Would you chose KC over Denver as a place to live? (please see details) (Kansas City: amusement park, condo)
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.
sorry if the Denver/KC question has been asked before, I'm sure it has.I cannot do a search for Denver/KC questions because I am using a proxyserver, and it doesn't allow me to use the search function. I am living in Denver currently. I am thinking (seriously) about leaving here. The area just doesn'tdo it for me, although I wonder if I am just wanting to leave becauseleaving feels good. (anywhere but here syndrome). I want to stay withina 600 mile radius to make my move a little bit easier. Please tell me whyyou would prefer KC over Denver, or visa versa. Some things that I havein mind are: cheaper housing, more trees, more precipitation, bigger rivers,beautiful baseball stadium. Hands down, it seems Denver is more preferred over KC as a place to relocate to. I suppose the lifestyle is what draws people to the Front Range. I am not into the mountains, however. Thank you for your thoughts.
sorry if the Denver/KC question has been asked before, I'm sure it has.I cannot do a search for Denver/KC questions because I am using a proxyserver, and it doesn't allow me to use the search function. I am living in Denver currently. I am thinking (seriously) about leaving here. The area just doesn'tdo it for me, although I wonder if I am just wanting to leave becauseleaving feels good. (anywhere but here syndrome). I want to stay withina 600 mile radius to make my move a little bit easier. Please tell me whyyou would prefer KC over Denver, or visa versa. Some things that I havein mind are: cheaper housing, more trees, more precipitation, bigger rivers,beautiful baseball stadium. Hands down, it seems Denver is more preferred over KC as a place to relocate to. I suppose the lifestyle is what draws people to the Front Range. I am not into the mountains, however. Thank you for your thoughts.
I grew up in KC but live in Denver. Personally I prefer Denver because it's more cosmopolitan, has a very lively downtown and inner city, I prefer the climate of Denver (low humidity, perfect summers, warm days scattered throughout winter, more sun) and it's a more liberal city. KC is definitely a wetter city, but with that comes miserable humidity and lots of bugs in the summer and the humid cold can feel pretty bad.
These are just my opinions and preferences. You didn't say what type of lifestyle you were looking for. Housing is definitely cheaper in KC, which can make life easier. Midtown, the Plaza and now downtown areas offer a nice urban lifestyle if that's what you're looking for. If you just want a cheap house in the 'burbs and don't go outside much, it might be the place for you.
I'd stay in Denver. A lot of the things you mentioned (like trees, rivers and a beautiful ballpark) imo would better suit you to St. Louis than Kansas City, though of course that's a longer move!
First off, I love Denver, it’s my second home. I know the city well, almost moved there.
There are things about KC that are better than Denver and things about Denver that are better than KC.
First off, if you are a suburban kind of person. It doesn’t matter, just stay in Denver. KC’s suburbs are the same.
But if you are more of an urban minded person then it gets a bit more complicated.
Now if you have no interest in the mountains, then I honestly think KC wins hands down over Denver. The main reason I like Denver is because it’s a big, vibrant city, next to the Rocky Mountains. KC doesn’t have this, but the KC area is not nearly as flat and barren as the Denver area is so it’s a tossup. If you don’t care about the mountains being nearby, you might like living in a city that has hills, trees and rivers. So if mountain biking, skiing etc are not what you are into than KC offers more IMO.
KC is an older, more authentic city where you can live in a new condo like what 99% of Denver is outside of parts of LoDo and do the whole “whatever the yuppies in California do” thing or you can live in KC in a more “real” down to earth urban environment that doesn’t have quite the “fake” or “new” feel that Denver has.
The arts scene in KC is much larger. First Fridays, the Crossroads, the Nelson, Kemper etc.
The architecture in KC is something Denver can only dream of with our art deco skyscrapers, union station, etc.
The fountains and all the different districts of KC. The River Market, Downtown, Crossroads, Crown Center, Midtown, Westport, Plaza.
Denver really loses its urban feel when you leave downtown. KC has a smaller CBD, but a larger overall urban core.
KC in the winter is like few other towns with the Plaza lights, crown center etc. KC really gets into the Christmas spirit.
KC has a much larger amusement park than Denver and has more high end museums and history. KC also has larger and closer casinos.
