What should Kansas City rename itself as?
- KCMax
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 24051
- Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 3:31 pm
- Location: The basement of a Ross Dress for Less
- Contact:
Re: What should Kansas City rename itself as?
Really? I think more people think St. Louis is much bigger than it is. I think the perception is its one of the largest metro areas in the country, when in fact it is only the 18th largest MSA, on par with Tampa and Baltimore. I think its a relic of St. Louis's historically significant standing early in the 20th century, but they have lost their standing a bit in the last few decades (not intended to be a slam, I think STL is great!)
Detroit is the one I think most people think is much smaller than it is. A ton of people still live in the Detroit area - even Detroit itself. But the perception is everyone has fled.
Detroit is the one I think most people think is much smaller than it is. A ton of people still live in the Detroit area - even Detroit itself. But the perception is everyone has fled.
Re: What should Kansas City rename itself as?
I agree with you on detroit, but not st louis. People in KC think StL is four times as big as KC for some reason (part of the complex kc has with stl I think), but you get past about columbus, I think people are more clueless about stL than any other city other than kc. I tell people all the time how big stl is and they flat out don't believe that such a large metro is in the middle of the country and it's not chicago. Minneapolis is the same way to a lesser degree.KCMax wrote: Really? I think more people think St. Louis is much bigger than it is. I think the perception is its one of the largest metro areas in the country, when in fact it is only the 18th largest MSA, on par with Tampa and Baltimore. I think its a relic of St. Louis's historically significant standing early in the 20th century, but they have lost their standing a bit in the last few decades (not intended to be a slam, I think STL is great!)
Detroit is the one I think most people think is much smaller than it is. A ton of people still live in the Detroit area - even Detroit itself. But the perception is everyone has fled.
Most people out here think atlanta and dallas and houston are huge though.
Re: What should Kansas City rename itself as?
Dude, it would be nice if people in Grain Valley and Bonner Springs knew about it.GRID wrote: KC should change some of this next year. I hope the national press doesn't ignore the performing arts center opening. I remember all the coverage the disney hall in LA got. I know KC won't get that, but it would be nice if people past Grain Valley and Bonner Springs knew about it.
"It is not to my good friend's heresy that I impute his honesty. On the contrary, 'tis his honesty that has brought upon him the character of heretic." -- Ben Franklin
Re: What should Kansas City rename itself as?
I can't predict what kind of press the PAC will get, but the Bloch Building has received a ton of national press. No idea if it changed anyone's perceptions of KC, but it was great coverage. I imagine the PAC will have favorable articles in the NYT and similar publications - and people in NYC will still think KC is a wheat field in Kansas.GRID wrote:
KC should change some of this next year. I hope the national press doesn't ignore the performing arts center opening. I remember all the coverage the disney hall in LA got. I know KC won't get that, but it would be nice if people past Grain Valley and Bonner Springs knew about it. If that PAC where to open in DC or Atlanta or even Charlotte, it would be all over the press.
yep.mean wrote: Dude, it would be nice if people in Grain Valley and Bonner Springs knew about it.
- KCPowercat
- Ambassador
- Posts: 34021
- Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
- Location: Quality Hill
- Contact:
Re: What should Kansas City rename itself as?
A closer airport would give kc more national exposure??? Okaaaayyy....
Are we really this insecure?? Really?
Are we really this insecure?? Really?
Re: What should Kansas City rename itself as?
I didn't say that. I said it might contribute. Does landing in a field at KCI alone give KC a bad image? Probably not. But when combined with all the other little things (name, stadium locations, lack of exposure etc), it all adds up.KCPowercat wrote: A closer airport would give kc more national exposure??? Okaaaayyy....
Are we really this insecure?? Really?
- KCPowercat
- Ambassador
- Posts: 34021
- Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
- Location: Quality Hill
- Contact:
Re: What should Kansas City rename itself as?
Guess I don't see why we care?
-
- Colonnade
- Posts: 895
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 10:02 pm
- Location: Bangkok
Re: What should Kansas City rename itself as?
Then those same people would be complaining that we are a backwards and reckless city with planes that are dangerously close to the skyline, especially in this post-9/11 world and if we have any dreams of pumping up downtown. There is a reason most cities keep their airports as far from the urban core as possible, though, yes, they tend to be surrounded by suburban or industrial development.GRID wrote: The airport design and location hurts some, the stadium locations hurt some. If MCI had a modern terminal as was located where downtown airport is, I'm sure that would help.
