vi·brantbbqboy wrote: So vibrant =more places to drink or vibrant= a Trader Joe's and good food?
Or hustle and bustle as opposed to laid back open spaces?
A few of these I know you meant in jest. However, this is a good list with just a few additions.mean wrote: Well, in my completely objective, unbiased, and entirely correct opinion, Kansas City requires the following things to meet my definition of a Big Vibrant City:
1. 24-hour delivery of tacos al pastor, pizza, and marijuana throughout the urban core.
2. At least 4:00 bars, but the later the better.
3. Rail transit from the airport to Waldo, with a couple feeder lines into the suburbs, coupled with a real bus system that is easy to understand, with buses that run up and down streets in a straight line!
4. A proper waterfront, with boats and marinas and such.
5. An additional $5-7 billion in taxpayer-subsidized development. Doesn't really matter what, but tall is always good.
6. Proper sewers.
7. A giant tornado-shaped tower.
8. Walk / Don't Walk signs that don't require you to press a stupid button.
9. Commercial flights to and from MKC.
10. River cruises to and from Omaha, St. Louis, etc.
11. Legalized prostitution and decriminalization of all street drugs.
12. Urban mimes.
13. A recreational carnival-style park adjacent to downtown on the riverfront; in recognition of Kansas City's girth it would be called Gravy Pier. You'd get a free Rascal scooter for the day with every admission.
14. A commemorative statue of Kay Barnes and Jerry Riffel shitting on the graves of John Locke and Henry George.
15. More hot dog street vendors.
I tend to disagree, at least with your first few sentences. Denver's urban core is much more vibrant than KC's; Larimer Square, Denver Pavillions, 16th Street Mall, LoDo, Capitol Hill, Cherry Creek all are much more vibrant than anything that I've seen in KC. Yes, Brookside and the Plaza are nice; City Market and River Market are definitely gold mines that no one has yet to exploit. I personally think that Whole Foods should've planted a store in the River Market area which would've greatly enhanced the area. Westport is not the best place - I find it somewhat dirty and at times unsafe. Kansas City definitely has the potential of being a great, vibrant city. There are some sparks flying with the new KCPL district and cultural arts center, but there needs to be an influx of proper management, money, and a desire to be a great city. The roads downtown suck, the metal plates need to disappear, and mass transit needs to be moving. All of this was done in Denver between 1990 and the present, and everytime I go back to visit, I am amazed as to why I ever wanted to leave.ignatius wrote: I think KC compares closer to Denver to some degree, but needs more momentum downtown. KC's City Market, Martini Corner, Westport, W39th, Plaza, Brookside, Hyde Park meets or exceeds anything in Denver's urban areas, it's just that Denver's downtown is quite a bit further along. KC's downtown however has quite a bit more potential and can be a great deal better than Denver's downtown once it reaches its potential. Downtown KC has way way more loft space, like 5X more warehouse conversions. The arts district of 60 galleries is unmatched just about anywhere but needs more infill development. Denver has more 'new' construction downtown, KC has much broader classic downtown infrastructure that stretches 30 blocks.
Denver has done a better job with the infrastructure it has downtown. KC has better and broader infrastructure downtown but is behind in fulfilling its potential. Once both reach the max potential, I think KC will have an edge. I do think KC's downtown is pretty much near the point though that it can now attract residents almost as well as downtown Denver could, once more retail hits like the grocery store, basic neighborhood amenities and a bookstore. The 94-96% apartment occupancy clearly indicates that downtown KC is able to attract residents as well as any downtown.
I agree with you that KC will have more breadth and depth, but when will KC hit on all cylinders? KC is already 10 years behind the times but continues to stagnate itself. There is some light at the end of the tunnel, but it is very faint!ignatius wrote: I wasn't comparing KC to Minneapolis , only that light rail didn't make MSP more vibrant in any way and that MSP isn't a 'big' city in the way that NYC/Chicago are. STL has had light rail for a couple decades now and isn't any more vibrant than KC.
Pre-1950, KC was light years ahead of Denver. KC's 'classic' infrastructure is still much much better than Denver's (5x more old buildings, awesome art deco architecture, 3 warehouse districts, more older neighborhoods with tasteful stone/brick infrastructure). In that sense, KC has far more urban potential than Denver when both meet their peak potential. But as I said, Denver is obviously ahead in its downtown renovation, probably by 10 years or more. But when downtown KC hits on all cylinders, it will likely have much more breadth and depth than downtown Denver running on all cylinders.
As far as population being the measuring stick, that's ridiculous. Dallas, Phoenix, Tampa, Orlando are bigger cities with zero soul and are simply just places to exist. Look at LA compared to San Fran. Dallas contrasted to DC or Boston and yes, even KC. Population doesn't make a comprehensive city with the breadth and depth that most older midwest/e coast cities have.
Westport does have it's character, but the times that I have been down there, it seemed like there were a lot of gang activity (which follows with police activity), and not an overall great place to hang out. I agree with you that areas that are sterile are not has hip either. I have been to much older cities like Chicago, Wrigleyville, Lincoln Park, DC, Atlanta, Cincinnati, and Minneapolis to visit and party and have found those places to be cleaner and nicer. Even walking around downtown in those places at night is relatively safe! If KC downtown wants more, there has to be more of a cleanup effort.ignatius wrote: "Westport is not the best place - I find it somewhat dirty and at times unsafe."
