Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-08-2009, 04:07 PM
 
Location: Surprise, AZ
8,613 posts, read 10,143,894 times
Reputation: 7969

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackOut View Post
Kansas City was a major city long before Charlotte was even on the radar. Its role has changed, however, and now both Charlotte and Kansas City are major cities in a sense that they are important on a regional level. IMO, they are both tier 5 cities / metro areas with Charlotte being near the top and Kansas City being somewhere in the middle.

Tier 1
New York City

Tier 2
Los Angeles
Washington D.C.
Chicago

Tier 3
San Francisco
Houston
Boston
Philadelphia
Dallas
Atlanta
Miami

Tier 4
Seattle
San Jose
Detroit
Minneapolis
Denver
San Diego
Pittsburgh

Tier 5
St. Louis
Phoenix
Charlotte
Cleveland
Las Vegas
Kansas City
Cincinnati
Portland
Tampa
Sacramento
I know this is only your opinion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-08-2009, 04:21 PM
 
Location: Washington, DC area
11,108 posts, read 23,883,005 times
Reputation: 6438
Quote:
Originally Posted by metro.m View Post
Why do you keep mentioning Raleigh troll? Charlotte seems large on paper until you go there and see how small it actually is. That's just a fact. The same can be said for most rapidly growing cities, especially in the sunbelt. Your argument is no different than someone from Phoenix thinking it's in the same league as SanFran, Philly, or Miami. Charlotte is still very new and lacks in many areas when it comes to Big City offerings as a whole. It has a few elements here and there, but is still quite a ways away from being considering beyond a shadow of a doubt a BIG CITY.
Exactly. There is a big difference between Charlotte and KC. KC feels like a much larger and more urban city than Charlotte. Charlotte has an impressive skyline, if you like modern tall towers.


Quote:
Originally Posted by urbancharlotte View Post
All of what you said is true. However, look up the land area of KC's 2 million and compare it to the land area of Charlotte's 1.7 million. If you did this, you would see that you are comparing 8,000 sq/mi to less than 3,100 sq/mi. Even Charlotte's 13 county labor market is still 1,500 sq/mi short of KC's MSA. Look at the numbers, and you will see that Charlotte (while having a "smaller" MSA population) is the center of a more populated region. Again, this is NOT to take anything away from KC's urbanity and charm. Just know that Charlotte (the region) is larger by many stats.
Again, read and try to comprehend. KC's urban footprint (forget bout MSA counties for five seconds) is nearly twice as populated and 25% more dense than Charlotte's. I saw your post where you claim that Charlotte has somehow increased its urban foot print to 1 million. That is highly unlikely as most of Charlotte’s growth in the past decade has occurred in suburban sprawl, just like KC. And while downtown Charlotte has experienced an urban core residential boom, so has urban KCMO and urban KCMO (where all the new condos etc are going up) is a much larger area than downtown Charlotte so any gain you add to Charlotte’s numbers can be easily added to KCMO's as well. So it's a wash, KCMO still has an urban foot print that is twice as populated and substantially more dense than Charlottes and while you continue to claim that KC’s MSA has 8000 square miles, you are missing the point that KC needs only 580 square miles of that land to reach a farley densely populated 1.4 million while Charlotte needs every bit of it’s 3000 square miles to reach 1.7 million. Are you understanding this at all? I tell you what. Go rent an airplane or helicopter and fly around Charlotte. You will quickly see exactly what I’m talking about. Do the same in KCMO and you will see a city that looks nothing like the density stats would infer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcmo View Post
I will try to explain.

The continuous urbanized area of KCMO and Metro KC is far more dense than the MSA stats or KCMO's city stats. It's actually kind of confusing. Basically, when you enter into the built up part of KC (which is a tiny part of the actual MSA). This area starts when urban development is continuous. This area feels and is more dense than Charlotte.

The city of KCMO is the same deal. Much of the continuous urbanized area of metro KCMO doesn't even include much of the city of KCMO because the city of KCMO annexed far into a part of the region that is not as built up.

