Metropolitan area growth?

[en08]

Does anyone have any idea what our metropolitan area's growth rate is. I hear that there are alot of metros that are growing fast, and I wonder how ours is doing. I know our population is around 2 million people, but I am wondering how much it is growing. I can definatley tell that there is alot of new housing and developments popping up in all areas of the metropolitan area, but I wonder exactally how many people are moving here from outside. Anyone have any info?

[dangerboy]

Population is growing between 1 and 2% a year.  New development far outpaces that growth.  For example, during the 1990s population grew by 12% while the area of development land grew by 40%.

[Gretz]

KC's growth rate compares favorably with most other mid-western cities.  Most Plains states cities are growing at modest paces while the rust-belt and north east have generally shrinking metro areas with many exceptions.  The southwest and west coast of course are growing at dizzying paces as are some Southern cities on the eastern seaboard.  For the plains though, KC is a fast growing city.  For example KC's growth RATE is nearly double that of St. Louis.  In absolute terms the KC metro generally gains around 15K a year though this can vary quite a bit to 12K on the low end and 20K on the high.  St. Louis by comparison averages growth of slightly under 10K with similar variance. 

The census website has some interesting info about migration to/from metro areas.  KC draws a lot from small towns for a few hundred miles in every direction (like me  ) and a lot from smaller plains states cities like Omaha, Tulsa, OKC, Wichita, Lincoln, Des Moines etc.  These cities are mostly growing still but feed almost exclusively off of their rural hinterlands and by organic growth.  So the demographic flow in the region is generally from smaller towns/cities to larger ones with KC drawing from several metros around half its size or less.  KC's size relative to its neighbors is a large reason for its continued strong growth.  Cities like St. Louis often fall into the feeder city category because of nearby rivals like Chicago, in this case.  STL just doesn't have that many feeder cities around.  Just Memphis, maybe Little Rock and its natural rural zone of influence.  Of course many other factors are important as well, such as economics (KC's economy is more service based than STL's which is more manufacturing oriented; this also accounts for much of the growth difference) but geographical layout is a major determining factor at least in our region's demographic movements.  We are blessed in this area.

[FangKC]

Kansas City could grow much faster if it developed a few simple, long-term strategies.

Create another major university and build it to at least 20,000 enrollment. Have it be focused heavily on research, science, health, aging, technology, entrepeneurship, international business, and foreign languages (esp. Chinese).

Encourage and promote legal immigration. Cities that attract a lot of legal immigrants have dynamic economies and vibrant social climates that attract other non-immigrants.  Immigrants often have a harder time affording to live in the traditional cities that have attracted them (New York, Boston, Miami, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle).  It would be much easier for them to afford a home in Kansas City.

Make it easier to live here without a car. Concentrate high density housing along mass transit routes.  This approach attracts retired and elderly people concerned about when they can no longer drive, and younger people starting out who worry about the cost of keeping a car.

Go green. The City should adopt recycling, conservation, and alternative energy policies and set an example.  Continue to play on the advantage of moderate living expenses.  Getting citizenry to take steps to reduce their energy consumption makes energy and utilities cheaper in the long run for everyone. This will make the City more attractive to business decision-makers, who consider fixed operating costs.  Reducing these costs can help us compete with sun belt cities more effectively.

Continue to build on the arts here. The arts can create a richer environment that makes it easier for people to choose Kansas City. Plus, there are all kinds of tertiary benefits of having arts--like tourism.  When I lived in NYC, I don't know how many times I've heard stories from people living there now about adults taking them on a trip as children to see a Broadway show, opera, ballet, or symphony performance. From that day on, they dreamed of living in New York City, and moved there as soon as they were able.  Countless, countless times.  It's a cliche.

Advertise in other cities. Emphasize short commute times. Educate people about the moderate weather. There are plenty of people fed up with where they are living.  Many, many people don't really have an accurate idea of what Kansas City is really like.  I'm always amazed at people's preconceptions, and delighted to hear their impressions after they have come here.

My retired uncle lusts to live in Kansas City. He and my aunt have lived their entire married life in New Jersey, and raised their family there.  Why Kansas City?  Taxes.  He can't believe how cheap property taxes are here.  He also realizes that he could sell his 3-bedroom house for $450,000-$500,000 and buy a similar house here for $250,000. Food and utilities are almost half as cheap what they are there. Insurance is cheaper. Health care is cheaper.  The only thing keeping them there are their children living nearby.  If they could talk their kids into moving as well, they would do so in a second.

[bbqboy]

So swipe New Jersey's Population and Universities, and leave them Atlantic City?
Sounds like a winner.

[Gretz]

Just revisited some statistics and must correct myself.  KC metro growth has actually averaged a little over 21K/year from 2000-2005, not 15K like I said.  St Louis is around 16K/year.  http://www.census.gov/population/www/es ... .html    Guess I was looking at 1990-2000 figures before.

