If someone wants to live in a vibrant big city, should he/she move to KC?

[DanCa]

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.

Exactly.  I couldn't believe how pitiful downtown Phoenix was when I visited a couple years ago - and they have over 4 million poeple in the metro, I believe. 

I saw a comparison picture of downtown KC vs. Denver sometime around 1970, and Denver looked more like Boise.  I guess it was the oil boom that caused Denver to grow so fast. 

[Maitre D]

I voted no. I used to feel the dream, but I don't anymore. Expect more post-dream burnouts soon.

That's basically where I'm at.

[KCKev]

I voted no because of the failure of Rail currently. This is needed to start now! I left downtown on a week night at quiting time and on i35 heading back to OP, was traveling at 25 mph on a 4 lane Highway. Get these people to work on Rail for Gods sake.

If it were't for this I would have voted YES.

[ignatius]

STL has had rail for two decades and is not really any more vibrant than KC.  I-35 traffic is nothing compared to STL or larger cities.  Rail is needed when it is needed, not to make things feel more urbane.  MSP just recently got it, a metro over 3M.  Was MSP not a 'real' city until the light rail went in?  Is it now more vibrant with rail? Not in the slightest.

[rxlexi]

while light-rail, outside of maybe streetcars, won't make a city feel more 'vibrant', it does make a city feel better connected, with more condensed attractions and the possiblity of a car-free life, which most people don't envision with buses and they tend to associate with 'big' cities. 

I think say, a modern streetcar line running right thru the plaza and P&L down Main/Grand at high frequency would indeed make the city feel, in some subjetive way, more 'vibrant'.  But yeah it certainly isn't adding any kind of nightlife or population or cultural amenities or other sources of 'vibrance'.

[voltopt]

That and a good school system. 

This doesn't seem to stop cities such as San Francisco. 

Also, I saw Austin mentioned as a city to live up to.  If Kansas City's aspirations are to be in the same category as Austin, then I think our city has failed.  Austin is small, southwestern and new, and frustratingly annoying in its Texas-ness.  The built environment there, and depth and breadth of it, are rather weak compared to cities such as Portland, Kansas City, and Denver.

[ignatius]

The proposed 'KC Strip' trolley running every 10 minutes directly to all the entertainment districts till 3AM will be more effective at demonstrating vibrancy than a single rail line that would be much more expensive to operate, resulting in less frequency and likely ending at 12-1am.

[bahua]

This thread was loaded and was bullshit to begin with, because we were apparently supposed to be comparing KC to places that are so different from KC that I don't even want KC to be like them. Good transit, good infrastructure, progressive leadership, and people-oriented development would not make Kansas City comparable to Denver, Minneapolis, Portland, or anywhere else. Kansas City is a great place *now* because of the mixes of the many identities it has. Of the cities that have been mentioned so far, I would say Kansas City is closest in feel to Portland, minus the improvements I mentioned.

But right now I would recommend living here to anyone, of any lifestyle, and I'm confident that they would love it. I don't feel the need to compare KC to other "great" cities, because such comparisons are impossible to make.

[nightotter]

My first trip to KC (from Chicago) will come at the end of July. I'll be spending three days and three nights in your fair city. If the culture is half as cool/fun as this forum I don't think I'll be disappointed. I was talking to some of my co-workers about vacationing. They asked me where I was going. I said Kansas City. They looked perplexed for a moment and most of them asked, "Why Kansas City?". I said I didn't know, it just seemed like a cool place. Most of them agreed.

As far as living there, I guess I'll have a better idea when I visit....

[kcmetro]

My first trip to KC (from Chicago) will come at the end of July. I'll be spending three days and three nights in your fair city. If the culture is half as cool/fun as this forum I don't think I'll be disappointed. I was talking to some of my co-workers about vacationing. They asked me where I was going. I said Kansas City. They looked perplexed for a moment and most of them asked, "Why Kansas City?". I said I didn't know, it just seemed like a cool place. Most of them agreed.

As far as living there, I guess I'll have a better idea when I visit....

If you're looking for cool/hip/edgy/hidden gems, you might want to check out a little area known as Village West. It's in KCK at the intersection of I-70 and I-435. Lots of local eateries, boutiques, etc. It even has one of the best fountains in KC. 

[K.C.Highrise]

Cool/hip/edgy/hidden gems? You might also want to pick up some of the crack that kcmetro is apparently smoking. It's an outdoor mall, nothing more.

[PumpkinStalker]

No shit!  Nightotter, you might to pursue this like most things and get a second opinion.

