Rankings, lists, and such

[aknowledgeableperson]

From the city's citizen budget

Kansas City ranks as the 40th largest city in the U.S. by
population and the 13th largest by land area. However, it
ranks 216 out of the 239 cities with populations over 100,000
in terms of population density, which is the population per
square mile. In 2006, Kansas City was named one of ten
All American Cities and ranked number tenth for economic
growth.

[mlind]

I think a lot of current segregation is economic.  Poor folks live where housing costs are lower.  However, many times, depending on the neighborhood, when these houses go on the market, they are bought by whites to live in or fix up for rentals.  The renters are mostly white.  I found this out in Oakland CA when I was recently looking for a new place to rent.

So, in West & North Oakland CA it's gone from white to black to white.  And Hispanics still settle in the Fruitvale area of Oakland. A lot of blacks are moving to the distant suburbs where the can get a new or new-ish house for less money and the schools are better.  Of course, lots of buyers in the distant suburbs were caught in the mortgage meltdown. 

People often live where they are most comfortable and that often means with people like themselves.  In the SF bay area, lots of Indians have settled in the Fremont area - close to Silicon Valley but not as expensive.

KCK was very segregated when I grew up in the 1950's & 1960's.  Hispanics lived in Argentine.  Eastern Europeans lived in Strawberry Hill.  I'm sorry to say that I'm not sure where the black neighbors were, but most attended Sumner HS.  Blue collar whites lived in Rosedale.

In order to have true [economic] integration, people need to accept low-income housing into their neighborhoods. 

[pash]

.

[FangKC]

I'm not among those who thinks gentrification is a bad thing. Older cities need it to recover the tax base.  If you don't have it, a city slowly withers on the vine.

Cities also need productivity workers to grow, and it's a better use of resources to have them living closer to jobs.  A large population of retired people in your city doesn't generate a lot of new jobs or products.

In some respects, you can make the argument that retired people should live on the edge of the city since they don't have to commute to work. Having retired people occupying all the close-in housing, or living in too large a house, creates waste of limited resources like coal, natural gas, and oil.  Workers have to live further out and drive more. Heating a two or three-story house for one retired person is wasteful--even if they can afford it.

In a perfect world where we recognized the limits of resources worldwide, retired people would move to smaller living situations on the edge of the city, and workers would live closer to jobs.  If they stay in the central city, seniors would move into smaller apartments in high-rise buildings that are more efficient, don't require maintenance, and near transit and healthcare.

Neighborhoods don't go downhill just because of crime and bad schools.  As people age, they are less able to do maintenance on their homes, and have less money to do it. Widows or divorce senior women especially are not able to do this. I've also noticed that seniors in this situation aren't always willing to accept help.

[mlind]

Neighborhoods don't go downhill just because of crime and bad schools.  As people age, they are less able to do maintenance on their homes, and have less money to do it. Widows or divorce senior women especially are not able to do this. I've also noticed that seniors in this situation aren't always willing to accept help.

I think a lot of older people don't see that their property is run down. And, when they die, the houses sell for lower prices to gentrifiers. 

And, if a house is paid for, why should they move?  People do become attached to their homes & neighborhoods. Outlying areas often don't have good public transit for those who can no longer drive.

My mother-in-law said she would never move into 'senior' housing - all you do is watch your neighbors get old and die. 

[FangKC]

I think a lot of older people don't see that their property is run down. 

Yes, with aging, their decline in eyesight can cause them to believe that.

[FangKC]

And, if a house is paid for, why should they move?  People do become attached to their homes & neighborhoods.

I wasn't saying they should. I was making an argument for why they should consider it as socially-responsible beings.  Take the equity in the large house, and buy a smaller house or condo.  I have no problem with them staying in the neighborhood.

As an ethical question, why should one person use two or three times the energy they need to be comfortable--just because they can afford it?  People must realize they are using up limited resources like coal, oil, and natural gas that cannot be replaced. Other people in the world will be deprived of those resources in time altogether.

Oil and natural gas are required for other things than energy. Future people will need them for the myriad of things made from them, but the resource will be diminished because past generations squandered them unnecessarily.  And remember, about half of the electricity generated is lost in transmission and provides no net benefit to anyone.

