Impressions of Overland Park (Wichita, Kansas City: employment, neighborhood, buying)

[denverian]

Originally Posted by Plains10

I agree with you for the most part. I guess I feel that KC is really not that woodsy because of all the trees that have been planted that do not naturally grow here, especially on the Kansas side of the metro. I will say that KC has some Midwest "influences," but I don't think it is part of the Midwest core like Minneapolis, Chicago, Grand Rapids, Madison, etc. For example, Topeka, KS feels like more of a Plains city compared with the Kansas City metro. It is a little strange because not a lot of geographical separation exists. Missouri also seems more woodsy compared with E Kansas where I live. The Great Lakes cities have huge pine and spruce trees. Midwest trees contain a good variety between Deciduous and Coniferous in states like Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio. I remember the first time I visited that region I was surprised that the pines were over 80-90ft tall in some areas. It is hard to grow those type of trees to that height in Kansas City because of the hotter climate.

Does any U.S. city only grow native trees? None that I've lived in.

Spruce and Pines are common in Denver, although they naturally grow up in the mountains. If we only had native trees, we'd just have Cottonwoods along creeks and nothing else! I planted a Spruce because I think they're beautiful, they do well in this climate, and get to over 75' tall.

When I think of "plains", I think of everything between Denver and about Topuka.

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by denverian

Does any U.S. city only grow native trees? None that I've lived in.

Spruce and Pines are common in Denver, although they naturally grow up in the mountains. If we only had native trees, we'd just have Cottonwoods along creeks and nothing else! I planted a Spruce because I think they're beautiful, they do well in this climate, and get to over 75' tall.

When I think of "plains", I think of everything between Denver and about Topuka.

I agree. A lot of cities create an artificial "landscape" that includes many tree and plant varieties that are not native to the area. Would you consider the entire state of Nebraska to be included in the Plains region?

[denverian]

Originally Posted by Plains10

I agree. A lot of cities create an artificial "landscape" that includes many tree and plant varieties that are not native to the area. Would you consider the entire state of Nebraska to be included in the Plains region?

Most, if not all of it. Like you said, old pictures of eastern KS look more "Plainsy", if that's a word, with fewer trees. Like the old pictures of KU where it looks like it's on a Flint Hill. So why were there fewer trees back then? With all the moisture, trees certainly grow well in Eastern KS. If you leave a plot of land empty and never touch it, it'll eventually be woods, all on its own. I wonder if it was drier at one point.

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by denverian

Most, if not all of it. Like you said, old pictures of eastern KS look more "Plainsy", if that's a word, with fewer trees. Like the old pictures of KU where it looks like it's on a Flint Hill. So why were there fewer trees back then? With all the moisture, trees certainly grow well in Eastern KS. If you leave a plot of land empty and never touch it, it'll eventually be woods, all on its own. I wonder if it was drier at one point.

The reason that you see fewer trees in E Kansas over 100 years ago is that prairie fires would naturally occur every so often, and that would limit the quantity of trees outside of the river basin areas. When European settlers surpressed the natural prairie fires due to the land being subdivied into farms for farming you started to see more trees over time.

[WhiteSandsYucca]

Denverian: I agree with you regarding the Great Plains and your remarks that brought out the fact that every city basically imports trees for landscaping, in addition to having their native trees.

Plains10: I think of Nebraska as a "Great Plains" state for sure, but technically, the Great Plains don't start until further west of Lincoln, and end at the Front Range of the Rockies. Ironically, Denver is dubbed the "Queen City of the Plains", although mountains shadow the city at sunset. Cities like Wichita, KS are on the Great Plains.

I noticed the spruce and fir presence in the northern Midwest as well, so I know what you mean when you talk of how tall they get up there. When I was up in Minneapolis, I noticed the towering firs and spruces, and then took more notice of their presence in Omaha and Des Moines. It wasn't until later that I noticed Kansas City does have less of them, and they aren't as majestic. Going further south, cities like Wichita, Okla City, and Dallas don't support them well, or as well. Heat and humidity do play a big role in their survival and condition.

I think of KC as a woodsy region, especially the Missouri side of the metro. If you contrast KC's geography with the barren, almost tree-less, yet beautiful Flint Hills to the west and southwest of the city, KC does look very woodsy compared to that landscape.

[denverian]

Originally Posted by Plains10

The reason that you see fewer trees in E Kansas over 100 years ago is that prairie fires would naturally occur every so often, and that would limit the quantity of trees outside of the river basin areas. When European settlers surpressed the natural prairie fires due to the land being subdivied into farms for farming you started to see more trees over time.

OK, that makes perfect sense. It seems like when driving from Denver to KC, the first woods or forest I see is around Salina, but then you get back into Flint Hills soon. The drive from Manhattan/Junction City to Topeka is beautiful.

