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.
Thanks! I'm a mapaholic, myself, if you haven't noticed. I probably need professional help.
To answer your question, I wasn't necessarily trying to make KC look like it's in good shape. Instead I was just trying to counter the "doom and gloom" attitude of some on this forum. I think the important thing is to be able to make apples-to-apples comparisons, as much as possible. You say we get compared to St Louis and Cleveland a lot, but I think there's more to it than that.
Here are the categories as I see them, in the order of most growth to least:
So KC is in the second-to-last category for growth, along with winners like Minneapolis, Indianapolis and Columbus (as well as OKC, if it were large enough to qualify for this map.) But there are also a lot of losers, like Milwaukee, Chicago, St Louis, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Detroit and Cleveland. Those last two lost numbers, as we know, and the rest had growth stats that weren't even close to KC.
So in our region we were beat out by three top-40 metros, but we beat out seven. It's not chest-thumping success, but I believe it's enough to see the glass as half-full.
P.S. I know you compare KC to Denver, whereas I put it in a category with Seattle and Portland. It's up for debate of course, but I think Denver's geographical setting (with tourism plus a HUGE economic footprint), as well as its new-money economy and progressive culture, give it advantages more comparable to the Pacific Northwest than the Midwest.
I get what you are saying. I still think KC's growth could and should be somewhere between Indy/Columbus and Denver/MSP. I don't think KC will ever grow like Denver or Seattle and maybe that's a good thing. I just think KC should be doing a lot better than it is and while the state line has created a lot of construction to occur in the metro, the area is just not seeing a lot of "real" growth.
What are you talking about? This story doesn't have anything to do with downtown KCK, and how would DFA getting something like $40m to move to Village East actually benefit anyone in Kansas?
Also, what do you mean by "balance"? That there should be as many corporate offices in the KS suburbs as the MO suburbs? Because my guess is that the KS suburbs are already way overloaded in this respect. Still, I'm not sure if this kind of "balance" really helps anyone.
I'm talking about a rumor reported on a KC-specific development website about a company moving from KCMO into the old EPA HQ building in downtown KCK. What I'm wondering is if that rumor might have actually been this and simply was twisted around and spread inaccurately, or if it is legit and possibly still in the works.
I'm not sure how familiar you are with the KC metro, but what I mean by balance is the fact KCK was always a hardcore industrial city, hasn't seen much diversification of its economy, and has lagged far behind other areas of the metro in terms of office development. Cerner was a breakthrough and this would really round that out. The potential downtown development would be tremendous.
I get what you are saying. I still think KC's growth could and should be somewhere between Indy/Columbus and Denver/MSP. I don't think KC will ever grow like Denver or Seattle and maybe that's a good thing. I just think KC should be doing a lot better than it is and while the state line has created a lot of construction to occur in the metro, the area is just not seeing a lot of "real" growth.
I think we share the same aspirations for the KC Metro.
It is interesting to note that Denver, MSP, Indy and Columbus are not only solidly within their own state boundaries, they are all state capitals to boot. Don't discount the effect of the latter on metro growth (i.e. Nashville, Austin, Atlanta, and OKC, not to mention DC.) Most of these "government seat" metros seem to be outpacing their regional peers.
Back to the state-line topic: I don't gather that StL is suffering much, if at all, from its bi-state orientation. Do you know if this is affecting growth in Cincinnati or Philly? Portland's growth is good, but could it be better if it didn't have to vie with Washington state? Omaha's not on this map, but interests me for the same reason. Charlotte doesn't appear to be suffering from the issue at all.
I'm talking about a rumor reported on a KC-specific development website about a company moving from KCMO into the old EPA HQ building in downtown KCK. What I'm wondering is if that rumor might have actually been this and simply was twisted around and spread inaccurately, or if it is legit and possibly still in the works.
I'm not sure how familiar you are with the KC metro, but what I mean by balance is the fact KCK was always a hardcore industrial city, hasn't seen much diversification of its economy, and has lagged far behind other areas of the metro in terms of office development. Cerner was a breakthrough and this would really round that out. The potential downtown development would be tremendous.
