U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Kansas
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
View Poll Results: Would You Move Out of Kansas?
Yes 81 60.45%
No 29 21.64%
Maybe 24 17.91%
Voters: 134. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-28-2010, 01:41 PM
 
Location: Manhattan, Ks
1,278 posts, read 3,704,806 times
Reputation: 1686

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcmo View Post
Trust me, I don't expect you (or most other Kansans) to read it, let alone comprehend it or accept it.
Trust me, I can read and comprehend just fine. Just as I have read and comprehended many of your previous posts. Your bias is quite evident, even to us dimwitted Kansans.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-28-2010, 02:21 PM
 
Location: KC
285 posts, read 497,002 times
Reputation: 235
ks sky...

My wife and I spent some time in your neck of the woods this past weekend. Some of the most beautiful sights I've seen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2010, 04:22 PM
 
400 posts, read 552,820 times
Reputation: 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcmo View Post
Trust me, I don't expect you (or most other Kansans) to read it, let alone comprehend it or accept it. I got 4 rep points on the post though, so apparently there are people that agree with me.

Like I said, when (if) the KC area gets on one page, it will be day the metro truly turns a corner and begins to show what it can really do and what the potential really is.

Status Quo should be the motto of the KC area and that's sad because the potential there is really incredible.
I think the Kansas City area is already living up to its potential quite well. You compared Kansas City to Denver earlier. It's not a fair comparison because Denver has things Kansas City never will. Denver attracts a different kind of person. Kansas City is in the Midwest, and the Midwest is considered to be "boring" by many Americans and foreigners. Kansas City is not going to boom like some of the places in the sunbelt, with access to the mountains, or on the coast.

Fair comparisons to Kansas City are Indianapolis, Columbus, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Saint Louis, Minneapolis, and Milwaukee. In other words, other Midwest cities that have to struggle with some of the same things Kansas City has to struggle with.

This is a list of the largest metropolitan areas in the country and how much they grew from 2000-2009:

Link: Table of United States Metropolitan Statistical Areas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Look at the major metropolitan areas in the Midwest and how they compare to Kansas City. Growth from 2000-2009:

Chicago: 5.30%
Detroit: -1.10%
Minneapolis: 10.14%
Saint Louis: 4.83%
Cleveland: -2.65%
Cincinnati: 8.07%
Indianapolis: 14.33%
Columbus: 11.73%
Milwaukee: 3.93%
Kansas City: 12.61%

The only large metropolitan area in the Midwest that grew faster than Kansas City from 2000-2009 was Indianapolis, and it wasn't by much (14.33% vs. 12.61%).

Then you look at employment growth from 2000-2009 and find similar things. This is a table of employment growth in metropolitan areas over 2 million from 2000-2009:

Link: Employment Growth, 2000-2009, Metropolitan Areas over 2 Million Population | Newgeography.com

The Kansas City metro had higher job growth than any metro area over 2 million in the Midwest during that span of time. The only metro areas over 2 million in the U.S. that had higher job growth than Kansas City were mostly on the coasts and the sunbelt:

Riverside, CA
San Antonio
Houston
Orlando
Washington, DC
Phoenix
Dallas
Miami
San Diego
Sacramento
Seattle

So, Kansas City is doing pretty well actually. The growth has been spread around: the northland, eastern Jackson County, downtown/midtown KCMO, western/southern Johnson County, west Wyandotte. Multiple nodes of development occurring on both sides of the state line. It's hardly status quo. You want to see status quo, go to Cleveland or Detroit (or Milwaukee).

Last edited by Blue Earth; 06-28-2010 at 04:30 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2010, 04:31 PM
 
Location: Manhattan, Ks
1,278 posts, read 3,704,806 times
Reputation: 1686
Quote:
Originally Posted by pioneer88 View Post
ks sky...

My wife and I spent some time in your neck of the woods this past weekend. Some of the most beautiful sights I've seen.
So glad you enjoyed it!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2010, 06:11 PM
Status: "More snow please" (set 11 days ago)
 
Location: Madison, WI Metro Area
15,401 posts, read 21,482,632 times
Reputation: 7806
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeStater View Post
I think the Kansas City area is already living up to its potential quite well. You compared Kansas City to Denver earlier. It's not a fair comparison because Denver has things Kansas City never will. Denver attracts a different kind of person. Kansas City is in the Midwest, and the Midwest is considered to be "boring" by many Americans and foreigners. Kansas City is not going to boom like some of the places in the sunbelt, with access to the mountains, or on the coast.

