KC rated as one of America's "fattest cities" (Union: real estate market, townhouse)

[Samantha S]

Originally Posted by cp1969

Here's the deal about the suburbs you despise--a lot of people would prefer to not be packed in, twelve houses to a city block, with a park somewhere near. They prefer to do their 'park' thing in their own backyard, which is not so small that you can reach out your window and shake your neighbor's hand.

Yeah, that was my point. Maybe it's a Midwestern thing? Suburban sprawl seems to be what the majority of people want, at least around here.

I agree that KS doesn't have as much conservation land as other states do. But I'm not convinced that they "should" have more (maybe, maybe not) and I can understand why it's not a top priority. The two things that drive KS are agriculture and corporate suburbs.

Besides, as we hear so often from our neighbors, KS can't compete when it comes to recreational activities. We don't have the lakes that MO does, we don't have the mountains of CO. So it just seems to me that we do the best with what we have.

[lifelongMOgal]

Originally Posted by GraniteStater

That is a good point, but still leads to an unbelievably inefficient and wasteful suburban landuse development pattern that is common throughout the metro and many other metros. The larger lot sizes actually lead to subdivisions covering a greater land footprint than necessary which allows for less opportunities for large-scale land conservation and parks. The rural landowners often sellout to developers for top dollar leading to more sprawl as they want their $$$, but are also greedy.

Yeah, it is pretty greedy to sell land off because it is impossible to keep through estate taxes or necessary to fund college for children or retirement security in older age.

[lifelongMOgal]

Originally Posted by Samantha S

Yeah, that was my point. Maybe it's a Midwestern thing? Suburban sprawl seems to be what the majority of people want, at least around here.

I agree that KS doesn't have as much conservation land as other states do. But I'm not convinced that they "should" have more (maybe, maybe not) and I can understand why it's not a top priority. The two things that drive KS are agriculture and corporate suburbs.

Besides, as we hear so often from our neighbors, KS can't compete when it comes to recreational activities. We don't have the lakes that MO does, we don't have the mountains of CO. So it just seems to me that we do the best with what we have.

Kansas doesn't have the funding structure in their state constitution for conservation lands and maint. as does Missouri. Missouri is unique in that 1/8th of a percent of sales tax is placed into a dedicated fund for Conservation and has been since 1976. Conservation lands and outdoor education are true jewels of Missouri. It is a shame so few take good advantage of what Mo Dept. of Conservation has to offer.

[MoNative34]

Originally Posted by cp1969

You, on the other hand, would give your land away, if you owned any, because you're not greedy?

Here's the deal about the suburbs you despise--a lot of people would prefer to not be packed in, twelve houses to a city block, with a park somewhere near. They prefer to do their 'park' thing in their own backyard, which is not so small that you can reach out your window and shake your neighbor's hand.

Exactly.

[CrownVic95]

Originally Posted by cp1969

Here's the deal about the suburbs you despise--a lot of people would prefer to not be packed in, twelve houses to a city block, with a park somewhere near. They prefer to do their 'park' thing in their own backyard, which is not so small that you can reach out your window and shake your neighbor's hand.

Precisely - and I would venture to say that it is more than a lot of people - it is most people that would prefer to have some elbow room around them and green space of their own that they control. Suburbs grew as they did simply because so many saw a clearly superior quality of life.

Nothing has changed expect for the political climate, where it has become very trendy and hip of late to bash suburban life and "sprawl". But the fact is that the "problems" at the root of all the hand-wringing are products of the imagination of those with an altogether different agenda than yours or mine.

[CrownVic95]

But back to the topic.

Based on my memory of living in Johnson county as I did from 1979-1990, the weather is the first thing that comes to my mind as a factor for making the "fattest cities" list - if that really is the case. By that I mean that the summers are so oppressive that you spend most of them indoors in air conditioned comfort.

Those summers are the only thing that would give me a moment of pause about the idea of returning some day. Otherwise I really enjoyed my years living there.

[OneKC]

Originally Posted by cp1969

You, on the other hand, would give your land away, if you owned any, because you're not greedy?

Here's the deal about the suburbs you despise--a lot of people would prefer to not be packed in, twelve houses to a city block, with a park somewhere near. They prefer to do their 'park' thing in their own backyard, which is not so small that you can reach out your window and shake your neighbor's hand.

Right. I'm all for different strokes for different folks. We need more diversity in how our communities are designed. We currently have far too much of the cookie-cutter suburban lay-out, and we are lacking on more denser, smaller-lot areas that others may prefer.

[lifelongMOgal]

Originally Posted by OneKC

Right. I'm all for different strokes for different folks. We need more diversity in how our communities are designed. We currently have far too much of the cookie-cutter suburban lay-out, and we are lacking on more denser, smaller-lot areas that others may prefer.

It seems odd that with your philosphy you would have chosen Prairie Village as your residence. Why didn't you choose Brookside, Ronoake, Valentine, Midtown, or, Union Hill if that is what you wanted? I you have to stay in KS there are a number of KCKS neigborhods that fit the bill as well.

Seems folks pick areas to live because of the good schools, good sidewalks, parking, proximity to parks, lower crime and then complain that it doesn't have a more "urban feel". So if you want diversity and urban why not live there to begin with rather than to complain about living in an area that people seek out for exactly what it is?

[lifelongMOgal]

Originally Posted by CrownVic95

But back to the topic.

Based on my memory of living in Johnson county as I did from 1979-1990, the weather is the first thing that comes to my mind as a factor for making the "fattest cities" list - if that really is the case. By that I mean that the summers are so oppressive that you spend most of them indoors in air conditioned comfort.

Those summers are the only thing that would give me a moment of pause about the idea of returning some day. Otherwise I really enjoyed my years living there.

Addressing the underlined portion. Again, that is a lifestyle choice. Those who tend to enjoy outdoor activities are not stifled by the humidity and heat. They seek out early morning activities of golf, cycling, etc... or those around lakes and pools, or evening softball, baseball or soccer leagues.

[Samantha S]

Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal

Seems folks pick areas to live because of the good schools, good sidewalks, parking, proximity to parks, lower crime and then complain that it doesn't have a more "urban feel". So if you want diversity and urban why not live there to begin with rather than to complain about living in an area that people seek out for exactly what it is?

I was thinking this exact thing!

I love the posts that essentially say, "You know, <this area> would be great if only it were more like <that area over there>."

It reminds me of women who stay with men they are hoping to change. "He would be perfect! If only he <blah blah blah> was a completely different person!"