Denver has the mountains, but once you are there, you are stuck and have to fly out of a very expensive airport to get anywhere while KC is much closer to other big cities like StLouis, Dallas, Minneapolis and Chicago. Plus it’s cheap and easy to fly out of KCI and KC has nonstops to nearly every city.
The cost of living is much lower, the traffic is much less congested in KC. KC doesn’t “wear you out” like a lot of big cities do and you have enough money left over after paying your mortgage to travel the country if you desire.
The bottom line is that KC is a big city that offers as much, if not more than Denver does minus the mountains (although KC does have the lakes in Missouri).
So if you are looking for a change of scenery and want to try a different big city for a while, I think you would really enjoy KC. Just live “in the city”.
The things about KC that are not so good? We have little to no transit in most parts of the metro, but if you live in the core, the transit is pretty good.
The suburbs and even many city residents in KC have little to no pride in the “city”. That’s changing, but I have never seen a city that is so hard on itself and I have never seen a city where so many of its suburbs treat the mother city as some sort of enemy or look down on it.
The weather has extremes, but it’s nearly identical to Denver.
Metro KC has about 2.1 million people. Denver has about 2.4 million. But there are nearly 3 million people within an hour of downtown KC which is more than there is within an hour of Denver. So KC is plenty big enough to have all the things a person would want.
Denver does have the NHL and NBA if you are into winter pro sports, but KC is a huge college sports mecca.
Denver has hundreds of miles of bike trails and the people are generally more active, even in the suburbs.
I like to mountain bike and couldn’t care less about college sports.
The bottom line is that if you live in one, I would try the other. They sort of complement each other. Both are great towns.
First off, I love Denver, it’s my second home. I know the city well, almost moved there.
There are things about KC that are better than Denver and things about Denver that are better than KC.
First off, if you are a suburban kind of person. It doesn’t matter, just stay in Denver. KC’s suburbs are the same.
But if you are a more urban minded person then it gets a bit more complicated.
Now if you have no interest in the mountains, then I honestly think KC wins hands down over Denver. The main reason I like Denver is because it’s a big, vibrant city, next to the Rocky Mountains. KC doesn’t have this, but the KC area is not nearly as flat and barren as the Denver area is so it’s a tossup. If you don’t care about the mountains being nearby, you might like living in a city that has hills, trees and rivers. So if mountain biking, skiing etc are not what you are into than KC offers more IMO.
KC is an older, more authentic city where you can live in a new condo like what 99% of Denver is and do the whole “whatever the yuppies in California do” thing or you can live in KC in a more “real” down to earth urban environment that doesn’t have quite the “fake” or “new” feel that Denver has.
The arts scene in KC is much larger. First Fridays, the Crossroads, the Nelson, Kemper etc.
The architecture in KC is something Denver can only dream of with our art deco skyscrapers, union station, etc.
The fountains and all the different districts of KC. The River Market, Downtown, Crossroads, Crown Center, Midtown, Westport, Plaza.
Denver really loses its urban feel when you leave downtown. KC has a smaller CBD, but an larger overall urban core.
KC in the winter is like few other towns with the Plaza lights, crown center etc.
KC has a much larger amusement park than Denver and has more high end museums and history. KC also has larger and closer casinos.
Denver has the mountains, but once you are there, you are stuck and have to fly out of a very expensive airport to get anywhere while KC is much closer to other big cities like StLouis, Dallas, Minneapolis and Chicago. Plus it’s cheap and easy to fly out of KCI and KC has nonstops to nearly every city.
The cost of living is much lower, the traffic is much less congested in KC. KC doesn’t “wear you out” like a lot of big cities do and you have enough money left over after paying your mortgage to travel the country if you desire.
The bottom line is that KC is a big city that offers as much, if not more than Denver does minus the mountains (although KC does have the lakes in Missouri).
So if you are looking for a change of scenery and want to try a different big city for a while, I think you would really enjoy KC. Just live “in the city”.
The things about KC that are not so good? We have little to no transit in most parts of the metro, but if you live in the core, the transit is pretty good.
The suburbs in KC have little to no pride in the “city”. That’s changing, but I have never seen a city that is so hard on itself and I have never seen a city where so many of its suburbs treat the mother city as some sort of enemy.
The weather has extremes, but it nearly identical to Denver.
