Panasonic Electric Vehicle Battery Plant (Mystery Kansas 'Mega Project')

[AlkaliAxel]

"That mystery company that Kansas officials are trying to lure? Kansas @GovLauraKelly said today @KCURUpToDate that she's very confident the state will land it."

https://twitter.com/stevekraske/status/ ... 0124096513

[GRID]

IMO, I consider them part of the metro. They are on the fringe but from a practicality standpoint they are within the Metro. I mean if the Metro extends out to Bonner Springs & Tonganoxie I think Lawrence is doable. It's only like 25miles to Lawrence from DeSoto.

I would love to include it more into the metro, especially having a 2nd major university in the area after UMKC. No real down side for KC Metro to look at ways to include it more through mass transit, etc. But I think within the next 20 yrs you'll see more of an uninterrupted tract of housing & development from DeSoto to Lawrence within the K10 corridor. Along I70 might take longer, as there is not much town wise West past Bonner Springs until you hit Lawence. Towns North and South of 170 but nothing right in the path so to speak.

I agree. First of all, our KC metro high schools are in the same division as Lawrence & Lawrence Free State, but yet we're not the same metro?

And it's kinda bullshit that we are shown as a "2.2 mil metro population" the same as Cincy or Columbus, etc. but in reality we have Lawrence, Topeka, St. Joseph all straddling right outside the metro that makes like an extra 380k(!!) people. So we're shown smaller than reality. And I know, that's part of the CSA, but..yeah. Add Lawrence.

Let's say we add Douglas County, KS (Lawrence) to the metro. That puts us at 2,311,000. That makes Austin & Sacramento our closest peer cities instead of Columbus and Cincinnati.

While I agree that Lawrence should be part of the KC MSA (It already is part of the KC CMSA), KC IS a peer to cities like Cincy and Columbus. Austin will be a million people bigger than KC in the next 20 years. They will no longer be a peer to KC and be more of a peer to Denver and MSP.

Face it. KC is still a relatively slow growing metro. Also, if you want to add places like Topeka to KC, then you have to add Dayton to Cincy, which is MUCH larger than Topeka.

In general, KC is a 2.4 million metro area. (KCMO + Lawrence/StJoe/Warrensburg). Nothing wrong with that, but KC is sort of on the bubble of being a 1st/2nd tier city with pro sports, destination convention center etc. KC is likely to slip to a third tier city over the next few decades along with Cleveland. (Cincy and Dayton will eventually grow together so that will keep Cincy a top 30 metro)

[Anthony_Hugo98]

IMO, I consider them part of the metro. They are on the fringe but from a practicality standpoint they are within the Metro. I mean if the Metro extends out to Bonner Springs & Tonganoxie I think Lawrence is doable. It's only like 25miles to Lawrence from DeSoto.

I would love to include it more into the metro, especially having a 2nd major university in the area after UMKC. No real down side for KC Metro to look at ways to include it more through mass transit, etc. But I think within the next 20 yrs you'll see more of an uninterrupted tract of housing & development from DeSoto to Lawrence within the K10 corridor. Along I70 might take longer, as there is not much town wise West past Bonner Springs until you hit Lawence. Towns North and South of 170 but nothing right in the path so to speak.

I agree. First of all, our KC metro high schools are in the same division as Lawrence & Lawrence Free State, but yet we're not the same metro?

And it's kinda bullshit that we are shown as a "2.2 mil metro population" the same as Cincy or Columbus, etc. but in reality we have Lawrence, Topeka, St. Joseph all straddling right outside the metro that makes like an extra 380k(!!) people. So we're shown smaller than reality. And I know, that's part of the CSA, but..yeah. Add Lawrence.

Let's say we add Douglas County, KS (Lawrence) to the metro. That puts us at 2,311,000. That makes Austin & Sacramento our closest peer cities instead of Columbus and Cincinnati.

While I agree that Lawrence should be part of the KC MSA (It already is part of the KC CMSA), KC IS a peer to cities like Cincy and Columbus. Austin will be a million people bigger than KC in the next 20 years. They will no longer be a peer to KC and be more of a peer to Denver and MSP.

