ComandanteCero wrote:
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.
but isn't that true of anywhere? Overland Park=Walnut Creek=Beaverton
to a certain extent, but i think we all agree that KC could use more pedestrian friendly 24/7 neighborhoods. Other than rural or small town folks, I don't find many people saying "KC is too hectic as it is!!"
edit: I should say "some" rural/small town folks
KC Region is all part of the same animal regardless of state and county lines.
Think on the Regional scale.
bahua wrote:
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.
What specifically have I said that would be untrue if I lived within city limits? It's outrageous, but not surprising to have people on this board discount information from people "not living the city life." I don't have a car parked in my condo garage...you're right! You discount the opinions of all visitors too? What exactly are we trying to do in this city if the only opinion that matters is those that hang out at Grinders? That'll get us really far. Guess we should've ignored the Sasaki plan according to your logic. What do they know? Grid is just a visitor too I guess.
If your realm of discussion skills are that dense that you cannot acknowledge the value of an "outsider" perspective, you should stick to commenting on beer and attending Flunkhouser parties.
GUESS WHAT!!! KC IS NOT IMPRESSIVE...PERIOD. That needs to change for visitors and residents alike. That's all I'm saying.
trailerkid wrote:
I think your first words were that this thread is bullshit. Delete it, Mr. Diplomat.
Actually I think I'll just lock it until, maybe, the children can stop rough-housing.
I changed my mind. But do play nice or this thread will go away. Thanks!
trailerkid wrote:
I want KC to become relevant again. There are people completely satisfied with it being a third-tier city with a self-defeating attitude. I'm not.
How do you propose Kansas City become anything but a third-tier city?
"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
You wrote:
No. KC has little to offer in comparison to other cities. Yes. KC offers the best a big city can.
Because both of those answers are bullshit. Neither is true. They only reinforce your little shit-parade of how you think KC is not moving the way you think it should be. I was being diplomatic, because you were obviously being overly dramatic, in the fact that you started a bullshit thread.
Kansas City is a great city, and a great place to live. It changes immeasurably with every passing year, and yet because it still has problems some people love taking shots at it to belittle the people that have made the choice and sacrifices to live there and love it. People that like to make themselves feel smugly superior. People like you.
I don't appreciate your baiting bullshit agenda-driven threads, thinly-veiled as genuine constructive criticism, especially when it's something about which you've shown demonstrable ignorance.
I avoided this thread from the start because I knew it would be useless. If you want to talk about ambiguous concepts that people look for in cities and try to define and measure them, it is a losing battle.... and yes, I think it helps to actually live here to better understand those intangibles.
I'd also say that optimism will go a long way and repeatedly throwing up our hands and saying "KC just isn't there yet!" only does harm. Would I encourage someone to live in KC? Yes. If I wouldn't, I have no business being here myself.
bahua wrote:
I don't appreciate your baiting bullshit agenda-driven threads, thinly-veiled as genuine constructive criticism, especially when it's something about which you've shown demonstrable ignorance.
I kinda like threads like this. They're interesting, and they drive real discussion. Are we really supposed to get excited about
1) "best salad bar"
2) "summer swimming holes"
3) "demolished telephone building on oak"
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.
"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
the thread doesn't pose a "bullshit" question, though it does present a rather unanswerable one. for some people, KC offers everything they want in city living and then some. for others, it does not. these groups of people are no doubt rather diverse lots - how can one say what could change their minds?
the question is how can KC be more attractive to those who aren't "impressed" or blown away by it.
i really have no idea what the answers are to these questions, but i will say that i have never failed to "impress" an out-out-town visitor with what KC does have to offer. KC won't blow away people from NYC or Chicago in terms of density, vibrancy, etc., but KC is very charming in its own way.