[FangKC]

My mother-in-law said she would never move into 'senior' housing - all you do is watch your neighbors get old and die.  

In some neighborhoods of single family houses filled with aging empty nestors, this is already true.  

Raytown's population is dropping because there are fewer people living there--mainly due to children who have left home. I think it's partially true for Gladstone, and places like Roeland Park. Raytown is completely surrounded by other muncipalities and cannot expand. The tax base is shrinking.  No new families can move in because of seniors occupying homes that are probably too large for them.

Not all of the population drop south of the river in older neighborhoods of Kansas City can be accounted for suburban flight.  Many of those residents no longer have kids at home, and are retired.  People find it shocking that old Kansas City, that had around 500,000 people at one time, now has maybe 250,000 to 300,000.  Well, if those households once had an average of four or five people living in the homes, and now has one or two, that would account for some of the drop.

I live in the Old Northeast. When I take walks, or drive through it, I see a lot of seniors sitting on the porches of large old houses that probably once had two or three children living in them.  The five largest houses on my block are occupied by seniors living alone. Four of the largest houses are occupied by widows or single childless women. The seniors' houses are not well-maintained, and the yards not kept up.  Only three large houses have more than one person living in them.  The rest of the block are small houses and bungalows.  Many of the small houses have parents and children living there.  

So on my block, you have families living in the smaller houses mostly, and singles and seniors living in the big houses.  Many of the smaller houses have no yard to speak of, so the children play in the street.  The larger houses have big yards, but the people aren't keeping them up.  It just seems unnatural to me.  :shock:

[bbqboy]

What is the smallest sq. ft. a new house can have? Is there a lower limit,
i.e. 500-700 sq ft.
bungalows? If not quite micro-houses, at least something designed and built for 1-2 folks?

[pash]

.

[bbqboy]

I don't think it is just a KC problem, but old folks(empty nesters on up) don't necessarily
want to give up a house and yard to go live in an apartment building.
I always loved living in Rosedale with it's small houses and yards. Just right for one and two people households, with a bit of yard to garden etc.
I'm not smart enough to know a solution.
Is it really about zoning, or building codes, or contractors not thinking it worth their while?

[pash]

.

[FangKC]

Well, if you look at building patterns in the newer suburbs for the past few decades, most subdivisions don't have a mix of housing types.  You cannot find one and two-bedroom houses that would be suitable for down-sizing within those neighborhoods. It's all three and four-bedroom houses.

You can find some 2-bedroom ranch houses that were built in the 1950s in places like Independence, Roeland Park, Gladstone and south Kansas City.

The family-home-turned-retirement ghettos I mentioned earlier have additional problems. My 78-year-old aunt lives in one and she says there a so few children living in it, and she can't find anyone to mow her yard, or shovel her snow.  She also misses having kids in the neighborhood.

[aknowledgeableperson]

I wasn't saying they should. I was making an argument for why they should consider it as socially-responsible beings.  Take the equity in the large house, and buy a smaller house or condo.  I have no problem with them staying in the neighborhood.

As an ethical question, why should one person use two or three times the energy they need to be comfortable--just because they can afford it?  People must realize they are using up limited resources like coal, oil, and natural gas that cannot be replaced. Other people in the world will be deprived of those resources in time altogether.

Just curious, you own a home in old Northeast, if memory is correct, and I think you live by yourself so how big is your house?  How big are some of the places in the rehabbed buildings that only one person lives in?  A young, single person should have what, only 400 sq ft of living space?  300?  10x10 for a bedroom with a twin bed.  Same size for a kitchen with eating space, 6x6 for a bathroom, and a little room open to the kitchen for living space.  And that's generous.  Years ago many singles just rented a room with a shared bath down the hall.

[FangKC]

I live alone in a two-bedroom ranch house with one bath, a living room, a small kitchen and utility room with a single-car garage that was built in 1954. The sq. footage is 1,024 sq. ft.

I looked at about 25 houses before I found this one. My realtor kept taking me to larger houses (3-4 bedrooms). I kept telling him I wanted a small house. I would have been happy with a 700-800 sq. ft. one-bedroom house, but I couldn't find one.

I don't need a lot of room to be content, and I want to keep my utility bills as low as possible.  The only thing I had to do to this house was install a high-efficiency heat pump central air unit, and a programmable thermostat. It had already had new double-paned windows installed.