[kcmetro]

No shit!  Nightotter, you might to pursue this like most things and get a second opinion.

Cool/hip/edgy/hidden gems? You might also want to pick up some of the crack that kcmetro is apparently smoking. It's an outdoor mall, nothing more.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sarcasm

[aknowledgeableperson]

Is one talking about KCMO or KC Metro area?

Now, if one is talking about "big city" I doubt that KCMO or even the whole Metro area would ever be called "big city".  So if one wants a "big city" life then KCMO would definitely be out.

Vibrant?  In what way.  One can point out many small towns that have a very active (vibrant) commercial or downtown area.  People walk the streets.  The diners/restaurants are busy, the banks have customers, and the bars are open.  Yes, the nightlife may end early at 11:00 or midnight but one does have to get up the next morning and go to work/church or take care of the children.  The sports teams are well supported, although the highest levels may be junior college or high school.  The arts also have wide support but may be limited to recitals, dance/concerts at the high school gym, school plays, and a mixture of a few craft stores.

Anyway, a vague question that has many meanings to many people.

[trailerkid]

Is one talking about KCMO or KC Metro area?

Now, if one is talking about "big city" I doubt that KCMO or even the whole Metro area would ever be called "big city".  So if one wants a "big city" life then KCMO would definitely be out.

Vibrant?  In what way.  One can point out many small towns that have a very active (vibrant) commercial or downtown area.  People walk the streets.  The diners/restaurants are busy, the banks have customers, and the bars are open.  Yes, the nightlife may end early at 11:00 or midnight but one does have to get up the next morning and go to work/church or take care of the children.  The sports teams are well supported, although the highest levels may be junior college or high school.  The arts also have wide support but may be limited to recitals, dance/concerts at the high school gym, school plays, and a mixture of a few craft stores.

Anyway, a vague question that has many meanings to many people.

I am referring to the urban spine-- the only part that really matters when discussing a real city.

I would never, ever tell someone looking for a big, vibrant city to visit KC. That's like if someone asks you for a "good" movie, you suggest Eraserhead. Yes...it's a good suggestion, but you know many will be disgusted. 

I get that whole underdog thing. I get that people like KC because the cool stuff is harder to find. But at some point you must ask  what progress is being made. Is KC taking it to the next level? Is it a rising or falling city? IMO... it just is. For most, it is a stop along the way. How do we make KC a destination city? KC will continue to attract the anti-cool, art kids (Ssion types) that could build a following in Grand Forks, but there must be an environment and attitude that celebrates, supports and encourages creative, eccentric and intellectual interests. We must be tech-savvy, business-savvy, arts-savvy, education-savvy-- the total package.

BTW, big city does not refer to population specifically. Portland is a small city, but its like W 39th for miles and miles with a healthy, "big city" downtown. It feels like you've arrived...the center of the universe.

[chrizow]

if someone wants to live in a vibrant big city, should he/she move to KC? 

no. 

if someone wants to live in a fun, laidback, livable, quirky big city with a lot of character, should he/she move to KC?

yes.

[DaveKCMO]

if someone wants to live in a fun, laidback, livable, quirky big city with a lot of character, should he/she move to KC?

yes.

perfect!

[bahua]

tk, I know that you like Kansas City, but I don't think you can authoritatively speak to its livability without actually living here yourself. Lawrence is its own thing, quite separate from Kansas City. I've never been very impressed with Lawrence, for example, and I think it's because I don't live there to appreciate all its aspects. I was never impressed with Kansas City before I lived here. Actually, I was never very impressed with Kansas City until I moved downtown.

My point is that when you post a loaded thread like this, it shows an overt disdain for something about which you don't really know, except from the perspective of a visitor.

[Maitre D]

If you're looking for cool/hip/edgy/hidden gems, you might want to check out a little area known as Village West. It's in KCK at the intersection of I-70 and I-435. Lots of local eateries, boutiques, etc. It even has one of the best fountains in KC. 

[ComandanteCero]

yeh, i think there is a qualitative difference between visiting and living in a place (even if you're nearby).  For example, there was a huge difference between living in suburban St. Louis and urban St. Louis (night and day).  Not only because your daily habits change, but you start noticing things, you become more in tune with the city's particular vibe and patterns, where to hang out on any given night. 

I'm sure if i lived in the middle of the art school ghetto near KCAI i'd have a completely different impression of KC than from my current impression, and i'd have a completely different impression again if i lived downtown.