Fair comparisons to Kansas City are Indianapolis, Columbus, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Saint Louis, Minneapolis, and Milwaukee. In other words, other Midwest cities that have to struggle with some of the same things Kansas City has to struggle with.

This is a list of the largest metropolitan areas in the country and how much they grew from 2000-2009:

Link: Table of United States Metropolitan Statistical Areas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Look at the major metropolitan areas in the Midwest and how they compare to Kansas City. Growth from 2000-2009:

Chicago: 5.30%
Detroit: -1.10%
Minneapolis: 10.14%
Saint Louis: 4.83%
Cleveland: -2.65%
Cincinnati: 8.07%
Indianapolis: 14.33%
Columbus: 11.73%
Milwaukee: 3.93%
Kansas City: 12.61%

The only large metropolitan area in the Midwest that grew faster than Kansas City from 2000-2009 was Indianapolis, and it wasn't by much (14.33% vs. 12.61%).

Then you look at employment growth from 2000-2009 and find similar things. This is a table of employment growth in metropolitan areas over 2 million from 2000-2009:

Link: Employment Growth, 2000-2009, Metropolitan Areas over 2 Million Population | Newgeography.com

The Kansas City metro had higher job growth than any metro area over 2 million in the Midwest during that span of time. The only metro areas over 2 million in the U.S. that had higher job growth than Kansas City were mostly on the coasts and the sunbelt:

Riverside, CA
San Antonio
Houston
Orlando
Washington, DC
Phoenix
Dallas
Miami
San Diego
Sacramento
Seattle

So, Kansas City is doing pretty well actually. The growth has been spread around: the northland, eastern Jackson County, downtown/midtown KCMO, western/southern Johnson County, west Wyandotte. Multiple nodes of development occurring on both sides of the state line. It's hardly status quo. You want to see status quo, go to Cleveland or Detroit (or Milwaukee).
Your comparisons are not good ones. Most of the cities are in the Great Lakes, which has little in common with Kansas City at all these days. Non-farm employment growth is indeed negative for Kansas City proper (Jackson County). I have no idea where you are getting your numbers. Jackson County has lost 9% of all non-farm employment since 2000 while Johnson County, KS has seen an 11% rise in non-farm employment. A 2% gain in non-farm employment for the two highest populated counties in the metro is pretty poor when you factor in population growth. Kansas City also has a lot of in-migration from Sunbelt cities like Dallas/Ft Worth, Denver, LA, etc that cities in the Great Lakes outside of Chicago tend not to have. So the culture has definitely changed in JOCO for example compared to 1980 or even 1990. JOCO is also unique because it never went through the industrial age, had much in the way of manufacturing, and very little blue collar job growth. Its ancillary function in the metro was one that was nearly all white, nearly all white collar, and higher income. Those three points have changed relatively little over time.
Kansas City also has much more out-migration of the population compared to in-migration which IS a common theme among Midwest cities. It is the brain drain in action. Many do in fact move to a place like Denver (which has traditionally benefited as it has seen an influx of educated professionals) who find the overall amenity package of the place to be desirable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2010, 08:02 PM
 
400 posts, read 552,820 times
Reputation: 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by GraniteStater View Post
Your comparisons are not good ones. Most of the cities are in the Great Lakes, which has little in common with Kansas City at all these days. Non-farm employment growth is indeed negative for Kansas City proper (Jackson County). I have no idea where you are getting your numbers. Jackson County has lost 9% of all non-farm employment since 2000 while Johnson County, KS has seen an 11% rise in non-farm employment. A 2% gain in non-farm employment for the two highest populated counties in the metro is pretty poor when you factor in population growth. Kansas City also has a lot of in-migration from Sunbelt cities like Dallas/Ft Worth, Denver, LA, etc that cities in the Great Lakes outside of Chicago tend not to have. So the culture has definitely changed in JOCO for example compared to 1980 or even 1990. JOCO is also unique because it never went through the industrial age, had much in the way of manufacturing, and very little blue collar job growth. Its ancillary function in the metro was one that was nearly all white, nearly all white collar, and higher income. Those three points have changed relatively little over time.
Kansas City also has much more out-migration of the population compared to in-migration which IS a common theme among Midwest cities. It is the brain drain in action. Many do in fact move to a place like Denver (which has traditionally benefited as it has seen an influx of educated professionals) who find the overall amenity package of the place to be desirable.
I have read a lot of you and kcmo over the years here. Just sitting back and watching. Your biases and misconceptions about Kansas and Johnson County have gone on unabated for too long. You have misled and misinformed many a person on this forum. I started posting here in 2008 when you went by a different name. Right after I started posting as "FreeStater" you changed your name to "GraniteStater".

