Kansas, Missouri battle over companies

[chrizow]

Actually these are the main reason, especially the schools.  If you have kids or are planning on having kids, and you already live in the suburbs (KS or MO), are you going to move to KCMO?  95% will not.  Schools are what parents care about...not whether or not they can stroll down to the P&L for a drink or walk to First Fridays whenever they want.  And you can't sustain KCMO with 21-30 year old singles.  KCMO has to be attractive to white families for it to be competitive with the incentives KS is offering.  KCMO also needs an extensive light rail system.

then how do you explain the popularity of cities like SF, chicago, seattle, etc. with both singles and families?  sure some folks bolt for the burbs when they have kids in those places, but many stick it out and find charter schools, pony up for private schools, or send them to decent neighborhood schools.  it's not the reality of the schools that is the issue, it's the non-urban mindset.  the difference is that KCMO isn't as "awesome" as it needs to be to override the "omg the schools are bad" mentality.  schools are just as bad in every desirable urban core in the US.  and, as stated above, there actually are decent school choices in KCMO, people just instinctively assume that every school is a warzone.

[KCPowercat]

He can't explain it because it makes no sense......we need to migrate people in from cities.....not rural surrounding communities. Their mindset is key. What we get now is people that want to live in a city for the job and amenities but still want huge houses for cheap.....

Fyi not everybody has kids....also being attractive to 21 to 30 is sustainable....unless I'm unaware that people have quit making babies all together????

[cityscape]

then how do you explain the popularity of cities like SF, chicago, seattle, etc. with both singles and families?  sure some folks bolt for the burbs when they have kids in those places, but many stick it out and find charter schools, pony up for private schools, or send them to decent neighborhood schools.  it's not the reality of the schools that is the issue, it's the non-urban mindset.  the difference is that KCMO isn't as "awesome" as it needs to be to override the "omg the schools are bad" mentality.  schools are just as bad in every desirable urban core in the US.  and, as stated above, there actually are decent school choices in KCMO, people just instinctively assume that every school is a warzone.

If that's the case then perception is part of the problem.  You can't think that companies will just move to KC because the infrastructure is just awesome.  That's a small piece of the pie (albeit and important one, but one they've been improving recently).  Companies look at all sorts of reasons for relocating and their employee's satisfaction from a retention point of view is usually at the top, especially when you consider how costly it is to replace an employee these days.  KCMO's problem with the schools is that they're always in the news surrounded by more negativity.  People know about the schools in Chicago, Atlanta, etc... and they know they're not the best, but they're not constantly being slapped in the face by the media about how bad the schools really are.  Case in point....L.A.  Schools are always in the news and companies are moving further and further away from downtown.  Bad example to compare cities I know, but the point is how schools DO play an important factor in where a company locates it's offices.

[brewcrew1000]

What do you mean corporates aren't stepping up like OKC and building new buildings?  In Theory, nowadays you don't even need a large skyscraper to do business, you can pretty much work from home these days with new technology.  If i was a company i probably wouldn't build some new skyscraper, seems like a really bad investment if you ask me.

If companies aren't stepping up, why does Sprint have the sponsorship of a new arena, why did the block and kemper family's donate millions to the arts and keep this area a vibrant art community?  

What more do you want from these companies, Twenty new 100 story skyscrapers?  

[chrizow]

to me, i don't really care if a corporation "builds a new building" downtown - although, like the H+R Block building, such projects are great.  the old money arts folks have stepped up to put KC on the national map in terms of the arts, now it is time for the business community to follow suit.  KC could no doubt be a better place to do business, but the fact is that many executives suffer from the same anti-urban, anti-KCMO bias that permeates this area - so they take the bait from Kansas and relocate to SoJoCo and blame it on some red herring like the e-tax or something.  (i have never heard anyone cite the bad KCMO schools or good suburban schools as a reason to move a company).  

companies in KC are behind the times in identifying with the core city in order to attract new, younger employees.  it is an asset, not a detriment, to many companies to be located in the urban core.  as just one examlpe, in my own industry (law), i have heard many senior partners at small and large firms state that the reason they stayed or moved to the urban core (downtown or plaza, often plaza) was because it is good for recruiting top new law grads, who typically do not want to live or work in the far-flung burbs.  this is equally true of other fields - architecture, design, arts, non-profits, etc.  

[brewcrew1000]

But things like law firms, architecture, design,arts, non-profit are already in the urban core and growing.  The kinds of things moving to the suburbs are call centers or satellite offices of huge corporations with HQ in other states. Satellite type offices are usually in suburban office parks to begin with, so if anything Overland Park is more vulnerable if a large corporation was in trouble and they needed to lay off or close a bunch of satellite offices.