Hell, landing in Suvarnabhumi Airport, all you see is rice patties with thin development along the highway (sound familiar) and possibly the city in a distance, but I doubt anybody thinks of Bangkok as a sleepy farming town. If a person thinks of KC as a tiny farm town just because of their view from the airport, it is unlikely they will care much to see it for what it is and will proceed to wallow in their ignorance.
I put the blame squarely on the flyover country mentality that permeates the coasts about anything west of the Mississippi, east of the Rockies, south of the Canadian border (if that; most of Canada is flyover country), and north of the Red River. No amount of shuffling stadiums and airports around can change that. The most one could hope for is to build up the urban core and attract large businesses that have a stake abroad, as well as pumping up the the cultural and scientific elements of the city. An international terminal would definitely help.
Don't change the name. We aren't throwing of some colonial shackle, aren't ruled by a authoritarian political party that feels the need to change name after their revolutionary leader because the original name was too bourgeoisie, and, as far as I can tell, Kansas hasn't done anything yet that requires all names associated with it struck from the record books.
Now just to entertain the thought though, Central City does have a nice ring to it.
Last edited by IraGlacialis on Thu Jul 21, 2011 12:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: What should Kansas City rename itself as?
No, just Grid. He's very very concerned about image. Most of his posts ultimately reflect on image rather than on effectiveness.KCPowercat wrote: A closer airport would give kc more national exposure??? Okaaaayyy....
Are we really this insecure?? Really?
___________
City guide via MAX bus
City guide via MAX bus
Re: What should Kansas City rename itself as?
Oh god, here we go again.ignatius wrote: No, just Grid. He's very very concerned about image. Most of his posts ultimately reflect on image rather than on effectiveness.
I have always said the location of KCI is fine. While many people in kc say it's so far away, I have always stated it's only 20 minutes from downtown and 40 from most of the metro. If you fly a lot, don't live in south joco.
I do think KCI needs a new terminal for all kinds of reasons and image can be one of them I guess.
All I said here is that it's a contributing factor and one more thing that can validate the stereotypes that there is nothing in "kansas"city.
Really quite simple.
Oh, and KC could use a few more people that cared about its image or what outsiders think about it. You guys are the ones that sound like a bunch of rubes when you say you don't care what others think about KC. Few cities have that attitude, except maybe NYC, and they are quite justified.
I think most strong, vibrant and growing cities care a great deal about how outsiders perceive their city. Maybe KC should start. Then it might do some things to make the city more attractive to potential residents, companies, conventions and tourists.
Last edited by GRID on Thu Jul 21, 2011 1:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: What should Kansas City rename itself as?
Then I'm a rube. I don't care. What I care about is whether this is a nice place for me to live, not whether Richard Head in Boston knows it.GRID wrote:Oh, and KC could use a few more people that cared about its image or what outsiders think about it. You guys are the ones that sound like a bunch of rubes when you say you don't care what others think about KC. Few cities have that attitude, except maybe NYC, and they are quite justified.
"It is not to my good friend's heresy that I impute his honesty. On the contrary, 'tis his honesty that has brought upon him the character of heretic." -- Ben Franklin
Re: What should Kansas City rename itself as?
Basic Funkhouser mentality and it's really taking kc places! Gotta be a bit more diverse IMO.mean wrote: Then I'm a rube. I don't care. What I care about is whether this is a nice place for me to live, not whether Richard Head in Boston knows it.
- KCPowercat
- Ambassador
- Posts: 34021
- Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
- Location: Quality Hill
- Contact:
Re: What should Kansas City rename itself as?
There is a difference between caring and freaking out if you ask me.
I'm secure in what kc is and what it offers me. Am I going to freak out if some coast dweller thinks it sucks here? No because not much I can do to change their mind....now if they come here I will do my best to show off my city through volunteering for events etc but some ignoramos that doesn't care to learn about kc? Could not care less about their opinion any more than they care what I think of their city.
Do I want people to view kc in a positive light? Sure....but mostly because I know what it is, not because i dont want to be embarassed when I announce my hometown.
