John Travolta and Tom Cruise invade the Crossroads

[kc-vino]

Highlander, very good explanation and additional comments.  Yea San Jose is the exception in the very greater sense of the bay area.  Basically, it is in a desert and people care less about the land like they do about the beautiful areas of SF-Oakland and directly surrounding communities.  

[Highlander]

Highlander, very good explanation and additional comments.  Yea San Jose is the exception in the very greater sense of the bay area.  Basically, it is in a desert and people care less about the land like they do about the beautiful areas of SF-Oakland and directly surrounding communities.  

Well that is part of the issue.  You move to an area because you are attracted to the beauty and recreational possibilities.  The last thing you want to do is to let it be compromised by continued unabated growth.  Unfornutately, this is not an issue with KC.  When there is unabated growth....people just keep moving further out to escape it. 

[eclair]

You move to an area because you are attracted to the beauty and recreational possibilities. 

I still think you are too narrowly focused on natural resources as a main source of economic growth.  I definitely agree they are a factor, but only one amongst many for most people.  I have been thinking of places like Las Vegas, which is one of the fastest growing cities in the US- I highly doubt the people who went there did it for the natural beauty of the desert.  Anyhow, I see this argument as a red herring in terms of stumbling block for KC. We shouldn't let the fact that we don't have a coastline or mountain range feed into the inferiority complex.  We just need to work harder to make the city great in other ways.

[chrizow]

minneapolis, charlotte, atlanta, and austin are other fast-growing, successful cities that do not possess obvious "natural beauty" - at least not on the scale of mountains or coasts.  houston and dallas as well, although i hold them in somewhat lower esteem.

[kc-vino]

I don't know.....Minneapolis is very beautiful with all those lakes.

[Highlander]

minneapolis, charlotte, atlanta, and austin are other fast-growing, successful cities that do not possess obvious "natural beauty" - at least not on the scale of mountains or coasts.  houston and dallas as well, although i hold them in somewhat lower esteem.

Go back and read my two longer posts.  I state that people move to high growth areas for two reasons:  the natural environment and warmth.  Oh yea, and jobs...but these tend to follow growth not necassarily cause it (Las Vegas being an exception but it is out is only a few miles from Zion/Grand Canyons so the natural env plays a role there too).  Those that tend to move to areas of natural beauty have a vested interest in the area, tend to be more progressive/lifestyle minded etc...  Those to move to areas for warmth are generally more typically suburban sorts, that's why you generally do not see much going on in places that like Houston, Dallas etc... outside of continued suburban sprawl.  Minneapolis is, by the way, a very clean nice place with tons of lakes and forests.  

College towns like Austin I consider a category unto themselves.  College towns offer a quality of life that other cities with a similar size will never be able to compete with.  Young entrepeneaurs like it there and tend to stay.

These are generalities.  There are exceptions...not everybody moving to houston is a rabid suburbanite and not everyone going to the Bay Area is doing it for the natural environment.   Read my post also as to when/why KC's industry developed where it did.  All cities of that era have the same issues (Like I said earlier, SF was even damming rivers in Yosemite NP for water/electricity source back then).  Minneapolis is a rare bird, a midwestern city that did not really experience high growth until well after the pre/post-war industrial period.          

[ComandanteCero]

We should probably look to Austin as the model to follow, in terms of making the most of your cultural/educational assets.  It helps that it's kind of the "go to" city for creative/intellectual/progressive types in Texas (which is a massive state, 21 million people), but I think KC could easily define itself in a similar manner in the KS/MO/NE/IA/OK region (which is roughly 16 million people) and reap huge rewards from that.  KU/Lawrence does a good job of serving as a magnet for Kansas collegiates, UMKC could be a much bigger magnet for attracting Missouri state folks (and beyond) if it became more rigorous and academically challenging, KCAI has probably done the most outstanding job of attracting smart visually creative people to the area (and can probably be credited for almost single handedly supporting and generating the vibrant visual art scene that we all enjoy).   