[chrizow]

But things like law firms, architecture, design,arts, non-profit are already in the urban core and growing.  The kinds of things moving to the suburbs are call centers or satellite offices of huge corporations with HQ in other states. Satellite type offices are usually in suburban office parks to begin with, so if anything Overland Park is more vulnerable if a large corporation was in trouble and they needed to lay off or close a bunch of satellite offices.

as far as i know, no one on this board is too concerned about call or data centers. we're concerned about homegrown companies like AMC, Sprint, etc. moving or consolidating employees to the hinterlands.  they are not alone, either. 

and in KC in the 80s/90s, every big law firm in town opened an office in JoCo.  some of the offices became pretty big - 30-50 attorneys.  i think at this point all of them, or nearly all, have re-consolidated back into the urban core - sometimes in new structures (see shook, blackwell, and now polsinelli).

[brewcrew1000]

Sprint Started out as Dillo-Brown Telephone Company in Abiliene Kansas.  I think you have to agree that it was better sprint stayed in the region, they could have very easily moved everything to another state or DC when they merged with Nextel.  Milwaukee and Denver lost the corporate HQ of Miller-Coors to Chicago.

[loftguy]

In recent years, the outmigration of businesses from downtown KC has been been greatly influenced by self centered CEO's and upper management.  They have moved their businesses close to where they live.  They could give a rats tush that it's inconvenient for their base of employees, who typically come from all corners of the metro.  In corporations with a board of directors I have long wondered just how asleep they are in allowing this decision.  Kansas incentives help make the case.

Think about some of the cities mentioned, Chicago, NY, Minneapolis, Denver, Louisville.
They each offer luxury housing choices either in, or near, their urban offices.  

KC needs more luxury housing options, in and around downtown.

[KCMax]

In recent years, the outmigration of businesses from downtown KC has been been greatly influenced by self centered CEO's and upper management.  They have moved their businesses close to where they live.  They could give a rats tush that it's inconvenient for their base of employees, who typically come from all corners of the metro.  In corporations with a board of directors I have long wondered just how asleep they are in allowing this decision.  Kansas incentives help make the case.

Think about some of the cities mentioned, Chicago, NY, Minneapolis, Denver, Louisville.
They each offer luxury housing choices either in, or near, their urban offices.  

KC needs more luxury housing options, in and around downtown.

Its not like there aren't nice housing options for the uber-rich in KC. Why aren't these execs living along Ward Parkway or in the Northland?

[KC-wildcat]

then how do you explain the popularity of cities like SF, chicago, seattle, etc. with both singles and families?  

As far as singles go, cities like SF, Chicago and Seattle are common destinations for young, transient professionals.  Young, single people just graduated from college target coastal cities (and places like Chicago, Denver, and Dallas) because they want to live in a huge, exciting city.  Or, for Denver, to live int eh Mountains.  These people don't always stay in these cities forever.  Many move home when they get married and have kids.  Many move out to Jersey or Brooklyn (in the case of NYC).  

Kansas City just isn't in the same class.  STL too.  Look at how quickly their urban core is being destroyed.  Midwestern trend, I guess.  Suburbs provide better schools and higher safety than KCMO.  At least, higher perceived safety.  

As long as the KCMO schools blow and there are excellent schools across state line, we will continue to see cross state migration.  

[brewcrew1000]

In recent years, the outmigration of businesses from downtown KC has been been greatly influenced by self centered CEO's and upper management.  They have moved their businesses close to where they live.  They could give a rats tush that it's inconvenient for their base of employees, who typically come from all corners of the metro.  In corporations with a board of directors I have long wondered just how asleep they are in allowing this decision.  Kansas incentives help make the case.

Think about some of the cities mentioned, Chicago, NY, Minneapolis, Denver, Louisville.
They each offer luxury housing choices either in, or near, their urban offices.  

KC needs more luxury housing options, in and around downtown.

Wasn't luxury housing options Hyde Park many moons ago? I mean there are some pretty huge houses in Hyde Park and that is awfully close to downtown.  Who dropped the ball with hyde park and converted all the huge homes into apartments.

[chrizow]

Wasn't luxury housing options Hyde Park many moons ago? I mean there are some pretty huge houses in Hyde Park and that is awfully close to downtown.  Who dropped the ball with hyde park and converted all the huge homes into apartments.

definitely a tragedy, but most of the huge old mansions in central hyde park have been converted back to grand old single-family homes. 

i dont think it's the lack of "luxury" housing stock that causes migration to JoCo.  between the plaza/ward parkway area, areas of midtown with mansions like Roanoke and Hyde Park, new and rehabbed luxury homes on the westside, and a plethora of $500K+ lofts and condos downtown, there are plenty of marquee properties for executives to choose from, if they want to (and some do--that's who lives in them now, executives and entrepreneurs, etc.). 

