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.
I love all the photos! They're beautiful! It's hilarious that this thread has been hijacked with arguing about hills and mountains! LOL! You guys are great. Your photos are gorgeous.
And while the Ozarks are about three+ hours away, this is more of a long day trip and not as much of an "easy" distance. (I was thinking of more like 1-2 hours in my head.) But, yes, the Ozarks are definitely hilly and they are pretty. (I mentioned that in this post.) But alas, they aren't that close to the Kansas City area.
But I don't mean to imply that it's not beautiful, because it is! I have visited the Ozarks, and in particular the Ozarks in Arkansas (I love Eureka Springs ) multiple times, because it is something in the way of hilly, and when I'm in the midwest, I crave terrain that is not flat flat flat, and what other options are there, but the Ozarks, that can be done in a day trip?
This photo is typical of the kind of skyline or silhouette I remember from the Branson area and the Ozarks. And it's pretty and not completely flat flat flat.
When you photograph the skyline just so, you can get the hills closer and they look more...hilly! But from a distance, they will still be hilly, but less dramatically so. More kind of rolling and closer to the ground. I admit that I was a bit disappointed by that (not that the Ozarks aren't beautiful!) because this level of hilly is all that there is in the Midwest. In order to see something truly mountainous, it's a long day's drive to Colorado.
Surely everyone can see the difference between the skyline of the midwest photos, and something like this: (Photo from here.)
You can see that the mountains are much farther in the distance, and yet they are still very striking and hard to miss.
And these are the mountains visible along the 210 freeway in Southern California. I grew up right next to the 210 so this is a familiar view.
And then of course, this is 5-6 hours from Southern California (which is not an "easy" distance, but closer than Colorado is to Kansas City!).
But there are some more hilly (not as mountainous) areas within an easy driving distance of where I grew up too. Every Spring our family drove about 60-90 minutes to get to Antelope Valley, which looks like this:
This isn't to take anything away from the beauty of the midwest, it's not like I am incapable of appreciating the Ozarks, or Eureka Springs, or the hills around Branson. But what can I say? I love the variety and scenery I grew up with, and that love is never going to go away.
Last edited by elvira310; 03-29-2015 at 03:10 AM..
Out of curiosity, I did a little research on Pennsylvania. It looks like their highest elevation is about 3,200-something feet. Missouri's highest is 1772 ft (this spot is nowhere near Kansas City) and Kansas is about 4000+ feet (right on the Colorado border). Elevations don't always indicate how high a mountain will appear, but one can look at photos of Pennsylvania mountains to know that they aren't nearly as flat as what is in the Kansas City area. (They're not as "mountainy" as what I'm used to in the Southwest, but they're lovely nonetheless.)
As are the Ozarks. Pretty, and some sort of hilly action going on, but still compare unfavorably in the "mountainy" department to what I'm used to.
Yes, I've already conceded that Kansas City has some occasional "hilly" spots, but not that much. When you look in the distance, what do you see when you look around? Rolling hills rising up? Mountains? No. You see flat, or maybe the slightest of "hills" suggested in a few spots, but the overall look in the horizon is flat, flat, flat.
Like this.
That's a pretty wide view of the area. Flat, flat, flat!
Occasionally one can drive through some wooded area or rural area and for a little while the skyline briefly suggests "hills," but this is not typical or commonplace.
The southern part of the state is an improvement as sometimes there is some sort of silhouette in the horizon, but even then it's not that much.
Not when you compare it to something like this.
There's no ambiguity here. You don't have to strain to see something that isn't flat flat flat. It isn't flat.
I think this much is clear, and this much we can both agree on: Both of us were profoundly shaped by the landscapes and environments of our youth, and the impressions they left on us have shaped how we view the world and what we appreciate. But I'm more like the guy who said that he can find things to love wherever he is, and that wherever he is now, that's every bit as much "home" as the place where he was born and raised. I know that's certainly true for my adopted hometown, which bears very little resemblance to Kansas City.