I'm secure in what kc is and what it offers me. Am I going to freak out if some coast dweller thinks it sucks here? No because not much I can do to change their mind....now if they come here I will do my best to show off my city through volunteering for events etc but some ignoramos that doesn't care to learn about kc? Could not care less about their opinion any more than they care what I think of their city.
Do I want people to view kc in a positive light? Sure....but mostly because I know what it is, not because i dont want to be embarassed when I announce my hometown.
Re: What should Kansas City rename itself as?
I want better transit so I can use it, not so people in New York will think my city is cool. I want urban density, skyscrapers, walkability, etc. because I believe these are morally superior to suburban sprawl--not so my city will look good on Monday Night Football. These seem like the right types reasons to want these things. To want these things so other people think you're cool is embarrassingly shallow and reeks of insecurity.GRID wrote:Basic Funkhouser mentality and it's really taking kc places! Gotta be a bit more diverse IMO.
"It is not to my good friend's heresy that I impute his honesty. On the contrary, 'tis his honesty that has brought upon him the character of heretic." -- Ben Franklin
- staubio
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 6958
- Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2003 11:17 am
- Location: River Market
- Contact:
Re: What should Kansas City rename itself as?
Isn't reacting that wanting to change the name is only because we have an inferiority complex kinda part of that same complex?
I don't like this idea just for the sake of it, but it would be an amazing move the likes of which nobody has ever tried. As part of a massive national branding campaign, it could be huge. This is a cutthroat economy, and while cities were once just hubs for their regions and dictated by railroads, we're now competing in an open market of ultimate mobility and choice. No point of differentiation or marketing tactic should be off the table when we run the risk of not being differentiated against other midwestern cities with basically the same stuff. Why not do something a little nutty?
I don't like this idea just for the sake of it, but it would be an amazing move the likes of which nobody has ever tried. As part of a massive national branding campaign, it could be huge. This is a cutthroat economy, and while cities were once just hubs for their regions and dictated by railroads, we're now competing in an open market of ultimate mobility and choice. No point of differentiation or marketing tactic should be off the table when we run the risk of not being differentiated against other midwestern cities with basically the same stuff. Why not do something a little nutty?
Re: What should Kansas City rename itself as?
You are totally missing my point. I'm not embarrassed by kc, nor do I really give a shit what people think about kc if there is zero chance they will ever interact with the city anyway. I'm not trying to make sure joe blow from boston knows kc has 2 million people. But some employee of company X flying through KC that is about to open a new office in the Midwest might make a different decision if he knew more about KC than what he probably knows or assumes.
All I have ever cared about is making sure the city has a fighting chance to be a top candidate for people to visit, work or live. If KC has a reputation as a has been countrified backwater town with a few nice suburbs, then KC is going to continue to have a difficult time competing for industry, jobs, residents conventions and tourists beyond the 4 corners of MO/KS/IA /NE.
This has nothing to do with any sort of inferiority complex. I'm one of the most outspoken kc supporters you will ever meet. I may offer plenty of constructive criticism on forms like this when talking primarily to kansas city area residents to get some points across, but I honestly can't think of one time I have been either embarrassed to say I'm from KC (even if they assume I'm from kansas) or put down kc while in normal random conversations. I'm typically talking it up and promoting kc. Some enjoy it and it changes a viewpoint of kc and someday that person may have a chance to take a family there for a vacation, a job offer that he may take more seriously, or a convention he may want to book or attend. Some don't give a rip and we both move on.
The bottom line is that having the image that kc has does effect it's ability to compete. Why would anybody want to have a convention in a city that they pretty much have zero desire to visit?
You can do this and also improve the quality of life for local residents. The things that need to be done to improve KC's image and reputation as a city people want to visit or live really do overlap with the things that people that already live in KC want to see.
Or you can just stick your head in the sand and pretend like it doesn't matter what people think or what kc's image is like.
If I were mayor of KC, I would market the shit out of KC. Omaha knows about KC. Enough with selling KC to Omaha. Spend some money and fill in the rest of the country in on what Omaha already knows. It would be a lot easier to get more flights through KC, more conventions through KC, more people to take the area seriously when looking to relocate companies or even sports teams and best of all, if somebody is looking at possibly moving to kc for a job or transfer, ease their mind that they are not moving to topeka and you might get more lookers. People go where they have to now, but when the economy rebounds, everybody will be choosing Denver and Minneapolis again just because they are pretty sure KC is a has been because well, that's the impression the city generally gives off.