My utilities here are about the same as at my apartment on Quality Hill--even though I have a bit more space.  I think I can reduce them more by replacing my water heater with a tankless, on-demand system, and additional insulation in the attic.

Before owning this house, I lived in an apartment on Quality Hill that was a one-bedroom, one bath, and had 795 sq. feet. It was in one of the newer buildings, not the older, renovated ones.

http://www.qualityhillsquare.com/plan_a.html

Before that, I lived in a studio apartment on the UES of Manhattan, NYC, that had about 500 sq. feet.  It was in a 35-story highrise. My utilities were nothing because of shared walls and thick concrete blocks.

http://www.emporis.com/application/?nav ... ity-ny-usa

I don't know about all the rehabbed buildings. I looked at some that had small apartments in them. It depends on the building and the floorplate. The Professional Lofts, 1006 Grand, and Cold Storage Lofts apartments are pretty small. I will say that Clubhouse Lofts have very high ceilings.  The apartments in the former New England Bank Building, Land Bank Building, and Dwight Building (aka Library Lofts) are pretty small as well--compared to suburban apartments.

Soho Lofts -- 1 bedroom, 550-663 sq. feet
Coffee Lofts -- 1 bedroom, 718 sq. feet
Atrium Lofts -- 1 bedroom, 907 sq. feet
525 Grand, -- 1 bedroom, 990 sq. feet
Western Auto -- 1 bedroom, 970 sq. feet
Wall Street -- 1 bedroom, 892 sq. feet
The Manhattan -- 1 bedroom, 635 sq. feet
Board of Trade Lofts, 1 bedroom, 515-701 sq. feet
The Fountains -- 1 bedroom, 794 sq. feet
Riverbed Lofts -- 1 bedroom, 1,250 sq. feet
The View -- 1 bedroom, 759-900 sq. feet

http://www.highrises.com/city/kansas-city/

[KCMax]

This list seems particularly silly. People in Phoenix and Portland are the most miserable???

Where Are Americans Most Miserable?

A critique of the list:

Portland: Second-Most Miserable City?

[mlind]

I'm old (hate to admit it) and I've downsized twice - most recently this month.  I don't want an apartment/condo in a building with no outdoor space because I like to garden.  And I definitely don't want to live in the suburbs. In the SF Bay Area, lots of older houses have been cut up into flats and that's what I'm renting.  Unfortunately, many of the conversions have been badly done.  All the money put into the kitchen and bath.  They seem to forget that people don't spend a lot of time in those two rooms.

My 105 year old neighbor still lives alone in her own home. More power to her!

[brewcrew1000]

We ranked 24th for funniest cities in america and 10th for weight gain cities.

The thing that irks me about these rankings is that they use Kansas City,KS as the anchor city and they even show skyline photo of KCMO!!!!

I sent an email to editorial@thedailybeast.com, they also have a couple other email addreses, we should swamp them with emails so they change it to Kansas City,MO
http://www.thedailybeast.com/contact-us/

http://www.thedailybeast.com/galleries/2765/2/
http://www.thedailybeast.com/galleries/2776/1/

[FangKC]

I don't want an apartment/condo in a building with no outdoor space because I like to garden.

That's one of the reasons I bought a small house instead of a condo. I put out a garden now, and needed to have some activities where I get exercise since I don't like to walk every day, run, or go to a gym.

I've always liked getting exercise doing an activity and accomplishing something that just exercising for exercising's sake.

When I get too old to do it, I'll probably buy a condo.

[warwickland]

That's one of the reasons I bought a small house instead of a condo. I put out a garden now, and needed to have some activities where I get exercise since I don't like to walk every day, run, or go to a gym.

I've always liked getting exercise doing an activity and accomplishing something that just exercising for exercising's sake.

When I get too old to do it, I'll probably buy a condo.

I love living on an urban lot. I come from a long line of farmers in Missouri and I love tilling the soil and in fact I bought a house that doesn't have parking and a larger south facing back yard to support this. I can live in the center of a metropolitan engine (or slightly on the right side in the case of st. louis and messa round in the dirt.) KC is set up well for this kind of lifestyle very well yet still is rather connected. I hope it becomes the new Austin. It's onboard with the railroads, to be sure.