely exist in the car-centric, fast-food, TV-land society and you'll do well with that. Certain aspects of suburbia certainly has had quite the influence on everyone everywhere.
There is a difference in walking being necessary as a mode of transportation and not just for leisure or the sole purpose of exercise however.
For the latter, one must take the time to do it, which the vast majority don't do as we all know.
The former, it's just what you do to get done what needs to be done down the the most basic of things. To understand why I think this is important, one must understand the nature of human beings. Most people don't do any more than they absolutely have to. It isn't right, it just is.

There's a reason that even suburbs are designing neighborhoods that are walkable. It really is what people want like it or not believe it or not. Not just some path for your dog, but sidewalks leading to nearby stores. Those same houses have big front porches to sit on in hopes of actually seeing a neighbor or two.

Not talking about apartments here, by the way. And I'm also aware that people can get to know each other regardless of their living situation. But the way in which we build our neighborhoods and homes can either help or hinder that cause. For the last 50 years or so, we've been doing everything in our capabilities to avoid each other. If privacy is what you want, move to the country. Bigger houses with bigger yards do very little if anything for privacy. They just cost more.

One huge rep point coming right up

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by CrownVic95

It is ideologically driven, as there is no other logical explanation.

Their premise is false - that premise being that suburban dwellers are fatter. The fittest people I know live in nice homes in upscale suburban areas.

The vast majority of the comments that make little sense to us are the direct result of ideological peer pressure. There is a whole generation or more of young people that have been fed from birth a load of "progressive" crap on a daily basis. Over the years they have been psychologically rewarded for repeating and applauding the approved agenda and reprimanded for any attempts to think outside of it. The result is a thought process that is simply the "progressive" agenda on playback. And the sad part is that they don't even realize it.

No CrownVic95, I don't have an agenda at all. I just see things from a perspective of being raised in a particular part of JOCO in a master planned community, and those experiences that arose from that setting. My ideological viewpoints are not politically influenced, but inclusive in nature in order to get as many varying viewpoints to agree on a positive outcome for the community in regard to development projects. To conserve land is a core conservative principle as Teddy Roosevelt was a big founder of our national park system. Places that have a symbiotic relationship with the outdoor conservation lands or larger parks/forests close to a CBD and where people actually work have a high quality of life. Such examples include: Seattle, Denver, Salt Lake City, Minneapolis, Santa Fe, Traverse City (on the micro scale), etc.

Also, the notion that a certain suburban development style that worked many decades ago is sustainable in the long run is putting a lot of eggs in one basket in my opinion. With the global economy wired as it is today, a sudden surge in economic growth in China or India could suddenly drive the cost of gas up to $4-5 a gallon (not including other situational events like the BP diaster or hurricane threats). Not every metro area has no natural boundaries to inhibit sprawl like KC has. Denver has run into these limits as massive water diversions to feed unending suburban developments have become more unsustainable over time. Therefore, lot sizes have gone down as well as some restrictions on landscaping.

[CrownVic95]

Originally Posted by GraniteStater

No CrownVic95, I don't have an agenda at all. I just see things from a perspective of being raised in a particular part of JOCO in a master planned community, and those experiences that arose from that setting. My ideological viewpoints are not politically influenced, but inclusive in nature in order to get as many varying viewpoints to agree on a positive outcome for the community in regard to development projects. To conserve land is a core conservative principle as Teddy Roosevelt was a big founder of our national park system. Places that have a symbiotic relationship with the outdoor conservation lands or larger parks/forests close to a CBD and where people actually work have a high quality of life. Such examples include: Seattle, Denver, Salt Lake City, Minneapolis, Santa Fe, Traverse City (on the micro scale), etc.

Also, the notion that a certain suburban development style that worked many decades ago is sustainable in the long run is putting a lot of eggs in one basket in my opinion. With the global economy wired as it is today, a sudden surge in economic growth in China or India could suddenly drive the cost of gas up to $4-5 a gallon (not including other situational events like the BP diaster or hurricane threats). Not every metro area has no natural boundaries to inhibit sprawl like KC has. Denver has run into these limits as massive water diversions to feed unending suburban developments have become more unsustainable over time. Therefore, lot sizes have gone down as well as some restrictions on landscaping.

Well, we're never going to see eye to eye on this and this thread has been diverted far off topic. My apologies to the OP for my part in that. So this will be my last post in this thread on the "sprawl" issue. Or, as I see it, non-issue.

You say you have no agenda, but then immediately go on to repeat your agenda, as you have before. The fissure between you and I philosophically here is that I say the free marketplace will provide whatever real discipline is needed on the amount of growth in any given metro area. You, in contrast, seem to see growth of the nature of Johnson county's as an evil in and of itself. That it needs to be severely limited by arbitrary rules set by you or people who share your viewpoint. Just because you say so - just because you know what is good for us.