But I will offer two more anecdotes from the "it's all relative" file for your consideration:
You noted that the highest elevation in Kansas is some 4,000 feet above sea level, significantly higher than the highest point in Missouri. It's called "Mount Sunflower," by the way. A Kansas City Star feature writer set out to climb it in the mid-1970s. "'Stroll' is more like it," he wrote in the resulting story. Because the rise in elevation from the Flint Hills west to the Front Range of the Rockies takes place over a distance of some 300 miles, the "mount" actually looks every bit as flat as the horizon in that photo you posted from the top of the Liberty Memorial.
I also have (or had) relatives who lived in Detroit. (I suspect that, like too many Detroiters, they've since left the city.) One of them visited us in Kansas City when I was a child. We were driving up The Paseo when we turned left onto a short but steep hill on 43rd Street headed west. (The hill on 43rd headed east is higher but not as steep.) "Mountains!" our visiting friend exclaimed.
One more thing: So you don't like the summer humidity or the winter ice and cold. I'm surprised tornado season in the spring doesn't faze you! One thing experiencing that time of year taught me: If the sky turns black, that's no biggie. If it turns green, that's when you start to worry.
I think this much is clear, and this much we can both agree on: Both of us were profoundly shaped by the landscapes and environments of our youth, and the impressions they left on us have shaped how we view the world and what we appreciate. But I'm more like the guy who said that he can find things to love wherever he is, and that wherever he is now, that's every bit as much "home" as the place where he was born and raised. I know that's certainly true for my adopted hometown, which bears very little resemblance to Kansas City.
I think emotion plays a big part of it, with all of us. If your hometown is associated with good times, you will have more love for it. If it's associated with bad times, maybe you want to move away and never come back. If a new town is okay but hasn't got enough good times associated with it (not necessarily bad times always, but just not fantastic), then it's just a place. It may not connect with you enough to be "home."
In another thread a while back, a Californian (who had moved to the Kansas City area) was saying how much he liked about the Kansas City area, but with a caveat, that he missed the landscapes and views of CA and that it 'left a hole in his heart' (or some similar wording) to be away from that. I can identify with that completely.
If it becomes so much part of your normal day and routine to be able to see beautiful scenery—if you grew up with it—to make these road trips (just a few hours away) to this variety and diversity, and then to just have it cut off—not part of your daily "when I was on the 210 today, Mt Baldy looked gorgeous" routine—it does create a hole in the hearts of some of us. To be cut off from that for years on end seems unfathomable. If others can't identify with that, that isn't wrong or bad, but it doesn't mean those who feel it are unreasonable or unyielding.
Maybe part of it is also that if you come from a family of photographers and painters who take their landscapes very seriously. (Not that all photographers or painters would feel the same about this.) In other words, it's part of your "culture," so to speak, to hold it closer to your heart.
Quote:
But I will offer two more anecdotes from the "it's all relative" file for your consideration:
You noted that the highest elevation in Kansas is some 4,000 feet above sea level, significantly higher than the highest point in Missouri. It's called "Mount Sunflower," by the way.
I know, Mt Sunflower is just a bit of rising ground, just the highest spot in Kansas, that's all! They treat it tongue in cheek.
I also have (or had) relatives who lived in Detroit. (I suspect that, like too many Detroiters, they've since left the city.) One of them visited us in Kansas City when I was a child. We were driving up The Paseo when we turned left onto a short but steep hill on 43rd Street headed west. (The hill on 43rd headed east is higher but not as steep.) "Mountains!" our visiting friend exclaimed.
LOL! That is so true! It is all relative! To them it was impressively mountainy. To me it would be just a bit of a hill in otherwise flatness. Perceptions and what you're comparing it to are all important.
Quote:
One more thing: So you don't like the summer humidity or the winter ice and cold. I'm surprised tornado season in the spring doesn't faze you! One thing experiencing that time of year taught me: If the sky turns black, that's no biggie. If it turns green, that's when you start to worry.
I've been fortunate in that regard. Tornados aren't every day. But the humidity and snow are a given. Yuk!
Bottom line, I don't think we're all wired the same, and there is no "right" or "wrong" in any of this. One person's home is another person's "just a place." One person's "mountain" is another person's moderately hilly spot.