Metro KC has about 2.1 million people. Denver has about 2.5 million. But there are nearly 3 million people within an hour of downtown KC which is more than there is within an hour of Denver. So KC is plenty big enough to have all the things a person would want.
Denver does have the NHL and NBA if you are into winter pro sports, but KC is a huge college sports mecca.
Denver has hundreds of miles of bike trails and the people are generally more active, even in the suburbs.
The bottom line is that if you live in one, I would try the other.
Hope that helps!
I agree with a lot of your comparisons, but disagree on a few.
Climate is not identical. Denver has no humidity (and the miserable bugs) that KC has, and often in the winter we have warmer weather than KC. (average winter high temps in Denver are about 5 degrees warmer than KC, to many people's surprise)
Population of the Denver metro area is expected to cross the 3 million mark by 2010. Overall, metro Denver is about the same area as metro KC, but with more than a half million more people. It's a much denser metro area. There's over 4 million from Pueblo to Ft. Collins, along the Front Range.
I doubt KC has a larger "arts scene" than Denver. I don't know how you'd measure it though. We have First Fridays, recently expanded Denver Art Museum, a new modern art musem, natural history museum, and others. Nelson is definitely world class though.
I don't really get the feeling that KC has any more urban area than Denver. KC seems to have more widespread areas of poverty and homes in disrepair than Denver.
KC has the art deco, but I'd still take the height and volume of Denver's skyline any day - plus they're actually building skycrapers in Denver that will change the skyline. On the street level, there are plenty of old brick buildings and a feeling of history.
I you're not into the Rockies, I'd say KC would be a better place. It's certainly cheaper and not nearly as crowded. KC has all the benefits of living in a big city [NFL, MLB, great restaraunts, plenty of shopping] but it has a small town feel.
The mountains are ok to look at, but going up into the mountains is a uninspiring. I would much rather explore a forest of decideous trees, then go up to the treeless mountains. The only reason I bring up the mountains is because i feel I am paying a premium to live in Denver for the mountains, which I never use. I do not care abouturban life. I have no interest in going to downtown Denver. What a hassle. I wouldmuch rather side on my patio at home. Is that unusual? So I guess I am a suburban guy. More than that, I am medium sized town guy. But I want the big city foremployment opportunity. I have visited KC before. The downtown seems depressing,but I am not a good judge of what downtowns are supposed to look like. It seemsold and seedy. I loved Liberty. That's where I felt most comfortable. I also likedthe Kansas side. Its newness was exciting. (Overland Park, for example). Really thething that draws me to Kansas City is the idea of getting out of the city andexploring the Missouri countryside. Doesn't exploring the wooded countryside seemmore interesting than exploring the brown prairie land East of Denver? Seriously, I'm asking. I also think Eastern Kansas is very pretty, I mean the rural aspects of it.I would imagine there are countless gemsto discover in the landscape west of KC. What is there to discover on the prairie east of Denver? It sounds like the primary attraction of Denver for mostpeople, then, is, one, the mountains, and, two, its urban core. I will miss the peoplein Denver, however. They are a happy bunch because they seem to love living here.In my time in KC, the people seemed moredreary and unexcited about the place they call home. But it's hard to get accurateimpressions when you are a visitor. (visitor who was scoping out KC as a potential place to live) You are overly sensitive to everything. One thing I noticed when I was in KC is that bike trails are almost non-existant. This, too, scares me. I love howeveryone in Denver is out walking and riding the bike trails. Why aren't people in KC more active like this? One last thing, and probably the most significant factor for me ispoverty. Denverian made the comment about more areas of poverty in KC, and more houses in disrepair. This is my biggest fear.. that I would be living in aplace that is old and busted down. Really, that's it in a nutshell.
