Do suburbs help or hurt a city?

KCDevin · Post by **KCDevin** » Sat Dec 20, 2003 2:30 am

I am creating this poll to see what people think of suburbs.
Personally I believe suburbs hurt the city. As seen with Corporate Woods and OP, it took business away from Kansas City.
Also with our brother to the east STL. It lost 12% of its people from 1990-2000. I happen to think that is one result of its rail and other metro systems.
So what do you think?

eliphar17 · Post by **eliphar17** » Sat Dec 20, 2003 5:12 pm

Suburbs help. Not everyone moving to a city likes the urban atmosphere downtown or on the Plaza, and there has to be some option for them if we want them in our metro. Also, Brookside and the Plaza were once suburbs, as well as Ward Parkway. They are all extremely nice neighborhoods now. Suburbs may seem evil and unnecessary at first, but with time they truly become part of the city.

tat2kc · Post by **tat2kc** » Sat Dec 20, 2003 8:44 pm

I think it depends on the attitudes of the suburban leaders. If their objective is to steal businesses from other areas in the metro area, then it can be bad. If they are simply creating nice bedroom communites with strong ties to the urban core, it can be a big plus.

KCK · Post by **KCK** » Sun Dec 21, 2003 5:27 pm

What do you consider a suburb? By definition it is the usually residential region around a major city; the environs. By this definition, a huge portion of Kansas City, Missouri itself can be considered suburbs. The definition says nothing of the surrounding areas being in a seperate city. Therefore saying that a suburb only hurts a city could suggest that a city is hurting itself by not being 100% urban.

GRID · Post by **GRID** » Sun Dec 21, 2003 8:05 pm

DMW, nailed it. KCMO is mostly suburban. Metro KC is mostly suburban like most metro areas. 9 out of 10 people live in a suburban environment in most cities including and especially a Midwestern town like KC.

Suburbs help the city and the city helps the suburbs.

Our problem is cooperation between the two especially across the state line.

KCDevin · Post by **KCDevin** » Sun Dec 21, 2003 8:12 pm

i dont think its good when people are moving from the city to the burbs (Ex: STL)
or when a burb takes a city's busines (Ex: OP)

KCK · Post by **KCK** » Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:24 am

What about when a KCMO business moves to somewhere else in KCMO? With the exception of centralized news service in the case of Channel 9, does this hurt KCMO?

By the way nothing you say or do can stop people from living where they want to live. Some of us dont like crowded streets, or living in apartments. I live in Kansas, but its not like I moved here from Missouri, I was born here, so you insulting me for something I cant help isnt nice.

Post by **bahua** » Mon Dec 22, 2003 10:21 am

It is absolutely true that most of KCMO's land area is occupied with suburbs or less. What is not convincing at all, to me, is that people like to live in suburban places. People settle for it for the sake of safety, better schools, cheaper houses, and shinier streets. Besides these traits, there isn't a whole lot that redeems suburban places, to me.

It is definitely true that there are plenty of people who don't like living in cities, but these people are happier with rural surroundings, and suburbs are their way of settling for a more hemmed-in existence, in exchange for the economic opportunity that a city provides.

Anyone who thinks that they prefer suburbs over cities, in my experience, has just never really been much exposed to cities. In all but the most urban of cities in America, most of the people live in houses, not apartments, and the streets are only crowded because there is a lot to do. If you refer to auto traffic, then the city offers alternatives to driving your own car. However, in the Kansas City area, the streets are much more crowded with cars in the suburbs than they are in the city.

KCK · Post by **KCK** » Mon Dec 22, 2003 12:06 pm

I drive down Wornall and Holmes near 103rd every day and the streets are packed with cars. I dont see many people walking, unless of course you mean into the stores from the parking lot. As for a lot to do, Im sure there was if you were wanting to buy something or get something to eat, nothing else. Dont pretend like KCMO isn't very similar to Johnson County in spots.

Post by **bahua** » Mon Dec 22, 2003 12:15 pm

In Kansas City, if the street number is higher than 50, you're in suburbs, and like I said, the streets in the suburbs are packed with cars. It's horrible.

GuyInLenexa · Post by **GuyInLenexa** » Tue Dec 23, 2003 3:39 pm

Suburbs help, imagine KCMO ending at State Line.
As I have said before, all great cities have great suburbs.

KCDevin · Post by **KCDevin** » Wed Dec 24, 2003 1:13 am

But what if 1.9 million people lived in KC? even if it would be KCK, OP, KCMO, Independence, NKC, etc... Packed together

KCK · Post by **KCK** » Wed Dec 24, 2003 9:01 am

I sure as hell wouldnt live in a single city that large. Its too big. Besides even Dallas and Chicago have suburbs.

Post by **bahua** » Wed Dec 24, 2003 9:56 am

Yes, it is impossible for a large city not to have outlying adjacent towns, but in KC, the transition from urban to suburban happens far too quickly, over too short a space. For example, if you're driving down Main, at about 43rd, you are surrounded by an urban streetscape. When you get to the Plaza, the sight is undoubtedly urban, but once you're only a block or two south of the creek, you're in suburbs with winding streets and long driveways. There seems to be some kind of "urban border" in Kansas City, where urbanity very abruptly ends, and suburbanity begins. I'd draw it at about 50th St in the south, to the river in the north, State Line or maybe Rainbow in the west, and about Prospect in the east.

