Johnson County?

KCK · Post by **KCK** » Tue Dec 09, 2003 4:31 pm

Overland Park wants to be the suburb that is bigger than the original city. Well it probably will end up like this.

After a lot of research, I finally came up with the biggest suburb in the United States. It is San Jose California. Here is a quote about San Jose, a suburb of neighboring San Francisco.

It will always be san francisco's ugly step-sister. it will always be in sf's shadow. san jose is nothing more than a joke of a town!!!!! ha ha"

Hahaha... you are right. SJ is nothing more than a giant suburb (even though this "suburb" has a larger population than the "city"). They don't have anything that resembles a real city, like skyscrapers, high rise apartments, vibrant financial district, etc.

Pictures of the San Jose skyline confirm that this city of 925,000 people (more than San Francisco) is nasty. This is all Overland Park will ever be at most. High populations don't make a city. KCMO is a real city. Hell lets compare the San Jose skyline to the San Francisco one.

Now here is the bigger city, San Jose.

scooterj · Post by **scooterj** » Tue Dec 09, 2003 5:46 pm

What a sprawling mess. Gently-sloping mountains in the background cause optical illusions when judging distance in photos, what looks like a few miles in this photo could easily by 20 miles or more of box buildings and surface parking.

QueSi2Opie · Post by **QueSi2Opie** » Tue Dec 09, 2003 10:01 pm

One must remember the density of San Francisco. There jus' isn't anymore room for people in SF...that explains why it's the most expensive city in America to live. KCMO on the other hand has a ton of open spaces and undeveloped areas.

Is the current state of KCMO a result of suburbs like OPKS, or is OPKS a result of the current and past state of KCMO? I believe KCMO created OPKS because of piss poor government and city management...and now that they created this neighboring monster, it's makin' it extremely difficult for KCMO to rebound.

Post by **dangerboy** » Wed Dec 10, 2003 12:57 am

QueSi2Opie wrote:Is the current state of KCMO a result of suburbs like OPKS, or is OPKS a result of the current and past state of KCMO? I believe KCMO created OPKS because of piss poor government and city management...and now that they created this neighboring monster, it's makin' it extremely difficult for KCMO to rebound.

That is wrong. Overland Park was created because of the racism, classism, and white flight. This racially-motivated abandonment of the central city is what led to the decline of city's government and management, which in turn contributed to the continued success of the suburbs.

KCK · Post by **KCK** » Wed Dec 10, 2003 10:55 am

If you look closely, you can see a very modest skyline, composed of probably 20 midrises. I expected more from the home of intel and adobe. Silicon Valley should be renamed Silicon Ditch.

Most development in California is the type of sprawl crap that midwestern cities imitate. Overland Park, Olathe, Lenexa, Shawnee, hell all JOCO cities take this as a warning. Even now it isn't considered the San Jose metro area, its still the San Francisco metro area. The city that has real culture, arts, architecture, is San Francisco regardless of the population stats. It just goes to show you that suburban sprawl sucks.

Post by **dangerboy** » Wed Dec 10, 2003 12:08 pm

San Jose is not a suburb of San Francisco. It's 50 miles away, and has it's own suburbs. It probably isn't a separate metro area since it all runs together around the Bay Area, with almost equal centers on either end. San Joes has a growing downtown, including new high-rise office construction.

QueSi2Opie · Post by **QueSi2Opie** » Wed Dec 10, 2003 12:29 pm

dangerboy wrote:That is wrong. Overland Park was created because of the racism, classism, and white flight. This racially-motivated abandonment of the central city is what led to the decline of city's government and management, which in turn contributed to the continued success of the suburbs.

Oh really? Why didn't they jus' move to the Northland in KCMO or out near Avila College in South KC? It's a fact that KCMO's government used to be a f*ckin' joke! This led to the rise and success of many suburban cities...especially those that could use incentives to attract businesses across the state line. Seriously, why else would someone from KCMO move to JOCO?

Post by **dangerboy** » Wed Dec 10, 2003 1:05 pm

QueSi2Opie wrote:
dangerboy wrote:That is wrong. Overland Park was created because of the racism, classism, and white flight. This racially-motivated abandonment of the central city is what led to the decline of city's government and management, which in turn contributed to the continued success of the suburbs.
Oh really? Why didn't they jus' move to the Northland in KCMO or out near Avila College in South KC? It's a fact that KCMO's government used to be a f*ckin' joke! This led to the rise and success of many suburban cities...especially those that could use incentives to attract businesses across the state line. Seriously, why else would someone from KCMO move to JOCO?

