Columbia, MO. named 10th Best Town in America... (Kansas City, Springfield: best city, buy)

[everyone luvs da longball]

Itsa grrrrrrrrrreat place!!!

[w00lyb00ger]

Originally Posted by OA 5599

I've always thought Columbia was nice, but nothing really special IMO. It really seems to be just another Midwestern college town. This may be heresy coming from a Missourian who roots for the Tigers (and now the Longhorns!), but I think Lawrence, KS is nicer. Lawrence has a river right downtown, the campus is situated on a hill overlooking everything, and from what I've seen Lawrence has more cool old houses, especially just east of campus. Also much closer to KC. The culture of both towns is really quite a bit alike, however. I also think in the general area of the country, northwest Arkansas is also quite nice, and has the advantage of being much closer to great hiking/floating/fishing/boating, while Columbia is a few hours away from most of that stuff.

I used to have to drive to Lawrence everyday and that's certainly not the Lawrence I know. The majority of Lawrences population came well after the age of homes of the more classical architecture. The last of which were built back in the 40's when Lawrence only had 14,000 people and Columbia had about 19,000. Therefore, it stands to reason that Columbia has a larger stock of vintage homes. Lawrence may have appeared that way to you just because Columbia is a little bit larger.

Personally, I don't care for Lawrence. It has a couple of sections of town that are alright but most of it is quite dull and lackluster. The hill the city sits on is almost completely surrounded by farm fields. The whole north side is nothing but cracker box split levels.

Columbia is pretty suburban looking as well but has much more character in it's natural surroundings with the Mighty Missouri River not far away and all the limestone cliffs. Trees are everywhere. Of course, the Lake of the Ozarks is nearby and that trumps anything anywhere in the state of Kansas. Jefferson City is also close and is a charming little city with a lot of nice architecture and interesting history.

Lawrence does have the advantage of being closer to the city. However, Columbia gives you more options since you can hit the fringes of either KC or St. Louis metros in about an hour and fifteen minutes. There's not much of anything else besides KC that close to Lawrence. Wichita is a mind numbing, featureless, two hour drive away but there's not much worth seeing there.

Neither Lawrence or Columbia is anything to ooh and ahh over but, in my opinion, Columbia has a lot more going for it. Columbia is also growing at a faster clip and adding more amenities by the day.

[w00lyb00ger]

Originally Posted by 20yrsinBranson

Personally, I have never liked college towns. The mentality being, of course, that college students are the center of the universe and the sun rises an sets just for them. I do not find the cultural aspects that endearing either. The music these people listen to is horrific for the most part, and I find their self-important and self-aggrandized attitudes about everything they do utterly pretentious and most tiresome.

On the contrary, it has been my experience that communities that have a large population of retirees often have a great deal more to offer insofar as culture is concerned. They seem more concerned with creating a pleasing living environment and have the experience to tell the difference between trendy garbage and lasting quality.

JMHO

20yrsinBranson

It's been my experience that towns and cities with a lot of retirees are usually just the opposite. Especially down in the neck of the woods where you're at. People that grew up in an age where racism was the norm and being a close minded redneck with no respect or tolerance for people who are different from themselves is something that was/still is admired. Throw that in with a healthy dose of unwarranted and hypocritical moral superiority complex and you got yourself an ozark mountain retirement community.

As for the students, I like'em. There's not a thing wrong with young folks that have the gumption to hit the books and try to make something of themselves. Being around educated people with open minds is never a bad thing in my book. In fact, it gives me hope for the future. They're a much smarter lot than the people of my generation were at that age and certainly light years ahead of any before mine.

[GetmeoutofAR]

Fayetteville, AR should probably atop that list

[OA 5599]

Originally Posted by w00lyb00ger

I used to have to drive to Lawrence everyday and that's certainly not the Lawrence I know. The majority of Lawrences population came well after the age of homes of the more classical architecture. The last of which were built back in the 40's when Lawrence only had 14,000 people and Columbia had about 19,000. Therefore, it stands to reason that Columbia has a larger stock of vintage homes. Lawrence may have appeared that way to you just because Columbia is a little bit larger.

Personally, I don't care for Lawrence. It has a couple of sections of town that are alright but most of it is quite dull and lackluster. The hill the city sits on is almost completely surrounded by farm fields. The whole north side is nothing but cracker box split levels.

Columbia is pretty suburban looking as well but has much more character in it's natural surroundings with the Mighty Missouri River not far away and all the limestone cliffs. Trees are everywhere. Of course, the Lake of the Ozarks is nearby and that trumps anything anywhere in the state of Kansas. Jefferson City is also close and is a charming little city with a lot of nice architecture and interesting history.