[brewcrew1000]

As far as singles go, cities like SF, Chicago and Seattle are common destinations for young, transient professionals.  Young, single people just graduated from college target coastal cities (and places like Chicago, Denver, and Dallas) because they want to live in a huge, exciting city.  Or, for Denver, to live int eh Mountains.  These people don't always stay in these cities forever.  Many move home when they get married and have kids.  Many move out to Jersey or Brooklyn (in the case of NYC).  

Kansas City just isn't in the same class.  STL too.  Look at how quickly their urban core is being destroyed.  Midwestern trend, I guess.  Suburbs provide better schools and higher safety than KCMO.  At least, higher perceived safety.  

As long as the KCMO schools blow and there are excellent schools across state line, we will continue to see cross state migration.  

I think your wrong, young people are starting to move into KCMO and it's catching on, one of our advantages to coastal cities and places like Chicago/Denver is that we have very low costs of living.  I really think the Urban Core is on the rebound, places like Hyde Park are seeing a lot of turnaround with Mac Properties, a lot more people are living downtown and the River Market is starting to become somewhat vibrant now.

[GRID]

It's not just call centers.  I can't even name a call center that has moved.  KC brought in Gateway Computers, but they just fell apart.  It's architecture firms, engineering firms, pharmaceutical companies, light industrial businesses, hospitals, research institutes etc.

Schools.  Come on.  Companies don't care about schools.  They are simply not an issue.  They don't look at the downtown public schools.  I left Brookside/Waldo too when my kids got older.  Those areas can be further from downtown than some area suburbs or parts of KCMO with good schools.  Also, the fastest growing area of KCMO is the northland where most commute (many clear to Kansas).  What difference does it make if you work downtown and live in Brookside, Parkville or Blue Springs.  Brookside is essentially a suburb in this scenario (its relation to downtown).  The difference matters when you live clear down in southern joco (where many CEO's live).  You live Parkville or Blue Springs and your company leaves downtown for joco , your commute only gets worse.  You live at 167th and Nall and all kinds of good things happen!

Skyscrapers.  Totally missing the point people?   I used Cincy and OKC and Omaha as symbolic examples of local companies that are committed to the central city when they could easily milk the city to stay or take incentives to leave.  I don't care if they build a 50 story building, fill an existing building or build a lowrise campus on the riverfront.  That is absolutely not the point.

Sprint buying the naming rights to the arena?  Come on.  Think about that.  Not much risk there.  It's part of their marketing plan, tax deductible and small change compared to the amount they would have invested had they invested more into the city rather than the suburbs.  Sprint seems to be dying now, but at one time, they could have been a game changer for KC, just like what you see in other towns (Charlotte, Minneapolis etc).  I honestly think that if sprint were downtown, they may be a stronger company today and more able to survive in KC rather than ultimately being bought up and dismantled from the area.  Instead, they hit KCMO twice.  First when they vacated 2 million sq ft of office space in KCMO and now as they backfill their subsidized campus with kcmo companies.

There is plenty of luxury housing in urban KC.  Again, there is no demand and if there was, you would see more construction of modern urban luxury housing.

Metro KC =  anti-urban.  Period.

[FangKC]

In recent years, the outmigration of businesses from downtown KC has been been greatly influenced by self centered CEO's and upper management.  They have moved their businesses close to where they live.  They could give a rats tush that it's inconvenient for their base of employees, who typically come from all corners of the metro.  In corporations with a board of directors I have long wondered just how asleep they are in allowing this decision.  Kansas incentives help make the case.

Loftguy identifies a big issue here. Often in our Metro, upper management makes selfish decisions without thought to their employees who live in all parts of the city. Downtown is centrally-located for almost all employees.  119th and Nall is not.

Many of our most influential leaders live in Mission Hills or on the Kansas side.

I've said this before and I will say it again. One of the biggest unsaid things in the Kansas incentives debate is how powerful Metro interests have benefitted from Kansas development policies.  CEOs who live in Kansas can move headquarters there citing the powerful incentives.  They get the Kansas taxpayers to pick up the tab. The companies end up not paying hardly any taxes.  As as been stated earlier in this thread, in many cases, the money put out by Kansas doesn't justify the expense for jobs gained. And as a side-benefit, the CEOs can live closer to home.

If the truth be known, many of these powerful leaders probably lobbied Kansas to create their incentives in the first place.  The incentives really don't benefit regular Kansans in the long run, and run against conservative Kansas values opposing corporate giveaways.

