Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,745 posts, read 23,801,634 times
Reputation: 14655
Advertisements
Haven't been to any of them. I drove through Kansas City once on my way from Denver to St. Louis. Since I skipped KC that time around I'd probably give it a shot as I like St. Louis so I imagine I'd warm up to KC also. I remember heading east on I-70 after hundreds of miles of treeless prairie it was around KC that it started getting green with lots of trees and there were some impressive river bluffs along the Missouri River. I love Barbeque, so that would be a draw, and I really like fountains. So yeah, KC would be my choice.
What I know of Columbus is being a a big college city with a huge football backing. I've heard it's the most prosperous city in Ohio. I just not that turned on to it. I never thought about Indianapolis and it's not even somwhere I'd have an open mind to. Ohio and Indiana, just not into.
Having lived in the KC area for a couple of years, which I did enjoy, I struggle to understand this thinking. What does KC have that Indy and Columbus don't (thinking of amenities, culture, etc.)? Indy and Columbus are better situated geographically in terms of access to other major metros. Economically, I think it's pretty much a wash.
I don't find Kansas City appealing either when compared to many other midwestern cities. Base off the three cities listed in the poll my vote goes for Columbus. I think the one downfall Kansas City has for itself is its location that it literally can not promote much ( and high crime within city limits).
Last edited by timeofseasons; 05-11-2011 at 02:35 AM..
I don't find Kansas City appealing either when compared to many other midwestern cities. Base off the three cities listed in the poll my vote goes for Columbus. I think the one downfall Kansas City has for itself is its location that it literally can not promote much ( and high crime within city limits).
So what is it about the locations of Columbus & Indy that those cities can promote...? Other than proximity to other cities?
I don't see how KC is anymore of a real city than Indy or Columbus. I mean KC has a really low population density compared to those two.
KC- 1538 people per square mile
Indy- 2234 people per square mile
Columbus- 3659 people per square mile
So Indy & Columbus not only have higher populations, but also higher population densities. If anything, KC feels the least like a city. KC's population density is one of the lowest of the major cities in the US. Indy & Columbus are also older than KC, so I don't see how they're "less established."
I don't see how KC is anymore of a real city than Indy or Columbus. I mean KC has a really low population density compared to those two.
KC- 1538 people per square mile
Indy- 2234 people per square mile
Columbus- 3659 people per square mile
So Indy & Columbus not only have higher populations, but also higher population densities. If anything, KC feels the least like a city. KC's population density is one of the lowest of the major cities in the US. Indy & Columbus are also older than KC, so I don't see how they're "less established."
Have you actually been to any of these cities, or are you just using stats?
Kansas City annexed miles and miles of vacant land far outside the city north by the airport in the 60s. This empty land has no bearing on the density of the city, but it skews the statistics. The population density of the actual core of the city is more like 5,000 people per square mile.
To illustrate this, according to walkscore.com, Kansas City has 4 "Walker's Paradise Neighborhoods" including one in the top 10 (walk score over 90 - only 138 exist in the nation). Neither Columbus nor Indianapolis had one.
Have you actually been to any of these cities, or are you just using stats?
Kansas City annexed miles and miles of vacant land far outside the city north by the airport in the 60s. This empty land has no bearing on the density of the city, but it skews the statistics. The population density of the actual core of the city is more like 5,000 people per square mile.
To illustrate this, according to walkscore.com, Kansas City has 4 "Walker's Paradise Neighborhoods" including one in the top 10 (walk score over 90 - only 138 exist in the nation). Neither Columbus nor Indianapolis had one.
There are semi-rural, underdeveloped areas within the city limits of Indianapolis as well, and I'm guessing the same is true of Columbus.
I don't want to come across as bashing KC. Lived in the area for two years in the early 90s and really enjoyed my time there. I just have to scratch my head at comments like "more established, real city, architecture, better urban core, etc." Outside of the Plaza, I can't think of anything architecture-wise in KC that can't be found in Indy or Columbus, particularly as it relates to the housing stock. And there's really not much culturally in KC that can't be found Indy or Columbus, aside from the great BBQ in KC (Aside....it is very hard to find decent BBQ in Indy, but truth be told, I'm a Memphis-style guy). And like I said in my previous post, from Indy or Columbus you have quicker access to other major metros than you do from KC. But let me be clear -- I like all three cities and would enjoy living in any of them.
There are semi-rural, underdeveloped areas within the city limits of Indianapolis as well, and I'm guessing the same is true of Columbus.
I don't want to come across as bashing KC. Lived in the area for two years in the early 90s and really enjoyed my time there. I just have to scratch my head at comments like "more established, real city, architecture, better urban core, etc." Outside of the Plaza, I can't think of anything architecture-wise in KC that can't be found in Indy or Columbus, particularly as it relates to the housing stock. And there's really not much culturally in KC that can't be found Indy or Columbus, aside from the great BBQ in KC (Aside....it is very hard to find decent BBQ in Indy, but truth be told, I'm a Memphis-style guy). And like I said in my previous post, from Indy or Columbus you have quicker access to other major metros than you do from KC. But let me be clear -- I like all three cities and would enjoy living in any of them.
Agreed, not sure what puts KC way ahead of the other two in any particular catergory. Yes, there are rural areas in Columbus, many in fact. There is a ton of great architecture, particularly in the older streetcar suburbs, but even in the far suburban town centers there is a lot to offer. IMO, Columbus is also one of the best food cities for its size in the country. It does not specialize in one thing, however, and that's probably why it is not more well-known in this area.
Have you actually been to any of these cities, or are you just using stats?
Kansas City annexed miles and miles of vacant land far outside the city north by the airport in the 60s. This empty land has no bearing on the density of the city, but it skews the statistics. The population density of the actual core of the city is more like 5,000 people per square mile.
To illustrate this, according to walkscore.com, Kansas City has 4 "Walker's Paradise Neighborhoods" including one in the top 10 (walk score over 90 - only 138 exist in the nation). Neither Columbus nor Indianapolis had one.
All three are generally low-density, spread-out cities, but Columbus definitely has an advantage over KC and Indianapolis when it comes to density. It feels like it on the ground, and it is indeed reflected in the data.
All three are generally low-density, spread-out cities, but Columbus definitely has an advantage over KC and Indianapolis when it comes to density. It feels like it on the ground, and it is indeed reflected in the data.
Good point. Never really looked at that before. Just going through the 3 cities, Indy clearly has the lowest density. The highest density neighborhood I could find there was about 7200 ppsm. KC was next with one tract, 73, at just over 11,000 ppsm. But Columbus was the winner by far. The highest density tract I saw was just over 29,000 ppsm in tract 181. There were at least 5 or 6 others that had densities over double digits with 2-3 others at over 20,000. KC just had one in double digits and I couldn't find any in Indy.
Also, whoever said that Columbus has no "walker's paradise neighborhoods" is wrong. I just typed in a random address for North High Street and it came up with a score of 91... which qualifies. Did the same address for South High... score of 94. It qualifies. The criteria appears to be using an entire tract, yet specific addresses have different scores. I can think of several areas that are highly walkable, yet don't qualify, yet it lists my own neighborhood as very walkable, yet I would say the opposite.
Last edited by jbcmh81; 05-12-2011 at 09:33 PM..
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.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