I remember the first time, as a kid, we drove to Colorado to see the mountains (I had never seen any before) my brother woke up in the Flint Hills and thought we were already there! I used to think Kansas was flat until I drove through northern Texas. Now THAT'S flat!

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by WhiteSandsYucca

Denverian: I agree with you regarding the Great Plains and your remarks that brought out the fact that every city basically imports trees for landscaping, in addition to having their native trees.

Plains10: I think of Nebraska as a "Great Plains" state for sure, but technically, the Great Plains don't start until further west of Lincoln, and end at the Front Range of the Rockies. Ironically, Denver is dubbed the "Queen City of the Plains", although mountains shadow the city at sunset. Cities like Wichita, KS are on the Great Plains.

I noticed the spruce and fir presence in the northern Midwest as well, so I know what you mean when you talk of how tall they get up there. When I was up in Minneapolis, I noticed the towering firs and spruces, and then took more notice of their presence in Omaha and Des Moines. It wasn't until later that I noticed Kansas City does have less of them, and they aren't as majestic. Going further south, cities like Wichita, Okla City, and Dallas don't support them well, or as well. Heat and humidity do play a big role in their survival and condition.

I think of KC as a woodsy region, especially the Missouri side of the metro. If you contrast KC's geography with the barren, almost tree-less, yet beautiful Flint Hills to the west and southwest of the city, KC does look very woodsy compared to that landscape.

I think we pretty much agree. Western MO is more forested than most areas of Eastern KS. The river basins along the Missouri and Kansas rivers have a solid forest cover for the most part.

[WhiteSandsYucca]

^Basically, it all comes down to the natural transition we see across the USA. The East is heavily forested, the Midwest is also woodsy, yet with patches of farmland. The trees become less, and the farmfields become bigger and more open, as you hit the Great Plains region, which transitions into large sections of open, windy ranchland and Great American Prairie, which rolls westward until you hit the western mountains and deserts. Kansas City sits right where the woodsy landscape of Missouri start thinning out, and not too much further west, the open and vast Great American Prairie begins.

The dedicious trees thinning out not only come down to moisture, but also elevation. Driving west to Denver from Omaha or KC, you don't necessarily sense the elevation change. However, if you could slice the land, you would see both NE and KS tilt upward to the west. If you could drag Denver over next to Omaha or KC, the city would sit thousands of feet higher on a mile-high plain (hence the name "Mile High City"). Looking at the mountains from Denver, I don't feel they look that towering since the city already sits so high, but many of those peaks are 14,000 feet +. Those are tall mountains, considering the tallest peaks in the Canadian Rockies are around 11,000-12,000 feet, and Mt. Rainier SE of Seattle (which looks immense, as Seattle views the mountain from sea level) is in the 14,000 foot range.

[denverian]

Originally Posted by WhiteSandsYucca

^Basically, it all comes down to the natural transition we see across the USA. The East is heavily forested, the Midwest is also woodsy, yet with patches of farmland. The trees become less, and the farmfields become bigger and more open, as you hit the Great Plains region, which transitions into large sections of open, windy ranchland and Great American Prairie, which rolls westward until you hit the western mountains and deserts. Kansas City sits right where the woodsy landscape of Missouri start thinning out, and not too much further west, the open and vast Great American Prairie begins.

The dedicious trees thinning out not only come down to moisture, but also elevation. Driving west to Denver from Omaha or KC, you don't necessarily sense the elevation change. However, if you could slice the land, you would see both NE and KS tilt upward to the west. If you could drag Denver over next to Omaha or KC, the city would sit thousands of feet higher on a mile-high plain (hence the name "Mile High City"). Looking at the mountains from Denver, I don't feel they look that towering since the city already sits so high, but many of those peaks are 14,000 feet +. Those are tall mountains, considering the tallest peaks in the Canadian Rockies are around 11,000-12,000 feet, and Mt. Rainier SE of Seattle (which looks immense, as Seattle views the mountain from sea level) is in the 14,000 foot range.

I've noticed before that it takes less gas to drive from Denver to KC than the other way, especially if there are strong winds out of the west. Kansas is just one big hill! Maybe that could be a state slogan.

I've wondered if the elevation here had anything to do with the generally shorter deciduous trees, although they're pretty big in older parts of Denver. I was in Philly last week and the trees everywhere are incredibly tall - almost claustrophibic feeling in areas.

[missikay10]

Overland Park is a great place to live. I loved living there. There is a Walmart Market (grocery only) store built in the last 5 yrs or so located on metcalf and 103rd street. Its nice. By the way, all food is taxed in Kansas, not just overland park.