The mountains are ok to look at, but going up into the mountains is a uninspiring. I would much rather explore a forest of decideous trees, then go up to the treeless mountains. The only reason I bring up the mountains is because i feel I am paying a premium to live in Denver for the mountains, which I never use. I do not care abouturban life. I have no interest in going to downtown Denver. What a hassle. I wouldmuch rather side on my patio at home. Is that unusual? So I guess I am a suburban guy. More than that, I am medium sized town guy. But I want the big city foremployment opportunity. I have visited KC before. The downtown seems depressing,but I am not a good judge of what downtowns are supposed to look like. It seemsold and seedy. I loved Liberty. That's where I felt most comfortable. I also likedthe Kansas side. Its newness was exciting. (Overland Park, for example). Really thething that draws me to Kansas City is the idea of getting out of the city andexploring the Missouri countryside. Doesn't exploring the wooded countryside seemmore interesting than exploring the brown prairie land East of Denver? Seriously, I'm asking. I also think Eastern Kansas is very pretty, I mean the rural aspects of it.I would imagine there are countless gemsto discover in the landscape west of KC. What is there to discover on the prairie east of Denver? It sounds like the primary attraction of Denver for mostpeople, then, is, one, the mountains, and, two, its urban core. I will miss the peoplein Denver, however. They are a happy bunch because they seem to love living here.In my time in KC, the people seemed moredreary and unexcited about the place they call home. But it's hard to get accurateimpressions when you are a visitor. (visitor who was scoping out KC as a potential place to live) You are overly sensitive to everything. One thing I noticed when I was in KC is that bike trails are almost non-existant. This, too, scares me. I love howeveryone in Denver is out walking and riding the bike trails. Why aren't people in KC more active like this? One last thing, and probably the most significant factor for me ispoverty. Denverian made the comment about more areas of poverty in KC, and more houses in disrepair. This is my biggest fear.. that I would be living in aplace that is old and busted down. Really, that's it in a nutshell.
If you like super new areas then it sounds like you would enjoy places like Lee's Summit, Overland Park, Olathe, Liberty, etc. In the Kansas City metro area you can find towns of any size you want and still be within a 30 minute drive to most locations.
I agree with a lot of your comparisons, but disagree on a few.
Climate is not identical. Denver has no humidity (and the miserable bugs) that KC has, and often in the winter we have warmer weather than KC. (average winter high temps in Denver are about 5 degrees warmer than KC, to many people's surprise)
Population of the Denver metro area is expected to cross the 3 million mark by 2010. Overall, metro Denver is about the same area as metro KC, but with more than a half million more people. It's a much denser metro area. There's over 4 million from Pueblo to Ft. Collins, along the Front Range.
I doubt KC has a larger "arts scene" than Denver. I don't know how you'd measure it though. We have First Fridays, recently expanded Denver Art Museum, a new modern art musem, natural history museum, and others. Nelson is definitely world class though.
I don't really get the feeling that KC has any more urban area than Denver. KC seems to have more widespread areas of poverty and homes in disrepair than Denver.
KC has the art deco, but I'd still take the height and volume of Denver's skyline any day - plus they're actually building skycrapers in Denver that will change the skyline. On the street level, there are plenty of old brick buildings and a feeling of history.
I won't make this a pissing match, but I think you need to give KC a little more credit here. I was off on the population of Denver because of Boulder and Greeley which are added to the Denver MSA to create a CMSA. The population of Denver as of 2007 is 2.4 million. Add in Boulder/Greeley and it swells to 2.8 million. The Denver metro area is huge, it's half of Colorado, so you can't really say the city is any more dense than KC, because it's not. You can drive around the outskirts of Denver alone 470 etc and it's just like some of the outskirts of KC like the north side of 435.
The only way to compare KC to Denver in a fair way is to add Lawrence and St Joe to the KC area as they are to KC as Boulder and Greeley are to Denver.
So the KC area is around 2.4 million to Denver's 2.8. Or the core KC metro area is about 2.1 million and the core Denver area is 2.4. KC also has Topeka/Columbia near by, as Denver has Colorado Springs.
Either way, Denver has grown to be larger than KC (by nearly half million as you say), but..... KC has far more people within a quick drive than Denver does. Missouri is fairly populated and KC pulls well from Omaha, Des Moines, Wichita, Springfield, Tulsa and even St Louis.
So, I'm not debating the size of the cities as much as the fact that both cities are about the same size and have similar markets and enough people to create a metropolitan area that has nearly everything one would one in a major metro area.
One more thing on the population thing. KC adds about 25k a year to Denver's 50k. Just a fun fact.