I say again that the marketplace - the laws of supply and demand - will decide what growth is "sustainable" and what isn't. The last thing we need if we are to maintain even a vague resemblance to a free society is an ideologue "big-brother" making those decisions for us, based on his/her Utopian vision.

Lastly, your "high quality of life" appraisal for the several cities mentioned is 100% your opinion and many would disagree with you - including lots of Johnson county residents.

I wish you folks would just leave Johnson county and similar suburban areas alone. It is what it is because millions of Americans disagree with you and see positives where you are bound and determined to see negatives. If that is not ideology, I don't know what is.

[Samantha S]

Originally Posted by GraniteStater

Denver has run into these limits as massive water diversions to feed unending suburban developments have become more unsustainable over time. Therefore, lot sizes have gone down as well as some restrictions on landscaping.

I keep forgetting whose point you're trying to make.

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by CrownVic95

Well, we're never going to see eye to eye on this and this thread has been diverted far off topic. My apologies to the OP for my part in that. So this will be my last post in this thread on the "sprawl" issue. Or, as I see it, non-issue.

You say you have no agenda, but then immediately go on to repeat your agenda, as you have before. The fissure between you and I philosophically here is that I say the free marketplace will provide whatever real discipline is needed on the amount of growth in any given metro area. You, in contrast, seem to see growth of the nature of Johnson county's as an evil in and of itself. That it needs to be severely limited by arbitrary rules set by you or people who share your viewpoint. Just because you say so - just because you know what is good for us.

I say again that the marketplace - the laws of supply and demand - will decide what growth is "sustainable" and what isn't. The last thing we need if we are to maintain even a vague resemblance to a free society is an ideologue "big-brother" making those decisions for us, based on his/her Utopian vision.

Lastly, your "high quality of life" appraisal for the several cities mentioned is 100% your opinion and many would disagree with you - including lots of Johnson county residents.

I wish you folks would just leave Johnson county and similar suburban areas alone. It is what it is because millions of Americans disagree with you and see positives where you are bound and determined to see negatives. If that is not ideology, I don't know what is.

OK, this is my off-topic reply to your assertions of "the suburban built environment."

"The fissure between you and I philosophically here is that I say the free marketplace will provide whatever real discipline is needed on the amount of growth in any given metro area. You, in contrast, seem to see growth of the nature of Johnson county's as an evil in and of itself."

The disagreement I have with your complete reliance on the free market for EVERY solution to development is where I disagree. The difference is merely more of a semantic nature then that of an extreme philosophical difference. I have said it before that much of JOCO's economic engine for growth has come via a favorable business and corporate tax climate for business growth with an inherently educated workforce present. This symbiotic relationship along with the investment of a solid built infrastructure and well-regarded school system has led to an inevitable success story by Midwest/Plains standards. JOCO was a white collar place from the start with little industrialization or manufacturing built nearly entirely on the suburban platform- helped along initially by a lot of white flight from Jackson County, MO as well.
So, the built commercial environment of JOCO did not spring into action fully until the 60s and 70s. This was the same time period that the I-435 beltway became complete in JOCO as well. This began to lead to a severe bistate dissolution of jobs shifting from Jackson County, MO to JOCO that continues to the present.
I will now address the residential built environment of JOCO. The county is zoned to have nearly all residential in one area, commercial businesses on the arterials- as well as numerous apartments/condo complexes. I think one MAJOR reason why JOCO has evolved the way it has over time due to the Midwest mentality as I like to call it. Conformity, predictibility, and complacency are common attributes. You dislike zoning yet JOCO has a very large number of neighborhoods with HOA's that can dictate: 1) The height of the lawn, 2) The color of paint on your house, 3) whether you can park your vehicle on the street if you please, 4) a fairly strict limit on the number of pets you own, etc, etc. I think a comination of factors and a narrow-minded approach to the asthetics of the built enviornment over time as well as a lack of groups or organizations that existed to secure monetary funds for land conservation. It is what it is at this stage in the game, though. The developers have gotten what they wanted 95% of the time.

"That it needs to be severely limited by arbitrary rules set by you or people who share your viewpoint. Just because you say so - just because you know what is good for us."

In some parts of the country, people form councils and commissions to make improvements to a town (be those good or bad). Buying up lands for conservation is inherently a free market principle because it involves private funds in order to secure a resource that the public or group wants to enjoy. All land has a certain price also according to your free market theories. However, those don't always work the way they are designed at the localistic level. Some areas of the country have limited amounts of land that are developable at all because private entities or trusts hold on to the land and do not want to divest themselves of it. This leads to the inherent problem of housing scarcity. "Workforce housing" has been brought onto the table in some cities, and the projects are mostly funded through developers via private capital with very limited federal subsidies. Therefore, it is often the private and public sector that must work together in order to get developmental projects financed, approved, and built.