KC's main fortes in my opinion are (in no particular order): Affordability, Cultural Activity (which is surprisingly strong for a metro this size, and could be even stronger), Pleasant weather (we don't have extremes on either side of the thermometer, and we get all seasons), Character/History (even though many civic leaders/developers seem to relish destroying what remains, we still have enough that lend the city a distinct worn in character that is pleasant and gives a sense of personality), Friendly People (relatively speaking).

[KCTigerFan]

I also think we are quick to discount KC as not having natural beauty.  Granted, there is no ocean or mountains.  We do have a beautiful convergence of rivers, lots of greenery and a rather hilly and unique topography.  It is not a desolate wasteland as some would lead you to believe. 

[FangKC]

It's true that outsiders don't realize the beauty of Kansas City. Many visitors are surprised by what a nice city it is.

Paris and London aren't located on a coastline or near mountains. Both have natural environments that are very similar to Kansas City in many ways. Yet, they are among the most desirable cities in which to live in the world.  The cities also don't have the climate advantages of many of our quickly-growing cities.

Neither city is constrained physically by an ocean, harbor, being on an island, or mountains.

Yet those cities continue to thrive, and are among the top tourist destinations.  They also command some of the highest rents, housing prices, and property values in the world. They are very affluent, influencial cities on world culture and global business.

The cities' beauty is largely man-made.  Both cities also have taken advantage of their rivers--making them beautiful assets. Granted, one could argue the fact that they are national capitals has helped each become a world-class-city.

However, I would argue that the architecture, streetscapes, gardens, public art, boulevards, quality of life, cultural and educational assets have made these cities preferred places to live.

I would say that Hallmark has contributed as much to the creative class as Kansas City Art Institute, because many creative people come here for jobs  at Hallmark, and are retained after graduation from KCAI.

Kansas City has the potential to make itself into a very desirable  place to live. It can do so by creating amenities and a beautiful, physical built environment. 

In some respects, Kansas City is doing better than St. Louis though. Most of the recent business expansion and new jobs in Kansas City are in the services sector; whereas in St. Louis, the majority of the expansion is in manufacturing.  Kansas City is diversifying its' economy and moving away from manufacturing at a much faster rate than St. Louis.

[Highlander]

It's true that outsiders don't realize the beauty of Kansas City. Many visitors are surprised by what a nice city it is.

Paris and London aren't located on a coastline or near mountains. Both have natural environments that are very similar to Kansas City in many ways. Yet, they are among the most desirable cities in which to live in the world.  The cities also don't have the climate advantages of many of our quickly-growing cities.

Neither city is constrained physically by an ocean, harbor, being on an island, or mountains.

Yet those cities continue to thrive, and are among the top tourist destinations.  They also command some of the highest rents, housing prices, and property values in the world. They are very affluent, influencial cities on world culture and global business.

Fang

What I describe above is a uniquely American phenomena.  Comparing demographic trends over here in Europe with the US has inherent risks.  I will say this:  Large urban areas can create an economy of scale in terms of the amenities that attract people regardless of their location.  Who would not want to live in London or Paris with the host of services they offer....museums, theater, restaurants, vibrant street life etc...  That is why Chicago and NY will always attract.  What we do not see, however, is rapid growth in northern midwest cities like Cleveland, Indy, Milwaukee, KC, St. Louis, Pittsburgh etc....  It's not that these cities are not progressive or even nice places to be...they just are not large enough, warm enough, or offer the outdoor lifestyle opportunities so many seek.  KC has a higher growth rate than most but we will never have the 10+% growth that you see in places like the west and south.

Again, places like Austin, Columbus, Madison and Fayetville are unique.  As college towns they retain a significant number of the students that pass through and attract others from their region as well. 

[FangKC]

Well, I think the trend could change in a few years. Already we are seeing some out-migration of people from California who are tired of high housing prices, traffic congestion, pollution, gangs, crime, and natural disasters.