As far as the arts scene, I honestly think KC has Denver beat there, KC has made a lot of national news lately with its arts scene and it's always called one of the tops in the country beating out cities much larger. One reason for that is that our local billionares are into the arts rather than sports etc. We have a 400 million dollar performing arts center under construction, just finished a 300 million dollar expansion of the Nelson Art Gallery which was already a top museum in the world. We also have the Kemper museum of Modern art and our cities 1% for art has created art all over the city. KC also has one of the largest first Friday events and art gallery districts in the nation. Not to mention the KC Art Institute.
KC also have Denver beat with museums and historic structures. KC has the WW1 Museum, the Negro League Baseball Museum, the Jazz Museum, the College Basketball Hall of Fame, the Steamboat Arabia Museum, the Kemper, the Nelson, the Truman Museums and many others. Our Union Station is one of the finest train station in the nation, I like Denver's but it doesn't compare to KC. World of Fun and Oceans of Fun make Elitch Gardens look like a carnival, KC will soon have one of the largest water parks I the world with Schlitterbaun, KC has a major nascar track and should get a winter sport team (NHL/NBA) soon.
With the Power and Light District, Crossroads, Crown Center, Country Club Plaza, Westport, City Market etc, KC does well against the urban core of Denver.
Having said all of that, Denver offer some things that I really like. Light rail, bike trails, a downtown baseball stadium etc.
But if you have no interest in the mountains, I don't know why you would live in Denver and pay out the ass to live there. The city itself can be a bit bland or fake, it's flat as hell, there are no trees or hills, the traffic is horrendous because the entire metro area is built along I-25, the airport is expensive to fly out of and a pain in the ass to use and the city is 600 miles from a similar sized city.
The mountains are ok to look at, but going up into the mountains is a uninspiring. I would much rather explore a forest of decideous trees, then go up to the treeless mountains. The only reason I bring up the mountains is because i feel I am paying a premium to live in Denver for the mountains, which I never use. I do not care abouturban life. I have no interest in going to downtown Denver. What a hassle. I wouldmuch rather side on my patio at home. Is that unusual? So I guess I am a suburban guy. More than that, I am medium sized town guy. But I want the big city foremployment opportunity. I have visited KC before. The downtown seems depressing,but I am not a good judge of what downtowns are supposed to look like. It seemsold and seedy. I loved Liberty. That's where I felt most comfortable. I also likedthe Kansas side. Its newness was exciting. (Overland Park, for example). Really thething that draws me to Kansas City is the idea of getting out of the city andexploring the Missouri countryside. Doesn't exploring the wooded countryside seemmore interesting than exploring the brown prairie land East of Denver? Seriously, I'm asking. I also think Eastern Kansas is very pretty, I mean the rural aspects of it.I would imagine there are countless gemsto discover in the landscape west of KC. What is there to discover on the prairie east of Denver? It sounds like the primary attraction of Denver for mostpeople, then, is, one, the mountains, and, two, its urban core. I will miss the peoplein Denver, however. They are a happy bunch because they seem to love living here.In my time in KC, the people seemed moredreary and unexcited about the place they call home. But it's hard to get accurateimpressions when you are a visitor. (visitor who was scoping out KC as a potential place to live) You are overly sensitive to everything. One thing I noticed when I was in KC is that bike trails are almost non-existant. This, too, scares me. I love howeveryone in Denver is out walking and riding the bike trails. Why aren't people in KC more active like this? One last thing, and probably the most significant factor for me ispoverty. Denverian made the comment about more areas of poverty in KC, and more houses in disrepair. This is my biggest fear.. that I would be living in aplace that is old and busted down. Really, that's it in a nutshell.
You would LOVE Lee's Summit, MO.
It's a large suburb (around 90k) but has the feel of its own city more than a suburb that happens to be close to KC. Lakes are EVERYWHERE. Lake communities, lakes for boating, lakes for fishing. There is also a lot of open space for parks etc. Much of the town is set in rolling hills and forest if it's not on a lake. (there are some bland flat areas too, but you can avoid those). It has one of the most vibrant downtowns in the KC metro area and every range of housing prices you can imagine. Lee's Summit also has most of the KC area's new urbanism housing developments if that's your thing. Great schools etc. Yet all the things that KCMO offers are right down the freeway.
No other suburbs in KC come close to Lee's Summit when it comes to what you describe as what you want.
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.