[FangKC]

That's okay Gretz. You corrected yourself and that's admirable. 

[Maitre D]

Kansas City could grow much faster if it developed a few simple, long-term strategies.

Create another major university and build it to at least 20,000 enrollment. Have it be focused heavily on research, science, health, aging, technology, entrepeneurship, international business, and foreign languages (esp. Chinese).

Where would we get the $$$?  Those are very expensive to endow, and operate.  Also, why would a kid from, say, Milwaukee go to KC for a course on Chinese?  Why not go to California?  I'm sure there are far more employment opps for him out there after he graduates.

Encourage and promote legal immigration. Cities that attract a lot of legal immigrants have dynamic economies and vibrant social climates that attract other non-immigrants.  Immigrants often have a harder time affording to live in the traditional cities that have attracted them (New York, Boston, Miami, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle).  It would be much easier for them to afford a home in Kansas City.

Absolutely NOT.  I don't want a bunch of foreigners here, and that's a big reason I live here.  I, like most Americans,  don't like people speaking other languages here, or the economic strain on our schools-healthcare that border states are crushed with.  And I'm fearful of religious extremism they might bring.  This is the LAST thing we need in our city:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070104/ap_ ... _alcohol_2

Make it easier to live here without a car. Concentrate high density housing along mass transit routes.  This approach attracts retired and elderly people concerned about when they can no longer drive, and younger people starting out who worry about the cost of keeping a car.

I'd love that.  I hate cars, I hate driving.  If KC-ites could see the other side, they'd embrace it I think.

Go green. The City should adopt recycling, conservation, and alternative energy policies and set an example.  Continue to play on the advantage of moderate living expenses.  Getting citizenry to take steps to reduce their energy consumption makes energy and utilities cheaper in the long run for everyone. This will make the City more attractive to business decision-makers, who consider fixed operating costs.  Reducing these costs can help us compete with sun belt cities more effectively.

Not sure a biz really makes it's decision to move based on something like this.

Continue to build on the arts here. The arts can create a richer environment that makes it easier for people to choose Kansas City. Plus, there are all kinds of tertiary benefits of having arts--like tourism.  When I lived in NYC, I don't know how many times I've heard stories from people living there now about adults taking them on a trip as children to see a Broadway show, opera, ballet, or symphony performance. From that day on, they dreamed of living in New York City, and moved there as soon as they were able.  Countless, countless times.  It's a cliche.

I guess.  but you can't "out-New York" New York.

My retired uncle lusts to live in Kansas City. He and my aunt have lived their entire married life in New Jersey, and raised their family there.  Why Kansas City?  Taxes.  He can't believe how cheap property taxes are here.  He also realizes that he could sell his 3-bedroom house for $450,000-$500,000 and buy a similar house here for $250,000. Food and utilities are almost half as cheap what they are there. Insurance is cheaper. Health care is cheaper.  The only thing keeping them there are their children living nearby.  If they could talk their kids into moving as well, they would do so in a second.

"Cheap" isn't the only criteria for life - if it were, wouldn't more people move to Topeka than KC?  I'd imagine that's the sales pitch of the backwater towns.

[kcmetro]

Absolutely NOT.  I don't want a bunch of foreigners here, and that's a big reason I live here.  I, like most Americans,  don't like people speaking other languages here, or the economic strain on our schools-healthcare that border states are crushed with.

He said "legal" immigration, not "illegal".

[bbqboy]

That's okay Gretz. You corrected yourself and that's admirable. 

jesus.

[Maitre D]

He said "legal" immigration, not "illegal".

yes.  Most "legal" immigrants do go to border states tho, and generally do strain the infrastructure of said states.  At least short-term.

[FangKC]

Yes, but some Americans put a strain on social services as well.  Legal immigration also brings a lot of new enterpeneurs into a city.  When I lived in NYC, I admired the Koreans, Chinese, and Indians who appeared to be among the hardest-working and most industrious people living there.

Many business leaders and researchers are also noticing the negative effect of limiting legal immigration in the US.   The number of engineers and computer programmers that used to come to the USA has diminished a great deal.   Since so few American youth are entering these fields today, this may be problematic for our country in the future.

One also has to separate illegal immigration from legal.  Many legal immigrants are well-educated and contribute highly to our economy.  Many legal immigrants come to our country because of our high quality of secondary education and opportunity, and they stay after receiving degrees and contribute significantly.

[FangKC]

Where would we get the $$$?  Those are very expensive to endow, and operate.  Also, why would a kid from, say, Milwaukee go to KC for a course on Chinese?  Why not go to California?  I'm sure there are far more employment opps for him out there after he graduates.

