CNNMoney.com's Best Places to Live

Find out what's going on in the Sunflower State's portions of the Metro here.
Post Reply
aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12666
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: CNNMoney.com's Best Places to Live

Post by aknowledgeableperson »

As opposed to suburbanites like Metro or AKP who revell in tearing down urban areas and urban living at every opportunity. 
As Tweety would say (paraphased) "He don't know me well, do he?"  To support your statement go ahead and find those posts.  Basically I have said it isn't for me, not tearing it down.  And don't confused my disagreement of some city council decisions with an anti-urban bias.
I feel there is a social responsibility to be rather blunt and confrontational about the evils of suburban living.
What the hell is "suburban living"?  Is it living at 75th and Wornall?  Or 90th?  Or 131st?  Don't forget Brookside, when developed, would have been considered suburban.  I would take your bias as anything that is not in KCMO is suburban.  And as GRID said, every city has its suburbs, so get over it
Then KCMO has not done itself any favors either.  The city should have never annexed outside of 435 or north of the river.  The city has still not recovered from that.  It's spread too thin and it can't figure out what it wants to be.  A city or a suburb.  It tries to be both and fails at both in many cases.
Although I would agree with "most" of what you have said in your recent posts this is one item I with which I would disagree.  Those annexations were meant to give the city areas to grow and to control so it would not become a landlocked city.  If area development would have occurred the way things were envisioned by the city in the 50's and 60's then KCMO would be a crown jewel instead of wondering what went wrong.  But what happened to KCMO happened to every US city in the 70's and 80's.  The development that happened in JoCo during the 70's and 80's could have occurred in the northland around and south of the airport but the city failed to improve the infrastructure in the area ahead of development much like JoCo did.  And if KCMO was restricted to the area you defined then it would be in far worse shape thanit is now.  It's dominate school district would still be the KCMOSD, the population maybe around 225,000 to 250,000 if that, and with a tax base that wouldn't support much of what it has now in that defined area.
Suburban growth and development happens at the expense of urban communities.
Suburban growth and development happens because of the failures or urban communties, and to a degree because of human nature.  Urban communities were and are their own worse enemies.  Whether it was race riots, busing, poorly run school districts, streetcar lines running to areas outside the city, GI Bill, urban housing shortages after the war, population shifts, whatever it was the failure of the urban communities to provide for its citizens to the level that many if its citizens desired. Urban areas as a whole have come back or are coming back and that has occurred over a period of time.  Will it ever be like it was?  Well, I guess that depends on what one thinks what it was like at some time in the past.  There is an old saying about one never being able to go back home.  We may physically be able to go back but it will never be the same.
the suburban mindset that has absolutely destroyed this city for 60 years
Sorry to say but the so-called suburban mindset has been around for way more than 60 years.  When was the CC Plaza started?  When was the first interurban line in the area built?  Cities and/or suburbs have been expanding for well over 100 years now, ever since a man could take a horse drawn or a motorized streetcar to work instead of walking.
Nobody NEEDS a 7 bedroom, 5 car garage with 3 SUVs parked in it....
What about those big mansions along Ward Parkway?
I may be right.  I may be wrong.  But there is a lot of gray area in-between.
LenexatoKCMO
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 14667
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 3:34 pm
Location: Valentine

Re: CNNMoney.com's Best Places to Live

Post by LenexatoKCMO »

aknowledgeableperson wrote: As Tweety would say (paraphased) "He don't know me well, do he?"  To support your statement go ahead and find those posts.  Basically I have said it isn't for me, not tearing it down.  And don't confused my disagreement of some city council decisions with an anti-urban bias.
I'll let your reputation speak for itself.
aknowledgeableperson wrote: What the hell is "suburban living"?  Is it living at 75th and Wornall?  Or 90th?  Or 131st?  Don't forget Brookside, when developed, would have been considered suburban.
You are making this way more existential than necessary.  Sure there is plenty of grey between high rise condo living v. four car garage on a half acre.  The existence of that grey doesn't really change the heart of this argument. 
aknowledgeableperson wrote: Suburban growth and development happens because of the failures or urban communties, and to a degree because of human nature.  Urban communities were and are their own worse enemies.  Whether it was race riots, busing, poorly run school districts, streetcar lines running to areas outside the city, GI Bill, urban housing shortages after the war, population shifts, whatever it was the failure of the urban communities to provide for its citizens to the level that many if its citizens desired. Urban areas as a whole have come back or are coming back and that has occurred over a period of time. 
Racisim is the fault of the urban areas themselves?  Bullshit.  You continue to ignore the harsh reality of what motives drive people further and further from eachother through sprawl.  Call a spade a spade - suburbs exist through government subsidized efforts to assist people in living as far away from people of different socio-economic backgrounds as they possibly can. 
kcmetro
One Park Place
One Park Place
Posts: 6687
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 6:19 pm