So let me respond.

Quote:
Most of the cities are in the Great Lakes, which has little in common with Kansas City at all these days.
No, those cities are in the MIDWEST. The 12-state region that stretches from Kansas to Ohio. You may have heard of it. Most of the major cities (over 1.5 million) in the Midwest have more in common with each other than they do with cities either in the mountain west, the deep south, or the coasts. Yes, Kansas City has more in common with Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Columbus, and Milwaukee than it does with Denver, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, and Nashville. I studied cultural geography in college.

Quote:
Non-farm employment growth is indeed negative for Kansas City proper (Jackson County). I have no idea where you are getting your numbers.
First of all Kansas City proper is not just in Jackson County. It includes portions of Cass, Jackson, Clay, and Platte counties. The fastest growing portions are in Clay and Platte counties. That's why Kansas City "proper" increased in population from 440,000 in 2000 to about 482,000 in 2009. Because even though some of the Jackson County parts have declined, the northland parts have grown.

I posted links to BOTH of my information sources. Why don't you try clicking the links I provided. The data at both sources is based on information collected by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and the U.S. Census Bureau. From 2000-2009, employment growth in the Kansas City metro area was 2.1%, which was higher than any metro area in the Midwest over 2 million people. Employment growth in the Chicago metro area over the same time was -5.5% (that's negative 5.5%). San Francisco metro was -10.0%. But I'm going over this again because you did not care to click the link the first time I posted it.

Quote:
Kansas City also has a lot of in-migration from Sunbelt cities like Dallas/Ft Worth, Denver, LA, etc that cities in the Great Lakes outside of Chicago tend not to have. So the culture has definitely changed in JOCO for example compared to 1980 or even 1990.
What does this have to do with anything? I post data showing how Kansas City has grown faster than cities like Saint Louis, Chicago, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Detroit, and Cincinnati and your response is "But those people are moving to Kansas City from the sunbelt" as if that somehow invalidates the growth in Kansas City. It does not matter where the people are coming from. The metro is growing.

As far as your statement that the "culture has changed in JOCO", I'm afraid you are going to have to elaborate on that one.

Quote:
JOCO is also unique because it never went through the industrial age, had much in the way of manufacturing, and very little blue collar job growth. Its ancillary function in the metro was one that was nearly all white, nearly all white collar, and higher income. Those three points have changed relatively little over time.
Johnson County was perfectly positioned to benefit from the new economy, without having to go through the transition phase from industrial to white collar. You talk about it like it is a bad thing. I hate to break it to you but cities like Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Detroit are struggling mightily to transition to the new economy. They envy Johnson County. They are trying to create their own Johnson County. Johnson County, Kansas was just ahead of the game.

Quote:
Kansas City also has much more out-migration of the population compared to in-migration which IS a common theme among Midwest cities.
Compare it to other Midwest cities. Compare the out-migration in Kansas City with the out-migration in Cleveland, Cincinnati, Detroit, Columbus, Indianapolis, Saint Louis, Milwaukee, and Minneapolis. Go ahead and throw in Louisville and Oklahoma City. Show me the data, otherwise you are just flapping your gums. I showed you the data.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2010, 08:35 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
4,082 posts, read 2,289,079 times
Reputation: 2890
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeStater View Post
I have read a lot of you and kcmo over the years here. Just sitting back and watching. Your biases and misconceptions about Kansas and Johnson County have gone on unabated for too long. You have misled and misinformed many a person on this forum. I started posting here in 2008 when you went by a different name. Right after I started posting as "FreeStater" you changed your name to "GraniteStater".

So let me respond.

No, those cities are in the MIDWEST. The 12-state region that stretches from Kansas to Ohio. You may have heard of it. Most of the major cities (over 1.5 million) in the Midwest have more in common with each other than they do with cities either in the mountain west, the deep south, or the coasts. Yes, Kansas City has more in common with Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Columbus, and Milwaukee than it does with Denver, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, and Nashville. I studied cultural geography in college.