I'm familiar enough with KC to know what you're talking about, but I disagree with your call for more "balance". I think it's fine for some municipalities within a metro to be more industrial, some to be more commercial, and some to be more residential (SimCity much? ) If we start expecting every sector of the economy to be evenly spread around the area, we're going to get disappointed pretty fast. And no one really benefits from this, anyway.
In fact, it's better to maintain areas of specialization. That's why industry always tends to clump together, so that all participants can take advantage of transit & shipping corridors, specialized utilities and a lack of nearby residents to complain. Corporate offices are the same way, just to a lesser extent. When they clump together (as in a traditional downtown CBD) then they can share amenities and infrastructure, and create an environment that's attractive for prospects.
I'm talking about a rumor reported on a KC-specific development website about a company moving from KCMO into the old EPA HQ building in downtown KCK. What I'm wondering is if that rumor might have actually been this and simply was twisted around and spread inaccurately, or if it is legit and possibly still in the works.
I'm not sure how familiar you are with the KC metro, but what I mean by balance is the fact KCK was always a hardcore industrial city, hasn't seen much diversification of its economy, and has lagged far behind other areas of the metro in terms of office development. Cerner was a breakthrough and this would really round that out. The potential downtown development would be tremendous.
I could not disagree more. If KCK wants jobs, that's fine. But there is a better way to get them. Poaching them from KCMO is not how to do it. And really, handing ANY company 50-60 million dollars to move a few hundred employees from ANYWHERE to a state makes almost no sense what so ever, let alone from within the same metro area. I can not believe how difficult this is for average people to comprehend.
I think we share the same aspirations for the KC Metro.
It is interesting to note that Denver, MSP, Indy and Columbus are not only solidly within their own state boundaries, they are all state capitals to boot. Don't discount the effect of the latter on metro growth (i.e. Nashville, Austin, Atlanta, and OKC, not to mention DC.) Most of these "government seat" metros seem to be outpacing their regional peers.
Back to the state-line topic: I don't gather that StL is suffering much, if at all, from its bi-state orientation. Do you know if this is affecting growth in Cincinnati or Philly? Portland's growth is good, but could it be better if it didn't have to vie with Washington state? Omaha's not on this map, but interests me for the same reason. Charlotte doesn't appear to be suffering from the issue at all.
The state capital thing has a LOT of weight.
Arizona (my home state) has 2 medium to large metro areas (the Phoenix area and Tucson area).
Both metro areas experienced rapid growth from 1950-2000. However, Phoenix's economy and population has continued to grow since 2000 where Tucson's has been stagnant. I believe this can be attributed to the fact that Phoenix is the state capital.
The state will bend over backwards to offer incentives to get companies to locate in the Phoenix area whereas the state does little to nothing to foster economic growth in Tucson.
As for the state line issue. Most of the other regions you've looked at have most of their metropolitan population, corporate base, and infrastructure on ONE side of the state line. St. Louis, Omaha, Cincinnati, Philadelphia, Portland, etc. don't suffer because things aren't really split up in a 50/50, 55/45, or 60/40 split.
The closest comparison to the KS/MO rivalry is the Washington, DC area. The suburban population and economy is split roughly 55/45 (in favor of Virginia) and the urban core is it's own entity (the District of Columbia). The border war WAS a big issue in the Washington, DC area in the 1990s (worse because the suburban areas are in Maryland and Virginia wheras the urban core is its own jurisdiction). Maryland, DC, and Virginia all hated one another and there were lots of corporate moves across that region (the states were poaching both private companies as well as federal agencies from one another). There are only TWO bridges between the states of Maryland and Virginia in the metro area (as Maryland didn't want better access to Dulles airport as it owns the BWI airport) and trying to expand one of the bridges (the Woodrow Wilson bridge) was a massive undertaking. However, with the massive growth of that regional economy during the late 1990s and 2000s this issue has died down as everyone got a piece of the pie. Now, with the DC area economy looking more stagnant again, I am curious to see if this poaching starts again.