Rather than looking at MSA stats or city stats, look at the big mass of developed area in KC. You have to in KC because KC is not your typical city where you have a landlocked central city. Again, it's very confusing, but let me put this into numbers for you then when you come to KC you can see for yourself what I'm talking about because there is a pretty substantial difference between KC and Charlotte.

BTW, all of this is coming from somebody that has extensive knowledge of all the big cities. All you have to do is visit my website. All I do is visit cities.

So here goes.

The continuos built up area of Kansas City is 1.4 million people in 580 square miles with a density of 2300 per square mile.

The continuos built up area of Charlotte is 750,000 people in 435 square miles with a density of 1700 per square mile.


Read that over and over and try to comprehend what that it's saying. It's not putting down Charlotte or trying to make KC look better than it is. Those are facts and the best facts one can use to compare two cities vs using stats that include 80% BS numbers.

What that is saying is that KC has about twice the urbanized population as Charlotte. After the 750k, development in Charlotte becomes low density, spread out and leapfrogging. After about 1.4 million, KC does the same. But even in those areas, KC has a density that is 25% higher. So the area of KC that most people live in or about 75% of the MSA population, is twice the size and 25% more dense than the same area in Charlotte. This is why the city feels considerably larger than Charlotte outside your quite impressive downtown CBD.

Following me at all here???

Last edited by kcmo; 12-08-2009 at 04:30 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2009, 04:37 PM
 
Location: Washington, DC area
11,108 posts, read 23,883,005 times
Reputation: 6438















These are areas south of Downtown in midtown.









This is the river market area, this photo only shows about half of the river market area and it has had tremendous infill since this photo was taken.



This is a large wareshouse district that is almost all converted condos, lofts and apartments now.



This is the Union Hill area


Last edited by kcmo; 12-08-2009 at 04:49 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2009, 04:44 PM
 
1,211 posts, read 2,675,319 times
Reputation: 642
I had no idea KC was such a nice looking city! It's looks like the DC/Bmore area!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2009, 04:47 PM
 
1,588 posts, read 4,062,127 times
Reputation: 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZLiam View Post
I know this is only your opinion.
What the fact that Kansas City was a major city before Charlotte? Or that the two have regional importance? Orrrr are you referring to the list? If you are referring to the list, don't bother commenting because you aren't going to change my mind as I have taken several factors into account (i.e. GDP, Fortune 500 companies, private companies, universities, etc...).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2009, 04:47 PM
 
229 posts, read 520,707 times
Reputation: 179
Point is, both city are nice but built and feel differently. I agree with KCMO that KC is a very underrated city. However, people do not choose a city to live or like simply based on a bunch of stats or how "urban" or not urban a city is. People choose a place to live or visit based on location, economics, amenities among other things. My opinion is this; KC is far ahead of Charlotte as far as urbanness and is a more interesting place, IMO. Charlotte, though I would pick over KC because it has more things going for it as far as things I prefer. Location, newness, skyline and downtown on street level and neighborhoods. Not a knock on KC but people have to remember that these City-vs-City threads appeal to a TINY fraction of people who post from a VERY biased perspective.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2009, 04:54 PM
 
Location: Surprise, AZ
8,613 posts, read 10,143,894 times
Reputation: 7969
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackOut View Post
What the fact that Kansas City was a major city before Charlotte? Or that the two have regional importance? Orrrr are you referring to the list? If you are referring to the list, don't bother commenting because you aren't going to change my mind as I have taken several factors into account (i.e. GDP, Fortune 500 companies, private companies, universities, etc...).
I didn't realize you were the authority on whether or not I can/should comment, but please enlighten us with your factors.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2009, 04:58 PM
 
294 posts, read 781,911 times
Reputation: 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcmo View Post
I think the main reason Charlotte gets so much attention is because it's the second major city in the south / southeast and the city has experienced tremendous growth while the economy was booming due to the financial industry as you mentioned.

