Fixing the KC Zoo (ongoing)

[JivecitySTL]

Again, I didn't bring St. Louis up in this discussion.

[ChicagoSTLman]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 2004 Events
Click here for details.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What's New at the Zoo?

Omaha Zoo Is The Best Zoo!

Omaha's Henry Doorly Zoo was named the Best Zoo in America according to Reader's Digest , May 2004 edition passing up San Diego and St. Louis for the second year in a row.Omaha's Zoo, home the world's largest indoor rainforest, desert, nocturnal exhibit and indoor swamp, a world-class aquarium, a brand new state-of-the-art gorilla complex where you're the exhibit and the gorillas watch you! and much more! Plan your visit and see why "Family America" calls Omaha's Henry Doorly Zoo the number one family tourist attraction in the country!

off Reader's digest Pree Line also available on www.omahazoo.com

[KCPowercat]

jive...only thing mentioned was about the STL zoo and then the dude from Omaha who says he's from Chicago/STL said something...so you did pretty much bring it up.

So I guess I'd argue there is "more to do" over there....just because you have 2 more movie theatres for example, does not equal out to "more to do".

Sure more of the same stuff to accommodate more people.

What is the urbanized areas population...because we all know that's what's important...not these far fetched CSA's...be consistant with which numbers you use...can't curse the CSA numbers over and over and then use them when it benefits you

[JivecitySTL]

No, I didn't bring it up. Someone said that KC is very much comparable to St. Louis, yet for some reason Omaha is not comparable to KC. If urbanized area population is really what matters (which I agree with), then let's not ignore the facts:

KC has over 700,000 more people than Omaha in its urbanized area.
STL has over 700,000 more people than KC in its urbanized area.

Hence the reason for my ACCURATE analogy that Omaha is to Kansas City as Kansas City is to St. Louis.

For the record, I don't think Omaha is comparable to Kansas City, for the same reason I don't think KC is very comparable to STL.

At least be consistent.

Now back to the topic...

[KCPowercat]

I'm sorry but I see about any city with population from 1.5-3m to have the same type of attractions/amenities (just different numbers)...mainly professional sports...other than that, we've all got about the same crap going on.

but I'm good with your thoughts and ideas on this so let's go with your classification

[chrizow]

chicagoSTLman:

omaha is a lovely town, but there is no way in hell there is "more to do" up there.

if you think KC is all WOF and shopping, youre wrong. that just shows how little you know about KC.

someone experienced with omaha affairs like yourself can undoubtedly find more things to do. if someone off this forum showed you the real KC, you'd admit that it has more to do than omaha - as it should, since it is far larger. omaha is pretty hip, but our arts scene is bigger, our shopping is better, our food scene is way better, the chiefs/royals, and i dont think that a judgment on "people" is even possible. omaha is probably the best 1.2M metro around, but it isn't KC.

the zoo up there is better, for sure. i think that's about it. KC people go to omaha for the zoo, and omaha people come to KC for everything else. there are as more NE plates downtown, at the plaza, westport, midtown, and (gulp) johnson county than any other non-MO/KS state.

i respect your opinion, but it is clearly based on an inadequate knowledge of KC.

i'd say that KC is more comparable to STL than omaha. but i'd say it's even more comparable with milwaukee, cincy, columbus, and other "lower-tier" major cities. omaha is more on par with des moines, since it is a small-ish city with a surprising amount of sophistication and urbanity.

and of course it needs to be said that cities are very difficult to "compare" wholesale. it's more conducive to compare certain ASPECTS of cities. take the arts. KC wins. that's it. with sports, STL takes the cake, though Chiefs fans are pretty incredible. with restaurants, all cities have great ones, though i think KC has more than its share for some reason.

i try to shy away from pissing contests like this, but chicagoSTL's comments are way off base. obviously we're all biased toward our own cities, but it seems pretty much indisputable that KC has more things to do than omaha. you may like omaha better, like the amentities there better, but i think 9 of 10 people would agree KC has more going on.