I am really at a loss as to why this is so difficult to understand.
All I have ever cared about is making sure the city has a fighting chance to be a top candidate for people to visit, work or live. If KC has a reputation as a has been countrified backwater town with a few nice suburbs, then KC is going to continue to have a difficult time competing for industry, jobs, residents conventions and tourists beyond the 4 corners of MO/KS/IA /NE.
This has nothing to do with any sort of inferiority complex. I'm one of the most outspoken kc supporters you will ever meet. I may offer plenty of constructive criticism on forms like this when talking primarily to kansas city area residents to get some points across, but I honestly can't think of one time I have been either embarrassed to say I'm from KC (even if they assume I'm from kansas) or put down kc while in normal random conversations. I'm typically talking it up and promoting kc. Some enjoy it and it changes a viewpoint of kc and someday that person may have a chance to take a family there for a vacation, a job offer that he may take more seriously, or a convention he may want to book or attend. Some don't give a rip and we both move on.
The bottom line is that having the image that kc has does effect it's ability to compete. Why would anybody want to have a convention in a city that they pretty much have zero desire to visit?
You can do this and also improve the quality of life for local residents. The things that need to be done to improve KC's image and reputation as a city people want to visit or live really do overlap with the things that people that already live in KC want to see.
Or you can just stick your head in the sand and pretend like it doesn't matter what people think or what kc's image is like.
If I were mayor of KC, I would market the shit out of KC. Omaha knows about KC. Enough with selling KC to Omaha. Spend some money and fill in the rest of the country in on what Omaha already knows. It would be a lot easier to get more flights through KC, more conventions through KC, more people to take the area seriously when looking to relocate companies or even sports teams and best of all, if somebody is looking at possibly moving to kc for a job or transfer, ease their mind that they are not moving to topeka and you might get more lookers. People go where they have to now, but when the economy rebounds, everybody will be choosing Denver and Minneapolis again just because they are pretty sure KC is a has been because well, that's the impression the city generally gives off.
I am really at a loss as to why this is so difficult to understand.
Re: What should Kansas City rename itself as?
And while changing the name itself wouldn't do much, just the publicity stunt atmosphere and press it would create alone is more exposure than KC could ever dream of.
There would be articles in papers and news stories all across the county of why a city of half million people anchoring a metro of over 2 million in missouri wanted to change is name.
It wouldn't even have to happen for it to be a marketing success.
There would be articles in papers and news stories all across the county of why a city of half million people anchoring a metro of over 2 million in missouri wanted to change is name.
It wouldn't even have to happen for it to be a marketing success.
Re: What should Kansas City rename itself as?
Yeah, it'd have a whole bunch of people saying, "Look what those pathetic, desperate yokels in that shitty backwater town are trying to do to get our attention. LOL!" Like when Topeka changed its name to Google.GRID wrote: And while changing the name itself wouldn't do much, just the publicity stunt atmosphere and press it would create alone is more exposure than KC could ever dream of.
I like it here. I'm happy to tell people I like it here and extol the city's various virtues. I'm just not usually (never, actually) in a position to talk up the city to CEOs who are thinking of relocating their huge firm from Dallas or Brussels or Seattle, and I refuse to give a damn what ignorant coasters think. I can't make them like this city. I can't make them think highly of it. I can't do anything about it. And I don't really care.
"It is not to my good friend's heresy that I impute his honesty. On the contrary, 'tis his honesty that has brought upon him the character of heretic." -- Ben Franklin
Re: What should Kansas City rename itself as?
+1ignatius wrote: Westport
Re: What should Kansas City rename itself as?
I think they should just call KC....Johnson County. That's what's happening anyway.
Two more companies bolt kcmo for joco.
OpenMethods LLC is leaving the River Market for JoCo taking advantage of PEAK incentives.
Law Firm Douthit Frets and Rhodes is leaving KCMO for JoCo and will use PEAK incentives.
Two more companies bolt kcmo for joco.
OpenMethods LLC is leaving the River Market for JoCo taking advantage of PEAK incentives.
Law Firm Douthit Frets and Rhodes is leaving KCMO for JoCo and will use PEAK incentives.