Lawrence does have the advantage of being closer to the city. However, Columbia gives you more options since you can hit the fringes of either KC or St. Louis metros in about an hour and fifteen minutes. There's not much of anything else besides KC that close to Lawrence. Wichita is a mind numbing, featureless, two hour drive away but there's not much worth seeing there.

Neither Lawrence or Columbia is anything to ooh and ahh over but, in my opinion, Columbia has a lot more going for it. Columbia is also growing at a faster clip and adding more amenities by the day.

As far as the natural surroundings of the actual city and immediate area, Lawrence has Columbia beat IMO. Columbia is built on more or less a flat plain, while Lawrence is built mostly on a hill overlooking the Kansas River. Additionally, Clinton Lake is only a few miles from Lawrence, and Perry Lake isn't too far away either. Granted, the Lake of the Ozarks is nicer and scenic, but you can be at a nice lake within a few minutes of downtown Lawrence (Clinton Lake is also very popular with sail boaters). Also, there is a nice 9-mile long running/biking trail on a levee along the Kansas River starting in downtown Lawrence. I lived in Lawrence for the summer back in 2005 and enjoyed it quite a bit. At least in that portion of Kansas their are a lot of trees, and the central portion of Lawrence has a great deal of them. Lawrence is also more of just a college town while Columbia is also a regional retail center (for better or worse). If I had to choose between the two, I'd probably live in Lawrence. As far as college towns in the general region go, I'd pick Fayetteville, AR over Lawrence or Columbia in a heartbeat.

[w00lyb00ger]

Originally Posted by OA 5599

As far as the natural surroundings of the actual city and immediate area, Lawrence has Columbia beat IMO. Columbia is built on more or less a flat plain, while Lawrence is built mostly on a hill overlooking the Kansas River. Additionally, Clinton Lake is only a few miles from Lawrence, and Perry Lake isn't too far away either. Granted, the Lake of the Ozarks is nicer and scenic, but you can be at a nice lake within a few minutes of downtown Lawrence (Clinton Lake is also very popular with sail boaters). Also, there is a nice 9-mile long running/biking trail on a levee along the Kansas River starting in downtown Lawrence. I lived in Lawrence for the summer back in 2005 and enjoyed it quite a bit. At least in that portion of Kansas their are a lot of trees, and the central portion of Lawrence has a great deal of them. Lawrence is also more of just a college town while Columbia is also a regional retail center (for better or worse). If I had to choose between the two, I'd probably live in Lawrence. As far as college towns in the general region go, I'd pick Fayetteville, AR over Lawrence or Columbia in a heartbeat.

You obviously have never been to Columbia if you're touting a nine mile trail as an advantage for Lawrence. There's absolutely no way any serious cyclist or nature trail enthusiast could have been to Columbia and not known about the Katy Trail (255 miles long).

Katy Trail State Park - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Katy Trail Maps, Towns, Events, Mileage, and more

As far as nature, Columbia looks like it's surrounded by the Rockies compared to Lawrence and has FAR more hills and trees. It's certainly not in a plain. That was dead giveaway number two.

Google Image Result for http://www.offbeattravel.com/columbia-1.jpg

Try finding whitewater rafting anywhere around Lawrence.
Missouri whitewater - Hinkson Creek, Boone County

Lakes? Take your pick.
Lakes in Boone County, Missouri

[OA 5599]

Originally Posted by w00lyb00ger

You obviously have never been to Columbia if you're touting a nine mile trail as an advantage for Lawrence. There's absolutely no way any serious cyclist or nature trail enthusiast could have been to Columbia and not known about the Katy Trail (255 miles long).

Katy Trail State Park - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Katy Trail Maps, Towns, Events, Mileage, and more

As far as nature, Columbia looks like it's surrounded by the Rockies compared to Lawrence and has FAR more hills and trees. It's certainly not in a plain. That was dead giveaway number two.

Google Image Result for http://www.offbeattravel.com/columbia-1.jpg

Try finding whitewater rafting anywhere around Lawrence.
Missouri whitewater - Hinkson Creek, Boone County

Lakes? Take your pick.
Lakes in Boone County, Missouri

I've been to Columbia many times, both on overnight and day trips. I know the town fairly well and have seen most of it. I'm quite familiar with the Katy Trail. Comparing it to Lawrence's trail is like comparing apples to oranges. The trail in Lawrence is mainly geared towards walkers, runners, and joggers, with cyclists coming in second. Its also right downtown, while the Katy Trail in Columbia is a spur off the main trail.