Fairfax County, Virginia was in the 1990s the closest comparison I can come up with to today's Johnson County, Kansas. Especially since like suburban KC, Northern Virginia is Virginia's largest and most economically successful region (even if it is nothing like the rest of the case). Also, like KC and MO, the state of Maryland's focus has always been on Baltimore (like Missouri's focus has always been on St. Louis) which allowed Virginia to do its poaching without an equal retaliation from Maryland.
I think we share the same aspirations for the KC Metro.
It is interesting to note that Denver, MSP, Indy and Columbus are not only solidly within their own state boundaries, they are all state capitals to boot. Don't discount the effect of the latter on metro growth (i.e. Nashville, Austin, Atlanta, and OKC, not to mention DC.) Most of these "government seat" metros seem to be outpacing their regional peers.
Back to the state-line topic: I don't gather that StL is suffering much, if at all, from its bi-state orientation. Do you know if this is affecting growth in Cincinnati or Philly? Portland's growth is good, but could it be better if it didn't have to vie with Washington state? Omaha's not on this map, but interests me for the same reason. Charlotte doesn't appear to be suffering from the issue at all.
I have researched other bistate metro areas quite extensively over the years. While there is some regional competition for companies in other regions, there is simply nothing even remotely similar to what is going on in KC. No way would northern Kentucky throw 50 million bucks at a Cincinnati company to move them across the river. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't even offer that kind of cash to poach a company from the KC area. NoKY doesn't even go after Cincy companies and if there is an outside company interested in both sides of the river, they tend to work with Ohio to bring them to the region first and to KY second. The KY side actually tries to bring in new jobs to the metro rather than go after Cincy companies. The KY side also works with the OH side in many other areas as well.
Kansas and Topeka are economic enemies of KCMO for the most part. While you can live on the Kansas side and not really be effected by these politics and pretty much ignore them as most people do, that does not make them not true. I can not think of another city that has to fight off its suburbs like KCMO does. There just are no other examples.
And no, Metro East in StL is not the same. Most of the competition in metro StL is within StL County or between StL City and StL County or sometimes between StL County and some of the other MO side counties like St Charles. You might get a property tax break or even a tif, but it's nothing like KC at all. Because it's all within the same state, you don't have the absurd state incentives first off and IL would never offer those types of incentives. Okay, maybe if Amazon were moving from Seattle to a four skyscraper complex in downtown East St Louis IL might hand out tens of millions, but nobody does what Kansas does to develop suburban office parks funded often with 100% tax money and fill them with companies from another part of the same metro.
I'm familiar enough with KC to know what you're talking about, but I disagree with your call for more "balance". I think it's fine for some municipalities within a metro to be more industrial, some to be more commercial, and some to be more residential (SimCity much? ) If we start expecting every sector of the economy to be evenly spread around the area, we're going to get disappointed pretty fast. And no one really benefits from this, anyway.
In fact, it's better to maintain areas of specialization. That's why industry always tends to clump together, so that all participants can take advantage of transit & shipping corridors, specialized utilities and a lack of nearby residents to complain. Corporate offices are the same way, just to a lesser extent. When they clump together (as in a traditional downtown CBD) then they can share amenities and infrastructure, and create an environment that's attractive for prospects.
KCK is a down and out city and needs all the help it can get, including jobs for its residents. It's been on the rebound for years and has improved, but there's still work to be done. Good jobs provide spinoff jobs that employee the working class. I think that's important and so I'm happy about this possibility of DFA going to KCK.
I don't disagree that different industries cluster in a way that is positive and beneficial to them, but lack of diversification is not a good thing, and that's been the case for KCK as I described in my prior post. I'm happy to see the possibility of that changing.