First of all Kansas City proper is not just in Jackson County. It includes portions of Cass, Jackson, Clay, and Platte counties. The fastest growing portions are in Clay and Platte counties. That's why Kansas City "proper" increased in population from 440,000 in 2000 to about 482,000 in 2009. Because even though some of the Jackson County parts have declined, the northland parts have grown.

I posted links to BOTH of my information sources. Why don't you try clicking the links I provided. The data at both sources is based on information collected by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and the U.S. Census Bureau. From 2000-2009, employment growth in the Kansas City metro area was 2.1%, which was higher than any metro area in the Midwest over 2 million people. Employment growth in the Chicago metro area over the same time was -5.5% (that's negative 5.5%). San Francisco metro was -10.0%. But I'm going over this again because you did not care to click the link the first time I posted it.

What does this have to do with anything? I post data showing how Kansas City has grown faster than cities like Saint Louis, Chicago, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Detroit, and Cincinnati and your response is "But those people are moving to Kansas City from the sunbelt" as if that somehow invalidates the growth in Kansas City. It does not matter where the people are coming from. The metro is growing.

As far as your statement that the "culture has changed in JOCO", I'm afraid you are going to have to elaborate on that one.

Johnson County was perfectly positioned to benefit from the new economy, without having to go through the transition phase from industrial to white collar. You talk about it like it is a bad thing. I hate to break it to you but cities like Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Detroit are struggling mightily to transition to the new economy. They envy Johnson County. They are trying to create their own Johnson County. Johnson County, Kansas was just ahead of the game.

Compare it to other Midwest cities. Compare the out-migration in Kansas City with the out-migration in Cleveland, Cincinnati, Detroit, Columbus, Indianapolis, Saint Louis, Milwaukee, and Minneapolis. Go ahead and throw in Louisville and Oklahoma City. Show me the data, otherwise you are just flapping your gums. I showed you the data.
Both of your last two posts are outstanding and refreshing contrasts to the clear bias against anything Johnson County coming from the other two posters referred to. Thank you for taking the time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2010, 09:14 PM
 
Location: Washington, DC area
7,824 posts, read 9,671,600 times
Reputation: 3268
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeStater View Post
I think the Kansas City area is already living up to its potential quite well. You compared Kansas City to Denver earlier. It's not a fair comparison because Denver has things Kansas City never will. Denver attracts a different kind of person. Kansas City is in the Midwest, and the Midwest is considered to be "boring" by many Americans and foreigners. Kansas City is not going to boom like some of the places in the sunbelt, with access to the mountains, or on the coast.

Fair comparisons to Kansas City are Indianapolis, Columbus, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Saint Louis, Minneapolis, and Milwaukee. In other words, other Midwest cities that have to struggle with some of the same things Kansas City has to struggle with.

This is a list of the largest metropolitan areas in the country and how much they grew from 2000-2009:

Link: Table of United States Metropolitan Statistical Areas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Look at the major metropolitan areas in the Midwest and how they compare to Kansas City. Growth from 2000-2009:

Chicago: 5.30%
Detroit: -1.10%
Minneapolis: 10.14%
Saint Louis: 4.83%
Cleveland: -2.65%
Cincinnati: 8.07%
Indianapolis: 14.33%
Columbus: 11.73%
Milwaukee: 3.93%
Kansas City: 12.61%

The only large metropolitan area in the Midwest that grew faster than Kansas City from 2000-2009 was Indianapolis, and it wasn't by much (14.33% vs. 12.61%).

Then you look at employment growth from 2000-2009 and find similar things. This is a table of employment growth in metropolitan areas over 2 million from 2000-2009:

Link: Employment Growth, 2000-2009, Metropolitan Areas over 2 Million Population | Newgeography.com

The Kansas City metro had higher job growth than any metro area over 2 million in the Midwest during that span of time. The only metro areas over 2 million in the U.S. that had higher job growth than Kansas City were mostly on the coasts and the sunbelt:

Riverside, CA
San Antonio
Houston
Orlando
Washington, DC
Phoenix
Dallas
Miami
San Diego
Sacramento
Seattle

So, Kansas City is doing pretty well actually. The growth has been spread around: the northland, eastern Jackson County, downtown/midtown KCMO, western/southern Johnson County, west Wyandotte. Multiple nodes of development occurring on both sides of the state line. It's hardly status quo. You want to see status quo, go to Cleveland or Detroit (or Milwaukee).

Trust me, I know about these stats and they really do show that KC is doing quite well when compared to most of its peer cities “economically”.