Can anyone account for this?

phxcat · Post by **phxcat** » Wed Dec 24, 2003 12:22 pm

You kind of hit it on the head, Bahua. St. Louis seems to ease from urban to suburban. As you drive east on I-70, the buildings become progressively more urban, going from Levitown houses to brick townhouses into the city. KC does seem to have an abrupt shift from urban to suburban.

Devin, you wouldn't want to live in a city that has no suburbs. Granted the city itself would be kind of cool, but there would be no develpment. No company would want to move to a city with no lifestyle alternatives- and the city would not grow.

KCDevin · Post by **KCDevin** » Wed Dec 24, 2003 1:30 pm

Hmm, It would be nice to just have KCK, KCMO, Independence and a few other cities. But suburbs SHOULD NOT HAVE any business whatsoever! It belongs in the city. That is why cities were started! They were business areas where people moved to during urbanization and industrialization. I just hate suburbs. They should only be where people live. Businesses should have no right to go to the suburbs.

KCK · Post by **KCK** » Thu Dec 25, 2003 6:17 am

KCDevin wrote:Hmm, It would be nice to just have KCK, KCMO, Independence and a few other cities. But suburbs SHOULD NOT HAVE any business whatsoever! It belongs in the city. That is why cities were started! They were business areas where people moved to during urbanization and industrialization. I just hate suburbs. They should only be where people live. Businesses should have no right to go to the suburbs.

No business? Did it ever occur to you that a lot of businesses were started in suburban areas, by suburbans, for suburbans. I live in KCK, but if I want to open a gas station, I have to open it in downtown, regardless of the fact that Im surrounded by 150,000 people who need gasoline? I dont think so. Grow up Devin. By the way, you live in the suburbs yourself, probably Excelsior Springs, so shut the hell up. If you like downtown so much, move there. I quite like my suburb of KCK so Im staying here.

KCDevin wrote: Even though I live in a 10k Clay County town I consider Kansas City, MO to be my home. I don't even consider north of the river to be my home even though its the only place I've lived.

KCDevin · Post by **KCDevin** » Thu Dec 25, 2003 8:12 pm

I hate suburbs get over it.
Suburbs should not have any freaking business. That is what cities are for. Suburbs are for commuters who work in the city and shop in the city. That is how cities were created!
I would move downtown but I have friends here and several family members who moved here because we were here. Whenever I graduate high school or possibly college (don't know when ill move) I will move downtown.

by suburbans, for suburbans

Do you think I care? I said NO business should be in the suburbs. The only things they should have are grocery stores, gas stations, hospitals, and wal mart type stores. That is all they need and should ever have. I don't care how uneducated my posts are. I hate suburbs, I dislike STL, I dislike KU so why doesn't everyone get over it!!!!
Something called freedom of speech that you need to learn.

Post by **staubio** » Fri Dec 26, 2003 2:07 am

KCDevin wrote:I hate suburbs get over it.

Do you think I care?

Something called freedom of speech that you need to learn.

Sure, Devin, you have freedom of speech... but this isn't your forum and it isn't mine. We have to do our due diligence to actually contribute to constructive, educational or entertaining conversation. Refusing to acknowlege the valid points of other forumers doesn't do your cause the least bit of good.

It has been said before: great cities have great suburbs. You cannot stop it. If we didn't have suburbs, we wouldn't have the power of 1.8 million people attracting business and entertainment.

Devin, I respect your passion and enthusiasm very much. I wish I cared as much at that point in my life. However, it isn't so easy to put things in black and white. I agree with you: suburbs are the antithesis of the romanticized urban life many of us love, but that love isn't what attracts everyone. That same freedom that affords you the ability to hate the suburbs affords people and business the right to move there. It doesn't do us any good to say they should NEVER have these luxeries. We should focus that energy on making our urban core great so that the city is a no-brainer over the suburbs.

When KCMO gets a business from outside of the area, it is a great success. When OP gets one, it too is a success. If KC can't do the job but OP can bring something in, it is a great asset to the metro as a whole. The city cannot be everything to everyone -- it would ruin the urban aspects of it. A city, in some part, is defined by itself and its surroundings.

Like I said, I admire your passion -- but at least show a willingness to consider the points of others or you are essentially talking to yourself. Don't confuse a realistic evaluation of the suburbs as one that condones irresponsible development or suburban lifestyle -- its just believing strongly enough in the things you do that you are willing to concede when necessary evils can ultimately help your cause.

Sorry, it is late on Christmas night and I'm babbling. I was just hoping to tone down the rhetoric in here a bit. Merry Christmas, everyone!

KCK · Post by **KCK** » Fri Dec 26, 2003 5:36 pm

How old is Devin. 10? 6?

I have never heard anyone talk so foolishly and without any logic. I guarantee KCMO, doesnt have enough room in its borders for all the businesses in the entire metro area.

KCRag Forum