[trailerkid]

Hence the reason for my ACCURATE analogy that Omaha is to Kansas City as Kansas City is to St. Louis.

For the record, I don't think Omaha is comparable to Kansas City, for the same reason I don't think KC is very comparable to STL.

At least be consistent.

Now back to the topic...

Well you forgot to mention that just as Omaha is not comparable to KC and KC is not comparable to StL....StL is not comparable to Dallas-FW.

Dallas MSA is over 700,000 larger than StL...so StL can't even compare with Dallas.

[KCPowercat]

cities that STL does not compare to (over 700k bigger in urbanized areas)

Seattle
Phoenix
San Fran
Atlanta
Houston
Detroit
Miami
DC

[JivecitySTL]

That's funny, I don't recall ever suggesting that St. Louis is comparable to any of those cities, I'm not really sure why you felt it was relevant to the discussion at hand.

But now that you bring it up, 50 years ago St. Louis was larger than every single one of those cities except Detroit (and more densely populated than all of them)!

St. Louis: built solid.

[KCPowercat]

ahh, this topic is played out....you are much more fun.

just clarifying what each of us could compare "our" cities too.

[JivecitySTL]

Thank you. KC is in a class with Columbus, Milwaukee and Indianapolis. St. Louis stands with Cleveland, Baltimore and Pittsburgh.

[KCPowercat]

true...we stand with the metros growing, you with the central cities shrinking..

ok that was low, I'm done....thanks for playing Jive...you are always a good guy to talk with.

[JivecitySTL]

While we're low, I will concede that KC is right up there with all the other "forward-thinking" and growing metro areas that continually vote down rail transit.

ALL the metros I mentioned are growing, with the exception of Pittsburgh, which is barely shrinking and will likely rebound. In this day and age, city population means about as much as a speck of pidgeon shit on the sidewalk. When all is said and done, KC is doing a great job of building itself up to be what St. Louis already is and always has been.

Checkmate.

[trailerkid]

This is such a dumb idea...700,000 people separate comparable metros? Pure stupidity. I'm sure that the extra 700,000 in Dallas is what makes people relocate there or keeps businesses expanding there instead of St Louis. Get a freaking clue. You can compare any city to any other city...it just depends on what you look at.

Please move this thread to "Comparing cities based only on equal population figures"

[JivecitySTL]

So would you consider Omaha to be in the same class as Kansas City? I don't care about specifics, I am asking IN GENERAL. Thanks in advance for your response.

[trailerkid]

So would you consider Omaha to be in the same class as Kansas City? I don't care about specifics, I am asking IN GENERAL. Thanks in advance for your response.

Class as in what? In population? No. I thought we already hit this....Omaha is to KC as StL is to Dallas. This is according to your complex system(700,000s) of population indicators.

[JivecitySTL]

Actually, I never said that 700,000 people is the threshold that separates classes of metropolitan areas. I said that in response to whoever said that Omaha can't possibly compete with KC, yet KC can somehow compete with STL.

[staubio]

Expand your comparisons a bit more. The relationship between population and this mystical city-goodness rating isn't linear. And some point, you get diminishing returns with additional population. The marginal difference between KC and STL yields less in additional "goodness" than the marginal difference between Omaha and KC. At some point, you start to introduce redundancy. A city with 8 times the population of another may have 8 times the pure volume of attractions, but the diversity of those attractions isn't going to be 8 times.

That being said, I still think these comparisons are impossible and juvenile.

[trailerkid]

Actually, I never said that 700,000 people is the threshold that separates classes of metropolitan areas. I said that in response to whoever said that Omaha can't possibly compete with KC, yet KC can somehow compete with STL.

Right, so under that same assumption...StL cannot possibly compete with Dallas. Population is not everything...enough said.

[KCPowercat]

well historically KC's weiners are bigger than STL's....so checkmate