I also see balance in terms of suburban growth directly west where it hadn't been before. Hopefully that ends up being good for downtown too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcmo
I could not disagree more. If KCK wants jobs, that's fine. But there is a better way to get them. Poaching them from KCMO is not how to do it. And really, handing ANY company 50-60 million dollars to move a few hundred employees from ANYWHERE to a state makes almost no sense what so ever, let alone from within the same metro area. I can not believe how difficult this is for average people to comprehend.
I don't disagree with the idea that the intra-metro transferring of jobs and the massive subsides involved are a negative, but that really has nothing to do with my point. If any place in the metro, at least this is potentially happening in an area that is in need of development the most.
I have researched other bistate metro areas quite extensively over the years. While there is some regional competition for companies in other regions, there is simply nothing even remotely similar to what is going on in KC. No way would northern Kentucky throw 50 million bucks at a Cincinnati company to move them across the river. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't even offer that kind of cash to poach a company from the KC area. NoKY doesn't even go after Cincy companies and if there is an outside company interested in both sides of the river, they tend to work with Ohio to bring them to the region first and to KY second. The KY side actually tries to bring in new jobs to the metro rather than go after Cincy companies. The KY side also works with the OH side in many other areas as well.
In the 1990s, there VERY MUCH was competition between Maryland and Virginia in the DC area. Virginia was the Kansas to that region and Maryland was the Missouri.
Virginia (and Richmond) was very focused on growing their suburban region. Maryland (and Annapolis) were very focused on cleaning up Baltimore. Northern Virginia was growing like gangbusters in the 1990s whereas Montgomery County grew at a much slower rate and Prince George's County was still one of the most economically depressed suburban counties in the country.
What fostered regional growth and cooperation was the massive growth of government contractors in the late 1990s/2000s (where there was enough pie to go around for both MD and VA). Now that the pie isn't being baked anymore, it's going to be interesting to see if it goes back to the way that it used to. In addition, DC was a cesspool of a city in the 1980s - late 1990s (which is why the Washington Bullets became the Wizards) and people and businesses were still fleeing it in droves (mostly to Virginia) until 1998 or 1999 or so.
KCK is a down and out city and needs all the help it can get, including jobs for its residents. It's been on the rebound for years and has improved, but there's still work to be done. Good jobs provide spinoff jobs that employee the working class. I think that's important and so I'm happy about this possibility of DFA going to KCK.
I don't disagree that different industries cluster in a way that is positive and beneficial to them, but lack of diversification is not a good thing, and that's been the case for KCK as I described in my prior post. I'm happy to see the possibility of that changing.
I also see balance in terms of suburban growth directly west where it hadn't been before. Hopefully that ends up being good for downtown too.
I don't disagree with the idea that the intra-metro transferring of jobs and the massive subsides involved are a negative, but that really has nothing to do with my point. If any place in the metro, at least this is potentially happening in an area that is in need of development the most.
I'm sorry, you seem like a nice person but this is utter nonsense.
Let's say you're an unemployed resident of Kansas City, Kansas, living in the Quindaro neighborhood like many unemployed persons. If you were willing and able to drive 15 miles to a job, you could work at Village East/West, sure. OR you could work at Tiffany Springs (DFA's current location), or Independence Square, or Claycomo, or Prairie Village, or the KC Zoo. These places would all be roughly 12-14 miles away. You wouldn't give a rat's behind whether that job was located in KCK or not. And do you think DFA plans to start hiring KCK residents when (and if) they show up in Village East? Give me a break.
Have you looked at a map? Do you know where Village East/West is? What makes this area "in need of development"? Because two interstate highways intersect there? And yet you say it's "the most" in need!
If Kansas wants to do new stuff, like the Speedway, or even Sporting Park, then great! Or if they did something to develop the economies of KCK's downtown or urban neighborhoods, that would be welcome, too. But to act like a $40m incentive to entice a Missouri company into Village East (read "JoCo overflow") is going to mean one thin dime to unemployed KCK residents is just total nonsense.
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.
) If we start expecting every sector of the economy to be evenly spread around the area, we're going to get disappointed pretty fast. And no one really benefits from this, anyway. 