My only point was the city really does not compare to KC or really most cities in the 2 million population range once you leave the central business district. That's not a slam, it's just how the city grew and the numbers I posted in the previous page proves it. It just seems like Charlotte has some of the more arrogant supporters. I actually like Charlotte, but when it comes to being an urban city, the city still has a ways to go. Charlotte is Oklahoma City with a bunch of new towers downtown. That’s how it feels, that how it looks from the ground and the air. So when people from Charlotte constantly talk about being a city that has left KC behind, I just don’t think they know what they are talking about. KC is larger, more urban, more dense and more interesting than Charlotte IMO. KC has more to do and see and simply feels and acts like a more established big city. Now again, this is not something most people will agree with because I think most people just don’t think much of KC at all. But in my opinion, the city is still in a higher tier than Charlotte. Not sure how long that will be, but I think KC is still a solid city and contrary to popular belief, still has a very bright future. (it's not a has been city).

Now to answer your question.

KC has a very diverse economy. Some of the top industries:

Transportation, engineering, telecommunications, creative, federal government, financial, life science and heavy industry.

Transportation
KC is in the center of the country and at the intersection of several major cross country interstates and highways. KC has several large trucking companies and many large distribution centers and multimode transportation facilities. KC is the second largest freight rail hub in the nation second only to Chicago.

KC is the engineering capital of the world. There are at least a half dozen major engineering companies headquartered in KC and many others have a major presence do to all the talent in the area. Companies include, HNTB, Burns and McDonnell, Black & Veatch and many others. Nearly every sports arena and stadium built in the past few decades have been designed in KC. KC by far has more engineers per capita than any place in the world.

Telecommunications include the world HQ of Sprint Nextel along with a major presence of At&t and others. Other tech companies HQd in KC include Garmin (GPS devices) and Cerner (medical software).

KC has some of the countries largest advertising agencies as well as the world HQ of Hallmark Cards.

The federal government employees over 30,000 people in KC.

Finacial companies HQd in KC include H&R Block and American Century Investments.

Life sciences are up and coming with some major local and national companies in the area. But one standout is the Stowers institute for medical research, a campus with a billion dollars of donated money and a campus that draws scientist from around the world.

KC also is doing comparatively well with some of its more traditional industry. Manufacturing. KC has two of the most productive and consistently busy assembly plants in the nation (GM and Ford) as well as Harley Davison and many other manufacturing plants continue to operate in vibrant industrial districts while many similar distrits in other cities have all but shut down.

So, I think KC holds it’s own. Diversity is a good thing.

We will see how Charlotte pulls out of this economic crisis since I think the banking industry is still in serious trouble. The city has a lot of eggs in one basket.
I like your post but here is where you loose me. I was in OKC last and it is nothing like Charlotte. Downtown OKC looks to me almost exactly like midtown (?) KC. Both KC and OKC have that older midwestern look to them with similar architecture. Charlotte is a very modern city and also looks like the Southeastern, boom city that it is. I really don't see the similarities. Charlotte is more like Tulsa with it's tree lined streets and manicured neighborhoods, than OKC. OKC seemed more like a smaller KC.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2009, 05:01 PM
 
1,588 posts, read 4,062,127 times
Reputation: 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZLiam View Post
I didn't realize you were the authority on whether or not I can/should comment, but please enlighten us with your factors.
Comment all you want. I stated you won't change my mind. As far as the factors are concerned, l listed some of them. Honestly, do I need to tell you what a Fortune 500 company is? Tell me what you think is wrong and I will give you an explanation as to the placement of a city / metro area.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2009, 05:03 PM
 
1,211 posts, read 2,675,319 times
Reputation: 642
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZLiam View Post
I didn't realize you were the authority on whether or not I can/should comment, but please enlighten us with your factors.
I didn't bother to comment on his statement. I always new Kansas City was a big city, but I never bothered to learn more about the place. The pics above are amazing. NC doesn't have anything remotely close to looking like that.
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:


Over $104,000 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 > General U.S. > City vs. City

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top