"I say again that the marketplace - the laws of supply and demand - will decide what growth is "sustainable" and what isn't. The last thing we need if we are to maintain even a vague resemblance to a free society is an ideologue "big-brother" making those decisions for us, based on his/her Utopian vision."

The laws of supply and demand in the marketplace can be dramatically altered when the in-migration variable is introduced. Limits have already been reached in Denver (like I mentioned) before as the natural environment can only handle so many people before water diversions don't work anymore. The marketplace has fallacies and strengths as do the semantics of rules/laws. Read Jazzlover's posts about the water situation in Colorado if you want to learn more. I agree that people can live where they choose. It also disturbs me how fast HOA's have grown in this country as well as JOCO. As an independent-minded individual I like to be able to do and store whatever I want on my property within reason.

"Lastly, your "high quality of life" appraisal for the several cities mentioned is 100% your opinion and many would disagree with you - including lots of Johnson county residents."

Locational preference is subjective. I move to where the best job prospects are for advancement in my career field as well as the available amenities in the particular area. I also did not focus on cost of living concerns that might cause more of a concern for some.

"I wish you folks would just leave Johnson county and similar suburban areas alone. It is what it is because millions of Americans disagree with you and see positives where you are bound and determined to see negatives. If that is not ideology, I don't know what is"

I have pointed out the positives many times in my prior posts. I don't see negatives but possibilites to be innovative, creative, and inclusive with residential development. Notice that I said nothing in my posts regarding the abandonment of the traditional suburban built environment. Your argument is one more of statism than anything else with regard to suburbia. However, times change and some places evolve differently than others. There is no question about that.

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by Samantha S

I keep forgetting whose point you're trying to make.

Well, I am strongly independent-minded. My viewpoints often vary depending on the issue or the semantics of it.

[Samantha S]

Originally Posted by GraniteStater

Well, I am strongly independent-minded. My viewpoints often vary depending on the issue or the semantics of it.

What I meant was that your comments about Denver seem to make my point: The more dense neighborhoods with smaller yards didn't happen because Denver did something "right" while JoCo did it "wrong" as some of your posts have stated or implied.

They are what they are out of necessity and people have made the best of them because that's where they want to be.

I like to watch the show "Househunters". They never pick the houses I'd choose, but that's beside the point. A general running theme though whether they are looking at 10000+ square foot estates in the countryside or 1200 square foot condos in a bustling city is the desire for their own personal and private space to call their own. And they will almost always buy as much of that as their budget allows. But the location generally dictates how much they will get in the end.

[thriftylefty]

It doesn't seem that long ago that Salina Ks. was the fifth largest city in the state and 135th street in JOCO was the edge of the world. I was driving around Phoenix, Las Vegas, Colorado springs and San Bernardino two years ago. They were building so fast my GPS was useless as many roads and addresses were not in the GSP yet. I think Phoenix was opening a school every six months. Having said that, it's easy to see why Johnson County developed they way it did. It took thirty years to do what I would guess most of those cities did in maybe ten years or less.
IMO When development can barely keep up with the pace of a population boom you can meet the needs of many different kinds of people. JOCO's relative slow growth allowed it to attract predominately one type of home buyer's need.

[Lady300]

Hey folks...went to Kansas for 3 days to look for a place to live. I like it! Metcalf seems to be the main artery of everything with lots of traffic but what confuses me is how some of your exits are. I've never seen an exit to the left. It was really weird. We don't have that in Atlanta. What surprised me though was that Kansas was not as flat like I thought it would be. I remember going up a few steep hills which brings me back to my old fear.......SNOW and ICE! Okay so I know my commute to work will definitely be 30 minutes tops....but going up and down steep hills is even hard for the pros. Any suggestions? Also, if anyone knows of a snow driving class around the area, please post the name and phone number. I would really appreciate it.

[Samantha S]

Originally Posted by Lady300

I remember going up a few steep hills which brings me back to my old fear.......SNOW and ICE! Okay so I know my commute to work will definitely be 30 minutes tops....but going up and down steep hills is even hard for the pros. Any suggestions? Also, if anyone knows of a snow driving class around the area, please post the name and phone number. I would really appreciate it.

If you are talking about main roads, the snow and ice will be quickly removed. If you have a hill close to where you live, it should also be cleared within a day or so.

You seem to think that our roads are solid snow and ice from December to March! That's just not the case. Roads in JoCo get cleared off and treated to prevent accidents.

For the very short time that their might be snow or ice on the road, just call 1-800-SLOW DOWN.

Oh! And glad you enjoyed your visit!