I sometimes think these statements can only come from someone who's never been to an old city and likes to hang around sterilized places like The Legends. Westport is a decent spot with an eclectic mix of many things. It has stinky hipsters and can get rowdy after midnite on weekends (pre-P&L) but what I find interesting is that if I take someone from older cities to Westport, they really like it and have no sense of it being 'dirty'. Someone from 'new' sterilized cities may find it dirty and scary. Don't bother hitting East Village, LES or Brooklyn in NYC, you'll really be sceered. And Philly Center City is just one big pile of dirt given how old it is.
But I'm biased since I live between Westport/Plaza.
Cherry Creek more vibrant than the Plaza??? Hmmm. Maybe so. I haven't been to Denver in a few years but Cherry Creek hardly had the foot traffic that Plaza did, or does it now? I've only been to CC a couple times. The shops are mostly in a mall.
I generally agree with you otherwise.
I would take $20k less to live in a more expensive city, at this point. Fortunately, I can make almost 60% more in some of them, with my current resume.aknowledgeableperson wrote: I will try something different here.
Some people refuse to take a job, even if the pay is greater, because of where they would have to move. So the question is:
You go to your high school or college reunion. You met an old friend of yours. The company he works for is looking for employees with a background like yours. The friend says you can make, say $20k, more than you are making now. The catch is you have to move to Sioux Falls. Would you take it? If not at $20k more then what amount? And what point does money overcome lifestyle?
A place like Sioux Falls is about as worse case scenario for me just because of the isolated location - you have a hell of a lot of travel ahead of you just to get to a reasonable airport and there are no cities you could even visit on the weekend with much less than a whole day's drive. I am sure there are probably flights from Sioux Falls to Chicago, but they can't be cheap. I would sooner live in a podunk armpit like Ottawa, KS or Sedalia, where you could at least get into a city in around an hour and have some flight option to get the hell out whenever possible. Sioux Falls your just stuck SOL.aknowledgeableperson wrote: You go to your high school or college reunion. You met an old friend of yours. The company he works for is looking for employees with a background like yours. The friend says you can make, say $20k, more than you are making now. The catch is you have to move to Sioux Falls. Would you take it? If not at $20k more then what amount? And what point does money overcome lifestyle?
it's not a price point issue for me, it's where i am at in my life. right now i wouldn't live in a non-urban setting for any salary i am qualified to make, but i would gladly live in an urban setting making less than half what i am making now. however, in 20 years, maybe i'll want to live out in the woods and you wouldn't be able to pay me enough to live in the city, who knows? probably not the case since "urban" KCMO isn't all that urban, but still.aknowledgeableperson wrote: OK. Instead of Sioux Falls try Ottawa or Sedalia? Or even Bentonvillle, Arkansas?
The point is, at what price point would one trade an urban life for a non-urban life?
My thoughts on your perspective and the perspectives of others:chrizow wrote: it's not a price point issue for me, it's where i am at in my life. right now i wouldn't live in a non-urban setting for any salary i am qualified to make, but i would gladly live in an urban setting making less than half what i am making now. however, in 20 years, maybe i'll want to live out in the woods and you wouldn't be able to pay me enough to live in the city, who knows? probably not the case since "urban" KCMO isn't all that urban, but still.
i would never, ever live full-time more than an hour from a major city and more than 20 minutes from the heart of this city. i would rather live on a small compound in rural weston than live in an equidistant beige subdivision in olathe.
You sound like me. As I was drinking outside this sunny afternoon, I kept imagining living in Wrigleyville on game day...enjoying the sun/women/baseball. I'd love that. And you're right, if my family/friends weren't in this area, then I wouldn't be living here. I'd have moved as soon as I got out of college. But that is the biggest influence I have with regards to where I live. No sense in moving to the coast if I don't know anyone there. Would be kinda pointless. For me, it's the relationships that make a place special...not the transit system/buildings/or perceived coolness from outsiders.Maitre D wrote: The weather is a huge factor in what I'd do. Would die to live in Wrigleyville - but it's too damn cold. If Wrigleyville had the same weather as KC, Id be there.
Besides this is lame w/o considering family ties. That's what drives people's living locations, not "vibrancy"
Very good post. Some insight into what I was trying to lead into. One thing I have found out in life you generally get out of something what you put into it. If you go from San Fran to KC and are wanting San Fran you will be, in all likelyhood, disappointed. However if you come to KC and be open to what KC has to offer, as its own area, then you just might be in for a pleasant surprise.advocrat wrote: My thoughts on your perspective and the perspectives of others:
Yea, location decisions are based on the entire package. I moved to Europe 10 years ago knowing full well the weather was terrible but the monetary and educational (for the kids) benefits of an expat assignment, chance to see another continent with diverse cultures and vibrant cities, and the beauty of northern Europe balanced out leaving the known comforts of the US and seeing family on a much less frequent basis.Maitre D wrote: The weather is a huge factor in what I'd do. Would die to live in Wrigleyville - but it's too damn cold. If Wrigleyville had the same weather as KC, Id be there.
Besides this is lame w/o considering family ties. That's what drives people's living locations, not "vibrancy"