Face it. KC is still a relatively slow growing metro. Also, if you want to add places like Topeka to KC, then you have to add Dayton to Cincy, which is MUCH larger than Topeka.

In general, KC is a 2.4 million metro area. (KCMO + Lawrence/StJoe/Warrensburg). Nothing wrong with that, but KC is sort of on the bubble of being a 1st/2nd tier city with pro sports, destination convention center etc. KC is likely to slip to a third tier city over the next few decades along with Cleveland. (Cincy and Dayton will eventually grow together so that will keep Cincy a top 30 metro)

I SINCERELY doubt KC drops to a 3rd tier city in the next few decades

[AlkaliAxel]

Face it. KC is still a relatively slow growing metro.

No...you got it backwards. Cincinnati grew about half the pace of KC, which is what would be described as “slow growth”.

If KC adds Douglas County to the metro, they pull ahead of Cincy and then Cincy will never be able to catch up.

KC grew ABOVE the national average by a couple %. And now, as of recent years, KCMO itself is finally starting to rev up great growth numbers. Everything has been moving up while basically the entire rest of the Midwest has been collapsing.

[AlkaliAxel]

KC is likely to slip to a third tier city over the next few decades along with Cleveland. (Cincy and Dayton will eventually grow together so that will keep Cincy a top 30 metro)

LOL what?

Do you have any idea the numbers of what you're talking about or do you just spout things out for effect?

[GRID]

It's all relative man. Don't freak out. There can only be so many top cities and KC is just not really keeping up and it's already sort of a "bubble" major league city. It's just demographics. KC has been slipping in the ranks since the 1950's. KC was once a solid top 20-25 metro and it's creeping into the mid to high 30's depending on how you calculate the metro (Media market, MSA, CSA, Airport volume, GDP etc).

I just said the only reason Cincy will stay a larger market is because it has Dayton and as they grow together, that's well over 3 million people.

Things could change and KC could take off, but there are several cities that have recently or will soon pass metro KC in population.

You know, when I was growing up there, KC was a true peer to Denver. Now Denver is in a totally different tier and climbing. KC compares well to rustbelt cities, but not most cities outside of the rustbelt.

And the national average includes all the rural areas which lose people and very large metros like NYC and Chicago which can lose people or grow slow, but will always be top tier metros.

Again, It's just demographics. No reason to take it personal.

[AlkaliAxel]

It's all relative man. Don't freak out. There can only be so many top cities and KC is just not really keeping up and it's already sort of a "bubble" major league city. It's just demographics. KC has been slipping in the ranks since the 1950's. KC was once a solid top 20-25 metro and it's creeping into the mid to high 30's.

I just said the only reason Cincy will stay a larger market is because it has Dayton and as they grow together, that's well over 3 million people.

Things could change and KC could take off, but there are several cities that have recently or will soon pass metro KC in population.

Okay..so you don't know what you're talking about then. Dayton is dying. Literally losing people. It's actually getting "further" from Cincy by that logic. Cincinnati is stagnant. Cleveland is stagnant. Pretty much the whole midwest east of the Mississippi River is dying because they're all rust belt.

You know who who might actually become a third-tier city? Cincinnati and Cleveland

There are like...2 or 3 cities in the entire Midwest that are actually growing at a great clip, and KC is one of them. It's possible that at the end of this decade KC is the fastest growing population in the whole Midwest.

Nobody is remotely trying to put a sports team in "the peers" like STL, Cincy, Indy, Columbus, Pittsburgh...but yet KC is mentioned as a serious contender anytime an NBA/NHL team comes up. Why? Because people have taken note and realize it's an increasingly growing & more vibrant city unlike those peers. That is the reality.

[GRID]

StL has almost a million more people than KC. They will remain a higher ranked city for some time. There is reason KC is always talked about, but never actually gets a team even though it's had a major league arena for some time now. It's just not that big of a metro so squeezing another pro team into the KC market is a challenge. Not to say it won't happen, but it's a challenge.

KC is about to have to have a major stadium issue on its hands and will need to come up with 1-2 billion dollars. KC will have its hands full with that.

