Columbia, MO. named 10th Best Town in America...

[w00lyb00ger]

Originally Posted by muman

I couldn't disagree with this more. I've never found retirement communities and nursing homes to be all that dynamic or interesting.

To the person who mentioned big-box chain stores, I can agree to a certain extent, but that's been happening to towns and cities all over the U.S. ever since the Wal-Martization of the country began a few years ago.

Me either. But he does live in Branson. Kind of tells you where he's coming from. If bluegrass is your thing you're gonna be very disappointed in Columbia. But the majority of people would probably enjoy Columbia a lot more. I find Branson very uninteresting myself. Basically you have a mall on a lake front (Branson Landing) and a bunch of corny country and western acts whose prime has long since passed them by. Branson Landing is in a very nice setting. I'll give it that. But as far as it's retail offerings, it's the same crap I can find in any corner of KC suburbia. And there is no real night life. Or great mom and pop owned places to get some good grub like CoMo has.

[w00lyb00ger]

Originally Posted by Phoenix56

I lived in Columbia for years and years. When my Mother passed away I joined my brother, sister and their families in Kansas City. I find Kansas City much friendlier. Columbia could be a little snobby...big fish in little ponds.....The students are what kept it fresh and alive. All in all KC is much better....

I've lived in KC most of my life and couldn't disagree more. When I go to Columbia it's almost immediately apparent that most of the people there are more open to a conversation with someone they don't know than here in KC.

[tree.house]

Originally Posted by w00lyb00ger

Apparently you haven't been to Columbia much. I find your claims to be very suspect for a number of reasons. First of all, the Katy Trail is heavily used by walkers, joggers, hikers, and bicyclists alike. You're grasping at straws with that one. And no, it's not just a "spur off the main trail". Saying otherwise again, makes your commentary a bit suspicious. The main trail runs directly through the city limits of Columbia. What makes a difference what part of town the trail starts in? That makes no sense.

No, compared to Lawrence, Columbia is practically in the Appalachian Mountains. The south, southeast, and southwest sides of Columbia, which is where the majority of the city resides, is butted up against Mark Twain National Forest and Rock Bridge State park which are where the foothills to the Ozarks begin. I can see more trees and hills in that area than exist in the entire state of Kansas. But I don't see all those glorious hills that seem to exist in Lawrence only in your imagination here do you? [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/adavis826/6274606406/]University of Kansas: Lawrence, KS | Flickr - Photo Sharing![/url]

I never saw much of them in the gazillion times I was there doing work either.

And we have more grasping at straws with pointing out that the Missouri River isn't inside the city limits. If you're on the south eastern edge of Columbia you can see it. You have to be on the northeastern edge of Lawrence to see the Kansas River.

Plenty of lakes in Boone County where you can do all of the above mentioned as I posted earlier. But I find it interesting you would insist any view of the Missouri River does not qualify because it isn't actually in the city limits of Columbia while you would boast about those two lakes when both are miles outside of Lawrence. Neither of which is impressive. And judging by the log jam of cars with Kansas tags on them every weekend headed towards the various lakes in south Missouri it would appear that most Kansans feel the same way. But by your logic, if I'm going to a lake for just it's size, well there's nothing anywhere in the state of Kansas that's noteworthy anyway. You can drive an hour south of Columbia to a lake that could swallow every one of the lakes in the Sunflower State.

As far as you creating your own definition of what whitewater rafting is, that's fine. It's impossible to argue with somebody that redefines things as they see fit. The people that created that site have much more knowledge than you do on the subject I'm sure. And if you'd bothered to look around their site you would have seen just how wrong you are about which classifications of whitewater rafting exist in Missouri. And regardless of how you classify things, Lawrence offers no rafting of that sort. I suppose you could kayak down that muddy ass Kansas River if you wanted.

[url=http://www.riverfacts.com/states/mo.html]Missouri White Water Rivers and Paddling Spots[/url]

I find his assessment suspect as well. The MKT trail runs 8.9 miles from Flat Branch Park, at the heart of downtown, to the Katy Trail, which makes it possible for one to ride down to the river to camp, climb the bluffs, or ride to St. Charles, if they please. Most of Columbia lies in the Hinkson, Perche, or Gans creek watersheds, and one can visit Rock Bridge state park (caves/karst topography, very steep) and Gans Wild Area, which has 9 miles of trails and is adjacent to the metropolitan boundary. As for white water in Missouri, we have it -- the St. Francis River. The entire state south of I-44 is comprised of ancient geologic formations and spring-fed rivers. Some of those features, to a lesser extent, are present in the Columbia MO, area. I enjoy regular visits to the Mark Twain National Forest (Cedar Creek Ranger District) near the Columbia Airport, which is a great place to go for hikes and short overnight backpacking trips. Some beautiful topography there. I should also mention Three Creeks Conservation Area, which encompasses the confluence of three large streams (Bass, Bon Femme, Turkey Creeks) and contains several caves and some pretty remarkable rock formations (about 10 miles of hiking trails and several back-country campsites).

I could go on, but any sane person KNOWS that Kansas is utter garbage in terms of nature.