Re: CNNMoney.com's Best Places to Live

Post by kcmetro »

LenexatoKCMO wrote: I'll let your reputation speak for itself.

You are making this way more existential than necessary.  Sure there is plenty of grey between high rise condo living v. four car garage on a half acre.  The existence of that grey doesn't really change the heart of this argument. 

Racisim is the fault of the urban areas themselves?  Bullshit.  You continue to ignore the harsh reality of what motives drive people further and further from eachother through sprawl.  Call a spade a spade - suburbs exist through government subsidized efforts to assist people in living as far away from people of different socio-economic backgrounds as they possibly can. 
Racism and a bias against people of different socio-economic backgrounds are two different things.  I don't think racism plays much of a role in suburban sprawl these days.  It has more to do, as you said, with the incomes of those who live next door or down the street.  It's the same logic behind buying a condo or any other property.  You don't invest that much money in something unless it's going to increase in value over time.  If you bought a condo, and then all of a sudden the owner of the building decided, out of the goodness of his heart, that he was going to let a bunch of people come in and live for $100/month in the units in your building, you'd be pissed.  All of a sudden the value of your condo crashes. 
LenexatoKCMO
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 14667
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 3:34 pm
Location: Valentine

Re: CNNMoney.com's Best Places to Live

Post by LenexatoKCMO »

kcmetro wrote: Racism and a bias against people of different socio-economic backgrounds are two different things.  I don't think racism plays much of a role in suburban sprawl these days.  It has more to do, as you said, with the incomes of those who live next door or down the street.  It's the same logic behind buying a condo or any other property.  You don't invest that much money in something unless it's going to increase in value over time.  If you bought a condo, and then all of a sudden the owner of the building decided, out of the goodness of his heart, that he was going to let a bunch of people come in and live for $100/month in the units in your building, you'd be pissed.  All of a sudden the value of your condo crashes. 
Please look up the definition of "socio-economic" class v. "economic" class. 
kcmetro
One Park Place
One Park Place
Posts: 6687
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 6:19 pm

Re: CNNMoney.com's Best Places to Live

Post by kcmetro »

LenexatoKCMO wrote: Please look up the definition of "socio-economic" class v. "economic" class. 
Poor is poor.  It doesn't matter if they're black, white, Mexican, etc.  You don't see people in OP raising hell about rich black, Indian, or Asian people moving in.  If you're rich, you're rich.  That's all that matters.
LenexatoKCMO
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 14667
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 3:34 pm
Location: Valentine

Re: CNNMoney.com's Best Places to Live

Post by LenexatoKCMO »

kcmetro wrote: Poor is poor.  It doesn't matter if they're black, white, Mexican, etc.  You don't see people in OP raising hell about rich black, Indian, or Asian people moving in.  If you're rich, you're rich.  That's all that matters.
Point is suburbs are designed to help people flee from other people who aren't like them: black v. white, blue collar v. white collar, etc.  It doesn't really matter - as soon as someone from a different socio-economic group shows up on the cul-de-sac its time to pack up and move further away.  It happens over and over again.  Too many Ford plant workers or mexicans start moving into your neighborhood? - fine the federal government will gladly build you more freeway to help whisk you further away from all of that.  And since you are only going to be staying in your new neighborhood long enough for the "undesireables" to show up, might as well build it even more flimsy and disposable than the last.  When we are all constantly fleeing, no need to build anything to last. 
User avatar
KCPowercat
Ambassador
Posts: 34137
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
Location: Quality Hill
Contact:

Re: CNNMoney.com's Best Places to Live

Post by KCPowercat »

Also not very knowledgeable on how condo work. His example makes no sense.
http://downtownkcmo.blogspot.com

Tweeting live from Big 12 tournament @downtownkc
NDTeve
Oak Tower
Oak Tower
Posts: 4649
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 3:55 pm

Re: CNNMoney.com's Best Places to Live

Post by NDTeve »

LenexatoKCMO wrote: Point is suburbs are designed to help people flee from other people who aren't like them: black v. white, blue collar v. white collar, etc.  It doesn't really matter - as soon as someone from a different socio-economic group shows up on the cul-de-sac its time to pack up and move further away.  It happens over and over again.  Too many Ford plant workers or mexicans start moving into your neighborhood? - fine the federal government will gladly build you more freeway to help whisk you further away from all of that.  And since you are only going to be staying in your new neighborhood long enough for the "undesireables" to show up, might as well build it even more flimsy and disposable than the last.  When we are all constantly fleeing, no need to build anything to last. 
I'd agree with most of this...you can't argue that "bigger yard" and "bigger house" aren't factors either though.
"Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first."
- Mark Twain
User avatar
KCPowercat
Ambassador
Posts: 34137
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
Location: Quality Hill
Contact:

Re: CNNMoney.com's Best Places to Live

Post by KCPowercat »

Lord knows that family of 4 needs the biggest house for the money.
http://downtownkcmo.blogspot.com

Tweeting live from Big 12 tournament @downtownkc
LenexatoKCMO
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 14667
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 3:34 pm
Location: Valentine

Re: CNNMoney.com's Best Places to Live

Post by LenexatoKCMO »

NDTeve wrote: I'd agree with most of this...you can't argue that "bigger yard" and "bigger house" aren't factors either though.
That was a lot more true thirty to forty years ago than it is today.  Sure back when folks were moving from north JoCo to central Joco - that was a big shift from one-car garage ranches up to two story, two car garage houses, that was usually a big upgrade in space.  But it reaches a diminishing return for the money.  Odds are that the folks fleeing central JoCo to south JoCo will probably wind up in something pretty similar in size to what they left.  Sure there are some high end developments that get into the 3k+ sq ft, 3 car garage range, but those require a big change in tax bracket - the bulk of what is getting built out there these days is identical in footprint to what was getting built 20-30 years ago in central joCo.  Just newer and more homogenous.
User avatar
KCMax
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 24051
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 3:31 pm
Location: The basement of a Ross Dress for Less
Contact:

Re: CNNMoney.com's Best Places to Live

Post by KCMax »

And some people just like new houses. There are some people that just don't like anything second hand or re-used. We have become a very disposable society.
SAVE THE PLAZA - FROM ZOMBIES! Find out how at:

http://twitter.com/TheKCRag
User avatar
chrizow
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 17164
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2003 8:43 am

Re: CNNMoney.com's Best Places to Live

Post by chrizow »

and, i think that yards may actually be getting smaller at times.  in the 60s-80s it seems like many suburban developments in the KC area had HUGE backyards.  by contrast, it seems that in a lot of newer subdivisions, the houses are often actually closer together, with smaller backyards.  in my brother's circa-2000 outer-suburban neighborhood, the houses are almost as close together as houses in midtown, with tiny yards.  
kcmetro
One Park Place
One Park Place
Posts: 6687
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 6:19 pm

Re: CNNMoney.com's Best Places to Live

Post by kcmetro »