There is some evidence that they are choosing to relocate in smaller cities with an affordable quality of life, and slower pace.

We will also have to wait and see what the future brings with issues like global warming, immigration, and terrorism. Granted, it's all speculation at this point, but if any of the dire warnings occur, Kansas City is well-positioned to benefit.

Let's say Al Gore is right and in 50 years we see the glaciers and ice shelves disappear.  The coastal cities are flooding and millions are displaced. Hurricanes regularly damage coastal cities like New Orleans, Miami, Ft. Lauderdale, Daytona Beach, Mobile, Corpus Christi, Savannah, Charleston,  Virginia Beach/Norfolk, Tampa, Houston, and New Orleans.

Cities like Baltimore, Washington, Boston, New York, and San Diego experience regular flooding and loss of built coastal areas.

Changing weather patterns could affect snowfall along the western coastal ranges and the Rocky Mountains. Long droughts could severely affect cities like San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Denver, Las Vegas, Tucson, and Phoenix.

Phoenix and Las Vegas are already experiencing concerns about their future water needs given their projected populations.  The Hohokam Indians abandoned the Phoenix valley centuries ago for a reason. It's thought a prolonged drought dried up the water used for irrigating their crops.

There might be an influx of climate refugees seeking to flee the trauma of regular flooding and storms and seeking a more stable environment.  Of the 375,000 people displaced in New Orleans and Mississippi, 250,000 aren't expected to ever return to the coastal communities.

The effect will probably cause corporations and jobs to move away from coastal cities to safer areas.  Much of this might be caused by insurance companies refusing to insure property near coasts, and higher insurance rates there. Other displacements might come from reduced populations causing stress on the tax base and city services.

Kansas City is sitting pretty.

[trailerkid]

There  is an armature on the roof for a large sign, once had a City National Bank neon on it . In LA they have large neon signs on the Scientology cult buildings.  Will we have a huge red neon towering over the crossroads? 

I hope the Scientologists do put some large signage on top of the building in the same manner as Abdiana and Western Auto. It livens up the aesthetic quality of the neighborhood. 

[Maitre D]

I think this is a positive developement.  Controversial fringe groups are an important part of urban culture and a healthy tolerant city should have plenty of these.  They only add to the intellectual/cultural diversity of DT however nutty some may be, and we should embrace them.

What if Westboro Baptist bought it & moved in? 

[tat2kc]

Scientologists typically don't dance for joy at funerals for innocent people.

[Maitre D]

Scientologists typically don't dance for joy at funerals for innocent people.

I'm sure every religion does some "weird" thing every once in a while.

Besides, that's not hte point anyway.  It's about bringing diversity to the city, and that's what Gretz advocates.

[moderne]

I dunno.  Modern Germany is a very tolerant country nowadays, but for some reason this does not extend to the Church of Scientology.  They are equated with fascists.

[mean]

Besides, that's not hte point anyway.  It's about bringing diversity to the city, and that's what Gretz advocates.

Since when must a desire for increased diversity include a desire for hate groups? I enjoy talking to people from different backgrounds and cultures and learning from them, but I'm not sure there's a lot I want to learn from the KKK or WBC (or Scientologists for that matter, although as far as I know they aren't a hate group, just some wacky wingnut pseudoscientists).

[greentara]

(or Scientologists for that matter, although as far as I know they aren't a hate group, just some wacky wingnut pseudoscientists).

Unless you're a psychiatrist. Then they're big-time hatas.

[chrizow]

unrelated, but...

...does anyone know why someone is spray-painting "TOM CRUISE" on buildings in midtown?  i'm sure it's the work of a jackass, but is there some pop-culture or local reference going on here?

[KCTigerFan]

I am sure it is a few people who have some little joke going on.  Kind of like back in college when the graffiti in Columbia said "Clapton is God."