I’m talking more about quality of life and potential. My point is and has always been that KC could be so much more than just a city that is able to capitalize on rural to suburban migration. A lot of cities are or were economic power growth engines. Most of them would rank pretty low in my list of cities I would like to actually "want" to live in. Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, Indy, Charlotte, Orlando, Vegas etc. It’s not all about growth and just because KC is doing OK in the stats column doesn’t mean it couldn’t do better. KC still has a difficult time attracting the types of people that would rather live in Denver or Minneapolis or Chicago or Portland or San Diego or Atlanta. Maybe KC just is not that type of town. Maybe it doesn’t want to be more than just a bunch of nice suburbs in the Midwest. You see this is why I like Denver and Minneapolis so well. They have BOTH, thriving vibrant suburbs AND a thriving vibrant urban core all tied together with transit options and all working together to improve the quality of life for the region. That’s why I point out how a city can actually come together as a region and do amazing things. Yea, I have issues with Johnson County. What has joco done besides take advantage of KCMO? But looking past that, think of what JaCo and JoCo can do if they work together. Those two counties alone have nearly 1.3 million people.

If you had any idea how much effort and passion I have put into bringing back downtown KCMO, you people would not ridicule me so much. I think I did my part to bring urban KCMO back from the dead in more ways than you can imagine. The problem is I don't think KCMO is done yet, they quit before they finished the job, then they made things worse by electing funkhouser and KC's economic boom of the 2000's might be over now, even if the economy does improve. KC is heading back to the pre 2000's era where the city was ignoring the urban core and sprawling only at the expense of itself. They still have a lot of things they need to do, but it's possible to get back on track. KCMO could be one of this country's great urban cities again. But one of the things that needs to happen is for KCMO to get some balls and pull the thorn out of their side (joco) and either figure out a way to bring them to the table or start treating them like the fierce competitor that they have been so far. Being a pushover isn't working.

KC does well when it comes to attracting those in Iowa that want a laid back city that is more like their little town in Iowa than Chicago. But think of how well KC could do if it did better with the crowd that would just assume drive past KC on to Denver where they have a choice of living in high quality suburb or living in a highly desirable urban area. But whichever they choose, they will be in one cohesive metropolitan area where everybody respects each other and contribute to regional cooperation in every way possible. Sorry, but that is the city I have always strived for KC to be and that is what I mean be status quo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownVic95 View Post
Both of your last two posts are outstanding and refreshing contrasts to the clear bias against anything Johnson County coming from the other two posters referred to. Thank you for taking the time.
Compared to your amazing contributions of anything that is negative about JoCo is nothing more than trolling? You contribute nothing. You could take some lessons from freestater. .

BTW, I don’t agree with most of what granitstater says, so don’t group me with him. Nothing personal granitestater.

Can any of you at least try to comprehend some of this although I’m sure none of you will even read this, just like none of you read my previous posts. You don’t want to hear this. I get that.

Last edited by kcmo; 06-28-2010 at 09:50 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2010, 09:59 PM
 
3,328 posts, read 5,044,225 times
Reputation: 1831
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeStater View Post
Actually all I'm saying is the whole metro will benefit when the attractions are spread around to both sides of the state line, rather than having the Kansas side just be a residential bedroom community for Kansas City, Missouri. It's getting to a point where the metro population is going to be 50% in Kansas and 50% in Missouri, so there needs to be balance. I did not say screw Missouri. Kansas City, Missouri is a great and wonderful city of almost 500,000 people proper, and I believe it can take care of itself as any city of 500,000 people should be able to do. Hopefully places like Lee's Summit, Independence, Blue Springs, and Liberty will continue to grow and that will grow their tax base even more.

But I would prefer that Kansas tax dollars be used in Kansas so we can build our own attractions here as well.
A little late on the conversation, but you've got the Kansas Speedway, soccer stadium, Schlitterbahn, etc. Kansas is moving along just fine with attractions. Time will tell if JoCo ever gets around to building any such thing.

Side note: Did I see someone try to call Arkansas midwestern???
Sheesh. That's a stretch.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2010, 10:04 PM
 
3,328 posts, read 5,044,225 times
Reputation: 1831
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcmo View Post
one cohesive metropolitan area where everybody respects each other and contribute to regional cooperation in every way possible.
The phrase I've been looking for. Everybody seems to think they have to give up their identity if they cooperate with another part of town. So not true.
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 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $84,000 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 > Kansas
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, 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 - Top