Because Johnson County was closer to the southwest corridor of KCMO than the Northland. People only had to move a couple of miles and could still be close family, work, church, etc. Plus it was easier for developers to follow the existing street grid and topography southwest along the Turkey Creek watershed - especially for sewer and water systems. The Northland was further away and didn't have adequate infrastructure, roads, bridge and highway connections, etc. In fact, much of the Northland wasn't even part of KCMO until annexations where finished in the 1960s, after the suburban flight had already gained a southwesterly momementum.

QueSi2Opie · Post by **QueSi2Opie** » Wed Dec 10, 2003 1:15 pm

dangerboy wrote:Because Johnson County was closer to the southwest corridor of KCMO than the Northland. People only had to move a couple of miles and could still be close family, work, church, etc. Plus it was easier for developers to follow the existing street grid and topography southwest along the Turkey Creek watershed - especially for sewer and water systems. The Northland was further away and didn't have adequate infrastructure, roads, bridge and highway connections, etc. In fact, much of the Northland wasn't even part of KCMO until annexations where finished in the 1960s, after the suburban flight had already gained a southwesterly momementum.

JOCO had a population of about 140,000 in 1960. Wouldn't it have been easier to stay in Missouri and move to Independence or Lee's Summit instead of moving to Kansas where you would have to change your license, tags, pay out-of-state taxes, etc?

Anyhow, I wasn't talkin' about the KC government prior to 1960, I was speakin' about the government of the 80s and 90s when JOCO began to explode. But yes, I agree, white flight is one of the biggest reasons for suburban sprawl.

GRID · Post by **GRID** » Wed Dec 10, 2003 1:53 pm

Sure, the KCMO government may not have had some issues, but come on, they didn’t drive people out of KCMO, white flight did.

No where else in the country can you move two blocks away and change states so easily leaving behind all the urban problems that metro areas deal with. It happened everywhere in the country, but seems exaggerated here with KCMO/JoCo.

JoCo grew dramatically for many reasons and most of them were luck, here are a few reasons.

Being next to two nearly developed urban cities KCK & KCMO when white flight kicked into high gear.

Having a vast area of flat and easily developable land and a grid pattern of farm roads that could accommodate growth much easier than the rolling forests, flood plains and limestone bases of the north and east parts of the metro, plus it’s closer or was closer.

The cities and counties have no responsibility to maintain an aging infrastructure and therefore could build new roads with few expensive bridges. Same goes for schools etc.

A move to KS would protect those who did not want their schools to be segregated by the government. This has always been a threat to suburban Missouri schools and still is.

Are able to use more of their tax money to build these new cheaper roads as KCMO was still responsible for maintaining everything from the bus system to public health care to the stadiums to homeless shelters to the zoo (you get the idea) all the while KCMO wealthy tax payers were leaving for suburbs and taking their tax money with them.

KC had a city of 500,000 people in a relatively small area. This was a good city with good neighborhoods until whites left in droves. The city did not have much desire or money to build up infrastructure in the Northland as it was just trying to keep the original city together.

Being able to tap into a huge base of residents and businesses with the lure of tax breaks and new infrastructure.

But here is the biggie:

Take some urban planning or history courses and you will be amazed at how much our federal government is to blame for sprawl and decay in all of our large cities. I don’t have time to explain it now, but believe me, that’s how it all started and you can still see residual effects of the government incentives etc in the real estate industry who had yet to fully recover.

Call up Remax, say you are relocating from LA and ask what part of KC you should move too.

JoCo lucked out, good for them, now can we all get off KCMO’s back, they could be a lot worse off given it’s circumstances.

KCMO is bouncing back quite nicely now.

Post by **dangerboy** » Wed Dec 10, 2003 2:00 pm

GRID wrote:But here is the biggie:

Take some urban planning or history courses and you will be amazed at how much our federal government is to blame for sprawl and decay in all of our large cities. I donâ€™t have time to explain it now, but believe me, thatâ€™s how it all started and you can still see residual effects of the government incentives etc in the real estate industry who had yet to fully recover.

Call up Remax, say you are from LA and ask where you should move too.

JoCo lucked out, good for them, now can we all get off KCMOâ€™s back, they could be a lot worse off given itâ€™s circumstances.

Exaclty. The federal government subsizided the Interstates and other highways that enabled people to move further away from their jobs in the urban cores. Then they gave out generous mortgage subsisides for returning GIs and others, but only if they bought new houses in the new surburbs.

And the real estate industry was very complicit with their practice of "block busting" - going into an all-white block and selling one house to a black family. Then going door to door telling the white families that blacks where moving in and they had better sell fast while they could still get out. Conveniently, those same real estate agents had new suburban developments ready to sell to those white families - so they made money on both ends of the deal.