That is why you see most companies moving to southern Overland Park and Olathe, and not Wyandotte County and northern JC cities like Merriam and Mission.  Adding to this is that many of these companies have people who travel a lot, and they are moving a greater distance away from the airports.

[FangKC]

Its not like there aren't nice housing options for the uber-rich in KC. Why aren't these execs living along Ward Parkway or in the Northland?

That is changing somewhat--especially with the National being built up in Parkville, and Shoal Creek north of I-35.

We need to create new high-wealth toney neighborhoods on the Missouri side again in good school districts.  One thing is true, the rich do move. In our history, they moved from Pearl Street in the River Market to Quality Hill, then on to Independence and Gladstone Avenues to Troost, then to Hyde Park and Southmoreland, to Ward  Parkway, and on to Mission Hills and Leawood.

Missouri has overall lower taxes than Kansas now. We should be able to pull the rich back over to Missouri.  Hopefully, we can build new wealthy neighborhoods closer to downtown.

[brewcrew1000]

Loftguy identifies a big issue here. Often in our Metro, upper management makes selfish decisions without thought to their employees who live in all parts of the city. Downtown is centrally-located for almost all employees.  119th and Nall is not.

Many of our most influential leaders live in Mission Hills or on the Kansas side.

I've said this before and I will say it again. One of the biggest unsaid things in the Kansas incentives debate is how powerful Metro interests have benefitted from Kansas development policies.  CEOs who live in Kansas can move headquarters there citing the powerful incentives.  They get the Kansas taxpayers to pick up the tab. The companies end up not paying hardly any taxes.  As as been stated earlier in this thread, in many cases, the money put out by Kansas doesn't justify the expense for jobs gained. And as a side-benefit, the CEOs can live closer to home.

If the truth be known, many of these powerful leaders probably lobbied Kansas to create their incentives in the first place.  The incentives really don't benefit regular Kansans in the long run, and run against conservative Kansas values opposing corporate giveaways.

That is why you see most companies moving to southern Overland Park and Olathe, and not Wyandotte County and northern JC cities like Merriam and Mission.  Adding to this is that many of these companies have people who travel a lot, and they are moving a greater distance away from the airports.

This kind of makes sense, i believe one of the main reasons why Bats Trading is located in Lenexa is because pretty much all of the CEO's and upper management live in the Lenexa area, go to Church in Lenexa and send children to school in Lenexa.  Someone I know who works there has even overheard visitors in the bathroom say this "For a company with huge profits, you would think they would have a little nicer building in a better area of town"

[KC-wildcat]

I think your wrong, young people are starting to move into KCMO and it's catching on, one of our advantages to coastal cities and places like Chicago/Denver is that we have very low costs of living.  I really think the Urban Core is on the rebound, places like Hyde Park are seeing a lot of turnaround with Mac Properties, a lot more people are living downtown and the River Market is starting to become somewhat vibrant now.

First of all, I agree with GRID et al that companies aren't making relocation decision based upon schools.  The vast majority of employees in any given company probably don't live right around the corner, so to speak.  Brookside and Lenexa are both about 20-30 minute commutes from the KCMO CBD furing rush hour.  

With respect to attracting young people, KCMO simply doesn't compete with coastal cities and places like Chi, Denver, Dallas.  Downtown is certainly becoming a better option.  No doubt.  I'm living evidence.  I moved downtown and so have many of my friends.  That said, I just don't think KC is a currently a destination city for young professionals outside of the midwest.  Which is fine.  We just need to focus on retaining the local talent (KU, MU, KSU, UMKC) and attract regional talent (NU, OU, OSU, ISU, etc.)  There are a lot of great colleges in this region.  

[KCMax]

First of all, I agree with GRID et al that companies aren't making relocation decision based upon schools.  The vast majority of employees in any given company probably don't live right around the corner, so to speak.  Brookside and Lenexa are both about 20-30 minute commutes from the KCMO CBD furing rush hour.  

With respect to attracting young people, KCMO simply doesn't compete with coastal cities and places like Chi, Denver, Dallas.  Downtown is certainly becoming a better option.  No doubt.  I'm living evidence.  I moved downtown and so have many of my friends.  That said, I just don't think KC is a currently a destination city for young professionals outside of the midwest.  Which is fine.  We just need to focus on retaining the local talent (KU, MU, KSU, UMKC) and attract regional talent (NU, OU, OSU, ISU, etc.)  There are a lot of great colleges in this region.  

Good post. Sometimes I think we get too hung up on what is not going right without focusing on what is going right with downtown.