Bottom line, I don't think we're all wired the same, and there is no "right" or "wrong" in any of this. One person's home is another person's "just a place." One person's "mountain" is another person's moderately hilly spot.
Agreed 100%.
But as I was going back over the back-and-forth on "flat," I think there is a reason why the word provoked - provokes - the response it did (does), and why Kansas Citians especially got riled up.
The word "flat," when applied to a thing or feature, usually does carry with it an at least mildly negative connotation. It usually carries with it the following senses: without affect, featureless, unexciting, boring, no spark (like a soda that has lost its fizz and gone "flat"), plain.
Now, something that's plain can be attractive, but you usually don't hear the word used in that fashion. Not even in the region of which Kansas City is the cultural capital, the Great Plains.
Add to that a deep-seated sense among many Kansas Citians that the denizens of the coastal conurbations look down their noses at the place - and that this condescension is born out of ignorance, by and large. Hey, the city's smack in the middle of "flyover country" - who needs to pay attention to it or what makes it unique?
Just as the Eskimos have several different words for snow, we who are natives of the Flatlands can distinguish among low rolling hills, mounds, prairie potholes, river valleys, floodplains, bluffs and other features that distinguish certain parts of the territory from others. But for someone whose sense of proportion is defined by vistas that terminate in some impressively large work of nature, none of this matters. The vistas on the Plains never end, and that's that, and that's flat.
I suspect many other coastal denizens would find the prospect of driving for days on end without ever running into a beach and/or a vista where all that's visible is water similarly disorienting, or even dispiriting. Midwesterners make do with the rivers and the lakes they are used to. (Especially in Minnesota, where said lakes number 10,000, or so I've heard.)
Conversely, what passes for "rural" in a Northeastern state would probably seem awfully cramped, maybe even urban, to someone raised on the prairie.
I must acknowledge at least this: when you pronounce Kansas City flat, at least you do so based on actual knowledge of the place. That puts you ahead of millions of East Coast folk who assume it's in Kansas first.
I hear an a lot about what a great place KC is. This is doubly true if you're talking about the Midwest. Often it seems to get listed right behind Minneapolis as one of the top spots.
But when I ask about the details people are surprisingly vague.
Granted the Country Club Plaza with its Seville, Spain like design is certainly surprising (even though most people don't mention it), it's hardly a thing to make a city a tourist magnet on its own).
It seems like the area has:
- A lot of crime
- High Taxes
- Poor water quality
- Extremes temperatures in both summer & winter
- Tornadoes
- So-so sports teams
The Power & Light District sounds interesting, yet tacky (and probably overpriced). A lot of people don't like malls so why would you want the nightlife equivalent?
Other then a reasonable cost of living, Jazz (if you like that sort of thing), and BBQ what's the attraction?
What are the major flaws?
What are the people like compared to the rest of the Midwest and in general?
I live in KC (The Northland specifically) and I think the reason people rank it so high up is because it's the largest and most populous in MO, KS, and NE. The people are great and friendly, with a small town attitude in the North, and you may get a rat downtown or Southern KC. Other than that I don't really know why people rank it so high, maybe the culture? Most people are used to the water, temperatures, and sports team (yes, we know they're bad). The tornadoes aren't really as common as people think, really only hitting in late spring and early summer.
Just got back from Colorado, oh how I miss those mountains and Denver. KC does have a lot to work on, and it currently is fixing itself to appeal to new people.
Just as the Eskimos have several different words for snow, we who are natives of the Flatlands can distinguish among low rolling hills, mounds, prairie potholes, river valleys, floodplains, bluffs and other features that distinguish certain parts of the territory from others. But for someone whose sense of proportion is defined by vistas that terminate in some impressively large work of nature, none of this matters. The vistas on the Plains never end, and that's that, and that's flat.
That is so true. You've got it, you've got it! I don't see or understand the nuances.
I've come to the belief that you have to bond with a place to truly "see" it the way it should be seen. I'm probably overgeneralizing. But as an example, I've seen artists who paint landscapes of their "homeland" better than they paint places far away. They make a 'flat' prairie seem sublime and gorgeous, because they love it and when they paint, we all see the landscape through their eyes.