Post by **bahua** » Wed Dec 10, 2003 2:29 pm

San Jose definitely is its own city. That said, it is a very typically western city: cars cars cars.

As for SF not having any more room, that is dead wrong. It has plenty of room for more people, and could easily accomodate hundreds of thousands more. With some difficulty, they could accomodate millions. That's a common misconception about cities that stop growing. It hasn't stopped growing because it can't. The average building in town is still only a 2-3 story house, so there's a lot of room for growth.

GuyInLenexa · Post by **GuyInLenexa** » Wed Dec 10, 2003 4:38 pm

All great cities have great suburbs. The post war phenomenon of the sprawling of Americaâ€™s cities was contributed by many factors. The idea of owning a home with a yard has been the American dream, in many ways, it still is. It was for my parents, race was never an issue for them.
Many people did not want to raise their children in apartments, people like space.
Where people live is a matter of choice.
I do not believe that Overland Park wants to take the place of KCMO as the hub of the metropolitan area. Overland Park, I feel, wants to be the commercial, financial, and corporate hub of Johnson County. And so far, they have succeeded, even though Olathe is the county seat. KCMO will always remain the â€œDowntownâ€

GRID · Post by **GRID** » Wed Dec 10, 2003 4:51 pm

Nicely said GuyinLenexa!

phxcat · Post by **phxcat** » Wed Dec 10, 2003 7:59 pm

Ditto that

I hadn't thought about the effect this bickering may have on potential newcomers.

There are many reasons for suburban sprawl. While racism has certainly playeed a part on JoCo as it has in the Northland, Blue Springs, St. Louis County, St. Charles County, and probably San Jose, CA, there are also people who just want a free standing house with a yard, a new house a larger house. Sprawl isn't but in a healthy metro it will occur. Not everyone wants to live downtown. Diviersity in houseing will make this a more viable city for relocation of companies as well as people.

Post by **dangerboy** » Wed Dec 10, 2003 9:35 pm

phxcat wrote:I hadn't thought about the effect this bickering may have on potential newcomers.

Unfortunately the real estate and relocation industries are still actively funnelling newcomers to Johnson County, even when they ask for urban neighborhoods or Missouri suburbs. So newcomers still end up with skewed perceptions, including negative myths that perpetuate many of the MO vs KS and urban vs suburban divisions.

QueSi2Opie · Post by **QueSi2Opie** » Wed Dec 10, 2003 9:39 pm

Don't think for one second I believe white flight isn't the reason for suburban sprawl. I even said before that I agree it's the biggest reason for it. And yes, I definitely know our history, but thanks for the lesson.

In the last 2 decades, the majority of the people that left WyCo for JoCo did so because of racism...and crime, schools, and to have better things, etc. I jus' don't see why people, Missouri natives, would leave KCMO for Kansas? Especially in the 80s and 90s? The former KCMO natives I talk to out here say it's because of the city government.

Post by **bahua** » Wed Dec 10, 2003 9:56 pm

The GI Bill had a lot to do with it too. A very nasty stipulation of it was that the promised funds for a home would only be given to returning soldiers to finance new construction. They couldn't use their fifty Gs on the house down the block. They had to build their own. That was a big pusher that most people don't talk/hear about.

And the yard/"American Dream" thing doesn't make any sense. Most people left houses with yards, in the city, for houses with yards in the suburbs. The main difference is that the houses in teh suburbs didn't have any trees.

KCK · Post by **KCK** » Thu Dec 11, 2003 11:24 am

OPKâ€™s success should be viewed as an asset to the metro as a whole.
I still do not understand the animosity of both sides of the state line. It seems that many on this forum have a terrible hate for Johnson County.

How many times have you seen a business leave JOCO for KCK? How many JOCO residents have to work in KCK, because they can't find a decent paying job in their city? How many JOCO residents have to shop for groceries in KCK because their grocery stores are overpriced and low quality? How many JOCO residents work in a city they can't afford to live in? How many JOCO residents are viewed as trashy and poor and stupid just because of the city they live in?

And you dare tell me I need to be happy for JOCO. I would expect this from a JOCO resident GuyInLenexa.

KC0KEK · Post by **KC0KEK** » Thu Dec 11, 2003 11:55 am

dangerboy wrote:The federal government subsizided the Interstates and other highways that enabled people to move further away from their jobs in the urban cores.

True. But don't forget that all major cities also lobbied hard to ensure that the roads in their areas got a big share of those subsidies. They didn't want to be bypassed -- literally or figuratively. They got what they wished for -- and some byproducts that they didn't.