just recently i was helping my gf entertain a visitor in town - a denver native and current resident of madison, wi. she claims to be a "big city" person and only wants to live in NYC, Paris, London, etc. when she is finished with her phD. her first day here, she was polite but visibly unimpressed and somewhat bored with KC. by the end of her third day here, she said, and i quote: "y'know, i didn't really think much of KC at first, but now i get it. i can see why you choose to live here, and i could see myself here as well, really." her reasons included the ample greenspace, vibrant but approachable arts scene, laidback and interesting people, low cost of living, "cute" architecture, etc.
i don't think KC will ever blow anyone way, particularly those who get off on "big city" bustle, extreme density, and no-brainer walkability. it just isn't that kind of town. its pleasures and charms are understated. it isn't NYC or Chicago or SF, and it isn't even a sunbelt boomtown like atlanta, dallas, or austin. it is what it is - a quiet, laidback, funky midwestern metropolis with a lot to offer for those willing to look.
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.
Seriously, there's a lot of good stuff in there actually. I'd swap out #11 for: "Downtown Baseball" and that's a really good list. No kidding.
No. KC has little to offer in comparison to other cities. Well, it obviously has a lot to offer in comparison with a lot of cities. Maybe not New York or Chicago, but definitely Dallas or St. Louis.
Yes. KC offers the best a big city can. Well, obviously not. The Best a big city can offer is only on offer in a handful of cities -- the aforementioned NY and C'go come to mind.
The answer is somewhere between the two, because the answer to both these questions is false.
Every city has it's flaws, so perhaps this thread should be what would make KC better. I don't see why someone would want their city to strive to be like any other city, such as Chicago. I love going to Milwaukee because it's not Chicago, where I live. I don't think I would be half as excited about coming to KC if I thought it was anything like Chicago. Looking for the unique character of a new city is half the fun. On the other hand I can see why someone would compare something like public transportation, city to city, as a means of gauging where your city is at and what it could be.
Things can always be better.
Despite the heat that has come from this thread, I find it an interesting read.
bahua wrote:
Because both of those answers are bullshit. Neither is true. They only reinforce your little shit-parade of how you think KC is not moving the way you think it should be. I was being diplomatic, because you were obviously being overly dramatic, in the fact that you started a bullshit thread.
Kansas City is a great city, and a great place to live. It changes immeasurably with every passing year, and yet because it still has problems some people love taking shots at it to belittle the people that have made the choice and sacrifices to live there and love it. People that like to make themselves feel smugly superior. People like you.
I don't appreciate your baiting bullshit agenda-driven threads, thinly-veiled as genuine constructive criticism, especially when it's something about which you've shown demonstrable ignorance.
Again, what is getting better? Specifically...make me an informed outsider.
What did I say that was smug and ignorant? I just want to know since I'm "not playing nice."
how do you expect somebody to quantify what quality of life is "getting better".
Downtown living is better
Downtown entertainment is better
Nightlife in general is better (smoking ban)
Transit is better
Neighborhoods are better
Crime is better (going down)
performing arts are better
art is better
pedestrian experience is better
There are just a few things I find that are better than they were 3 years ago.
KCPowercat wrote:
how do you expect somebody to quantify what quality of life is "getting better".
Downtown living is better
Downtown entertainment is better
Nightlife in general is better (smoking ban)
Transit is better
Neighborhoods are better
Crime is better (going down)
performing arts are better
art is better
pedestrian experience is better
There are just a few things I find that are better than they were 3 years ago.
living - more options, DCID, more retail, more bars, more restuarants
entertainment - P&L, expanded crossroads, better city market, CBE, Sprint Center
nightlife - smoking bar, more options, more upbeat bars (as opposed to 1000 Grandfallons)
transit - MAX, Troost MAX, rail planning, directs from KCI seem to keep expanding
neighborhoods - more focus on basic services
crime - crime is down
performing arts - New rep theatre, PAC, bigger music hall,
art - expanded Nelson, more and more crossroads art galleries
pedestrian experience - less "dead zones", streetscaping, more people on the street, DCID, more interaction with restaurants and bars