LenexatoKCMO wrote: Point is suburbs are designed to help people flee from other people who aren't like them: black v. white, blue collar v. white collar, etc.  It doesn't really matter - as soon as someone from a different socio-economic group shows up on the cul-de-sac its time to pack up and move further away.  It happens over and over again.  Too many Ford plant workers or mexicans start moving into your neighborhood? - fine the federal government will gladly build you more freeway to help whisk you further away from all of that.  And since you are only going to be staying in your new neighborhood long enough for the "undesireables" to show up, might as well build it even more flimsy and disposable than the last.  When we are all constantly fleeing, no need to build anything to last. 
I think you're oversimplifying this quite a bit.  It's far more complicated than black or brown people moving in.  Property values begin decreasing at first not because of the people moving in, but because of the people moving out.  "NEW" is always going to be alluring to peoples' eyes.  You do have a point about subsidizing the building of the suburbs.  Developers get tax breaks to build newer and newer, further and further away.  People see these new developments and want to live there.  So they sell their home and move a mile south.  Once the people on the lower rung of the socioeconomic ladder begin moving in, the damage to property values has already taken hold because the neighborhoods are already viewed as being less desirable than the newer developments.
User avatar
KCPowercat
Ambassador
Posts: 34137
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
Location: Quality Hill
Contact:

Re: CNNMoney.com's Best Places to Live

Post by KCPowercat »

New is always alluring no matter the location?  Ehhh.  How about build new in established neighborhoods instead of further sprawl?
http://downtownkcmo.blogspot.com

Tweeting live from Big 12 tournament @downtownkc
kcmetro
One Park Place
One Park Place
Posts: 6687
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 6:19 pm

Re: CNNMoney.com's Best Places to Live

Post by kcmetro »

KCPowercat wrote: New is always alluring no matter the location?  Ehhh.  How about build new in established neighborhoods instead of further sprawl?
Nobody said "no matter the location".  That's a lot of loopholes you'd have to jump through to build new developments in established places.  It would mean condemning property and a whole crap load of other issues.  Building new on undeveloped farmland means everything is new...not just the homes.  The roads, restaurants, schools...NEW NEW NEW!  That's what people like.
User avatar
KCPowercat
Ambassador
Posts: 34137
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
Location: Quality Hill
Contact:

Re: CNNMoney.com's Best Places to Live

Post by KCPowercat »

Not everybody.
http://downtownkcmo.blogspot.com

Tweeting live from Big 12 tournament @downtownkc
mudjack
New York Life
New York Life
Posts: 436
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 11:07 am

Re: CNNMoney.com's Best Places to Live

Post by mudjack »

I've yet to live in a house that's younger than I am and I like it that way.
kcmetro
One Park Place
One Park Place
Posts: 6687
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 6:19 pm

Re: CNNMoney.com's Best Places to Live

Post by kcmetro »

KCPowercat wrote: Not everybody.
I don't either.  But we're not talking about exceptions.  We're talking about the rule, especially in places like south JOCO.
User avatar
KCPowercat
Ambassador
Posts: 34137
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
Location: Quality Hill
Contact:

Re: CNNMoney.com's Best Places to Live

Post by KCPowercat »

I think most here unlike you just can't justify defending that type of use and throw away and move further away behavior.  That's the whole point.
http://downtownkcmo.blogspot.com

Tweeting live from Big 12 tournament @downtownkc
LenexatoKCMO
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 14667
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 3:34 pm
Location: Valentine

Re: CNNMoney.com's Best Places to Live

Post by LenexatoKCMO »

kcmetro wrote: I think you're oversimplifying this quite a bit.  It's far more complicated than black or brown people moving in.  Property values begin decreasing at first not because of the people moving in, but because of the people moving out.  "NEW" is always going to be alluring to peoples' eyes.  You do have a point about subsidizing the building of the suburbs.  Developers get tax breaks to build newer and newer, further and further away.  People see these new developments and want to live there.  So they sell their home and move a mile south.  Once the people on the lower rung of the socioeconomic ladder begin moving in, the damage to property values has already taken hold because the neighborhoods are already viewed as being less desirable than the newer developments.
I think you are starting to get it.  If the government didn't subsidize and facilitate sprawl to the extent they have, than the cost of moving further out goes up dramatically - both in dollars and in time.  If we didn't have many, many billions invested in the KC suburban freeway system and vast arterial road network, it might take well over an hour for someone living at 151st street to get much of anywhere.  Without the massive sprawl infrastructure, people might just have to buck up and deal with it when someone not exactly like them moves onto their block or if their kids find themselves sitting next to someone in school who speaks another first language.  Without the government making it easy to flee, perhaps folks decide to stay and maintain/improve their house and property and as a result the neighborhood stays stable in value despite some different folks moving in.  
Post Reply