I do some landscape painting, and I know I can't paint prairies as well as someone who loves them and "sees" them the way that they deserve to be seen (and depicted). I do much better with the more mountainy places like the Sierras.
Quote:
I suspect many other coastal denizens would find the prospect of driving for days on end without ever running into a beach and/or a vista where all that's visible is water similarly disorienting, or even dispiriting. Midwesterners make do with the rivers and the lakes they are used to. (Especially in Minnesota, where said lakes number 10,000, or so I've heard.)
Conversely, what passes for "rural" in a Northeastern state would probably seem awfully cramped, maybe even urban, to someone raised on the prairie.
This is all true too.
Quote:
I must acknowledge at least this: when you pronounce Kansas City flat, at least you do so based on actual knowledge of the place. That puts you ahead of millions of East Coast folk who assume it's in Kansas first.
LOL, and this is true as well. No one can accuse me of not having seen the landscape!
Something that I've noticed, and which I find a bit frustrating sometimes, is the unwillingness to accept that we all "see" things differently and it's not expected that we'll all appreciate the same things. I've had experiences while in Kansas City, of people getting (no other word for it) "butthurt" because I wasn't so glad I was away from evil nasty California.
I don't get that. Me loving my home state takes nothing away from any other place, nor does it imply that others shouldn't love their home states. I hear of Texans talking proudly of Texas and their love for it. I don't have to love Texas myself to believe that their feelings are justified and completely reasonable.
I've had experiences while in Kansas City, of people getting (no other word for it) "butthurt" because I wasn't so glad I was away from evil nasty California.
Did they actually say California was a "bad, evil" place, or were they just sounding very defensive? To be honest I've never actually met people here in the metro who ignorantly trash other cities and think KC is the only "perfect" place. I had no idea they even existed.
Another question I have for you is, does KC by any chance strike you as being too conservative (both politically and culturally) for your tastes? Based on that particular quote above, I have a weird feeling that's what you are getting at. You being from California...it probably shouldn't surprise me all that much. In fact, I've always been a little curious about how people from larger cities view KC on a political and social scale.
Last edited by MidWestCityNative; 03-30-2015 at 09:29 PM..
Did they actually say California was a "bad, evil" place, or were they just sounding very defensive?
That was a bit of hyperbole. I think they said, "Aren't you're glad you are away from there?" and there were allusions to danger and scariness and big city ickiness. I suspect these were people who didn't travel much (and I realize that not all Kansas Citians are like this). I think they viewed California as this distant, expensive vacation spot, as well as L.A. being a "big threatening city," while I just viewed it as home.
Quote:
To be honest I've never actually met people here in the metro who ignorantly trash other cities and think KC is the only "perfect" place. I had no idea they even existed.
I had one person say that "We don't feel the need to travel to other states because we have everything we could possibly do here." I think in that one person's case, it was just general butthurtedness. She couldn't travel, therefore there's nothing worth traveling to!
I'm not assuming that all Kansas Citians are like this. I've met many who aren't. But unfortunately, some of these folks became an unfavorable first impression.
Quote:
Another question I have for you is, does KC by any chance strike you as being too conservative (both politically and culturally) for your tastes? Based on that particular quote above, I have a weird feeling that's what you are getting at. You being from California...it probably shouldn't surprise me all that much. In fact, I've always been a little curious about how people from larger cities view KC on a political and social scale.
Nope! I'm conservative by California standards (which doesn't mean I'd be considered equally conservative in other areas). I wasn't alluding to the people being too conservative. Though I admit that I encountered some racism that shocked me in the Kansas City area. It's not like there isn't racism in L.A., but this was so out there. I couldn't understand how people could say that in front of someone they didn't know very well, assuming that I'd be okay with it, since I was white.
But I'm more like the guy who said that he can find things to love wherever he is, and that wherever he is now, that's every bit as much "home" as the place where he was born and raised. I know that's certainly true for my adopted hometown, which bears very little resemblance to Kansas City.
That was me, though I'm not a guy.
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.
It's hilarious that this thread has been hijacked with arguing about hills and mountains! LOL! You guys are great. Your photos are gorgeous. 
(Photo from 
(Photo came from 
(Photo from 
(Photo from 