Of course it is, but a good university provides many benefits to a community. They are a draw of new, smart residents.  I'm sure it wasn't cheap for William Volker to start up the University of Kansas City (now UMKC). We do have a few billionaires locally, and the lack of a major university has been identified as one of the area's deficits.  Thus why there was an attempt to break UMKC away from the UM system, or and a continuing effort at more local governance.

Why would anyone come to Kansas City to study art?  But people come to the Kansas City Art Institute.  It's cheaper to send a child to study in Kansas City (even with out-of-state tuition) than it is to California because of the cost of living.  Why do people pay out-of-state tuition to study journalism at MU?  Because it's one of the best schools for journalism in the world. 

Absolutely NOT.  I don't want a bunch of foreigners here, and that's a big reason I live here.  I, like most Americans,  don't like people speaking other languages here, or the economic strain on our schools-healthcare that border states are crushed with.  And I'm fearful of religious extremism they might bring.  This is the LAST thing we need in our city.

A little xenophobic huh? Having lived in two cities with a lot of immigrants, I have seen the net positive effect.  Don't buy your argument as long as it's legal immigration.  Um, at times, I'm a little concerned with religious extremism displayed by some American citizens who have been here for generations (Fred Phelps, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson).

Not sure a biz really makes it's decision to move based on something like this.

Sure they do. The cost of energy will increasingly become a factor.

I guess.  but you can't "out-New York" New York.

Nope. You can't.  But that doesn't mean that a city can't try and improve and retain many young people that might otherwise leave, or attract others that might find NYC too expensive and competitive.  Little Branson, MO, has done quite well attracting artists and entertainers of all kinds because there is opportunity there and a low cost-of-living. Kansas City once attracted a lot of performers and musicians in the 1920s-40s because there was so much work here, and it was a cheap place to live.  Many of our most famous residents came and stayed here for that reason, and that's why we have such a distinct jazz heritage.

"Cheap" isn't the only criteria for life - if it were, wouldn't more people move to Topeka than KC?  I'd imagine that's the sales pitch of the backwater towns.

But Kansas City is hardly a backwater town.  Low cost-of-living can be a factor where people choose where to live.  Especially in this day and age where places like New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Boston have living costs twice that of Kansas City.  Many residents are fleeing California for that very reason.  Low cost-of-living is among the main reasons I moved to Kansas City.

[Val]

It sounds like the KC growth rate is set to start increasing even more rapidly.  This post makes it sound like there are at least some long term strategies employed for the city's development, which will only bring in new folks.

[Amused]

Nope. You can't.  But that doesn't mean that a city can't try and improve and retain many young people that might otherwise leave, or attract others that might find NYC too expensive and competitive.

True.  I think it's already happening.  I know of some theater people talented enough to make it elsewhere, but they chose Kansas City because they can have good quality of life here.  You can't enjoy the attractions of NYC if you're working three jobs just to pay the rent.

Technology has changed our world more than we realize.  I believe Kansas City can again become a powerhouse, but we need innovative, decisive leaders.  I was born and raised in Texas, and I've never understood Kansas City's allergic reaction to strong opinions and honest debate.

[advocrat]

What is the most recent statistic for residency in the Loop (including River Market)? I know this has been posted, and, has been the subject of discussion before, but can't remember where to quickly go find the numbers.

From my recollection, it seems like back around 2000, there were around 6500 living "downtown" and perhaps now the figure may be around 11,500 and maybe as high 16,000?  Is this correct?

This information is nice to know, very interesting, and makes good water cooler discussion. 

advocrat

[Gretz]

I don't know about just the loop+rivermarket, but downtown river-31st 35-71 estimate for 2006 was over 16,000 I believe.  Just the loop and rivermarket would be way less than this though, with the large numbers of people in southwest crossroads and union hill areas not included.

[advocrat]

I don't know about just the loop+rivermarket, but downtown river-31st 35-71 estimate for 2006 was over 16,000 I believe.  Just the loop and rivermarket would be way less than this though, with the large numbers of people in southwest crossroads and union hill areas not included.

thanks, your estimate backs up what I thought, and conforms to the area within your boundaries. 16000 is impressive, considering the change and increase over the last 6 years, and recognizing that this has also been regulated by availability, and the advent of new projects.

[KCTigerFan]

I agree 100% on the education angle.  However, I don't think we need a new university.  Let's put additional resources into UMKC.  It is a solid university that could be great if given some more support.  It already has a Medical School and a Law School among other fields.  Specifically with the Stowers Institute adjacent, it could become a power.  Now if we could just get the state to actually fund our higher education institutions properly...

[GRID]

First, change the name back to the university of kansas city.  I have said all along that this is one of KC's biggest drawbacks.  Not having a "major" urban university.