Also, the picture you posted is on the Missouri River. The Missouri River doesn't run through Columbia. It is located south and west of the city. The actual town itself is quite flat, with the exception of some small hills on the south end along Stadium Drive, and one creek that runs through town between the Mizzou and downtown area and US 63. Lawrence on the other hand actually has the Kansas River running through the city limits, and has some very nice hills, with the hill that KU is located on having some very nice views of the surrounding countryside. I'm not quite sure how you wouldn't have noticed this, especially since you claim to have spent quite a bit of time in both cities. The actual city of Lawrence is far, far hillier than Columbia.

As far as the lakes go, Clinton and Perry lakes are large lakes operated by the US Army Corps of Engineers. They have marinas, campgrounds, and are more than big enough to go sailboating, water skiing, speed boating, jet ski riding, ect. Much bigger than any lake in Boone County. These lakes are more around the size of Stockton or Mark Twain lakes in MO.

As far as whitewater rafting goes, class I-II isn't whitewater rafting, and is flatwater with a few fast spots at best. The only real whitewater in the whole state of Missouri is a few places on the St. Francis River near Ironton, and only when there is really enough water in the river to float it. There might be better canoeing close to Columbia than Lawrence, but it isn't whitewater, at all.

[RangerDuke08]

Originally Posted by jps

Has anyone ever heard of Outside Magazine before this?

Outside magazine is rather for the "metropolitan" type who enjoys the great outdoors to some extent, basically their criteria would probably be something of a city-life with enough trails, parks, public transportation nearby etc. As you can see if D.C. which is made of concrete can manage to make the list, it certainly isn't an "outdoors" magazine but rather a "metropolitan" magazine.

Originally Posted by crunchtime

Now isn't College of the Ozarks very near Branson? Not to worry though. A recent survey listed COTO as the 4th most sober college in America. Can anyone tell me why? I think I will send my daughter there.

It depends on their upbringing, though I have met many kids there with exceptional character and maturity for their age, it certaintly isn't for everyone, though the saying goes, a New Yorker could survive anywhere, I would hate to send a kid who grew up in Manhatten to Ozark.

Originally Posted by GetmeoutofAR

Fayetteville, AR should probably atop that list

I think Fayetteville is or has exceeded that list, with a growth rate of something like 22.4% from 2000-2007 compare it with Money Magazines 2007 top city to live in Fort Collins, CO 11.2% (which has sprawled out of hand in recent years), the problem when these cities make the list they are often no longer "hidden gems".

[RangerDuke08]

Originally Posted by w00lyb00ger

I used to have to drive to Lawrence everyday and that's certainly not the Lawrence I know. The majority of Lawrences population came well after the age of homes of the more classical architecture. The last of which were built back in the 40's when Lawrence only had 14,000 people and Columbia had about 19,000. Therefore, it stands to reason that Columbia has a larger stock of vintage homes. Lawrence may have appeared that way to you just because Columbia is a little bit larger.

Personally, I don't care for Lawrence. It has a couple of sections of town that are alright but most of it is quite dull and lackluster. The hill the city sits on is almost completely surrounded by farm fields. The whole north side is nothing but cracker box split levels.

Columbia is pretty suburban looking as well but has much more character in it's natural surroundings with the Mighty Missouri River not far away and all the limestone cliffs. Trees are everywhere. Of course, the Lake of the Ozarks is nearby and that trumps anything anywhere in the state of Kansas. Jefferson City is also close and is a charming little city with a lot of nice architecture and interesting history.

Lawrence does have the advantage of being closer to the city. However, Columbia gives you more options since you can hit the fringes of either KC or St. Louis metros in about an hour and fifteen minutes. There's not much of anything else besides KC that close to Lawrence. Wichita is a mind numbing, featureless, two hour drive away but there's not much worth seeing there.

Neither Lawrence or Columbia is anything to ooh and ahh over but, in my opinion, Columbia has a lot more going for it. Columbia is also growing at a faster clip and adding more amenities by the day.

Great post Wollybooger! I am currently writing from Columbia, MO as part of where my road trip and research has taken me. Lawrence is a lot closer to KC that is for sure, my personal pick would still be Lawrence, but there is something going for Columbia, it is a very lively town indeed and albeit a college town however as you stated, the older housing has been able to maintain it's character. I believe the recent estimate of pop. of 99,174 a 14.6% increase, displays well that for comparable and rival towns, Missouri is able to attract more businesses than neighbor Kansas. Though not near a city, being in between KC and STL and just north of the capital it's centrality may be a better investment in the short-term.

[aragx6]

I always got the impression that Columbia was probably a far nicer town 20-30 years ago before the arrivals of sprawl, big box stores and chain restaurants.