[AlkaliAxel]

StL has almost a million more people than KC.

They don't? Also nobody cares about Stl

There is reason KC is always talked about, but never actually gets a team even though it's had a major league arena for some time now.

Because there's been no availability or moves. Seattle hasn't even been able to get NBA. However, it's coming due in the next few years...two new expansions, and 1-2 teams are gonna be moving.

And what I'm saying is, there's a reason KC is a legit contender and the "peers" aren't.

[Anthony_Hugo98]

StL has almost a million more people than KC. They will remain a higher ranked city for some time.

The metro area trends between KC and STL paint a different picture. STL experienced a decline for their MSA by .05% in ‘19, and didn’t break above .25% for population increases in any of the following years, and is only projecting .23% for this year.

In this same time frame, KC hasn’t been below .66%, and that includes the data for ‘20, and we’re projected to have some .77% growth this year alone.

Since 1980, KC has frequently seen a higher percentage growth every year than STL, sometimes by as much as 1% or more.

Also if we’re going off of MSA population, the difference in population is only about 630,000. Sure you can say I’m merely playing semantics, but arguing that STL has “almost a million more people” is not accurate.

The Numbers shift even further for KC when you do CSA numbers, with KC at 2,528,644, whereas St Louis is sitting at 2,909,003

Sources can be provided if you’d like.

[Cratedigger]

KC star article says that it might be a Panasonic battery plant in Johnson County. Specifically mentions the Sunflower site
https://t.co/KnH4WBtDdi

[GRID]

StL has almost a million more people than KC. They will remain a higher ranked city for some time.

The metro area trends between KC and STL paint a different picture. STL experienced a decline for their MSA by .05% in ‘19, and didn’t break above .25% for population increases in any of the following years, and is only projecting .23% for this year.

In this same time frame, KC hasn’t been below .66%, and that includes the data for ‘20, and we’re projected to have some .77% growth this year alone.

Since 1980, KC has frequently seen a higher percentage growth every year than STL, sometimes by as much as 1% or more.

Also if we’re going off of MSA population, the difference in population is only about 630,000. Sure you can say I’m merely playing semantics, but arguing that STL has “almost a million more people” is not accurate.

The Numbers shift even further for KC when you do CSA numbers, with KC at 2,528,644, whereas St Louis is sitting at 2,909,003

Sources can be provided if you’d like.

I know all those numbers. I was exaggerating when I said a million but STL is still a much larger market than KC and will be for some time. By the time KC catches StL both cities will be struggling to be as relevant in the US unless KC really takes off in the next 20 years. Once you get too far from the top 30 metros, you really struggle to be a top or second tier metro for pro sports, conventions, major sporting events etc.

All I'm saying KC is not a huge city and it's not a fast growing city. It's not necessarily growing that slow, but it's not a fast growing metro. KC is already a bubble city. Being around the 30th to 32nd largest metro. The metro will fall to the mid 30's as more cities pass KC.

While KC is a legacy city and has a chance to keep its pro teams while much larger metros may not have teams, it will become a challenge to remain competitive and with these other cities especially if KC doesn't keep up in other ways such as transit infrastructure, hotels, more flights, continued investment in downtown etc. And KC does struggle to keep the momentum going on those things.

I'm just being realistic. KC is a great town, but on a national scale it's slipping down the ranks. It may pass places like Cleveland and eventually STL, but it will still slip overall unless KC truly gets hot and stays hot for a while. For example, if KC did not currently have a MLB team, there is no way in hell it would get one today. There are just too many larger markets without a team now.

[alejandro46]

KC star article says that it might be a Panasonic battery plant in Johnson County. Specifically mentions the Sunflower site
https://t.co/KnH4WBtDdi

If actually Panasonic would likely be for Tesla along with various customers. They are partners with Tesla in the Nevada factory.

I would honestly put Oklahoma in front if true it's Panasonic. Tesla already heavily considered OK for their factory and I think have a relationship with OK government. Tesla said they would consider OK for future facilities. It's also closer to Austin Gigafactory.

[FangKC]

GRID

StL has almost a million more people than KC. They will remain a higher ranked city for some time.

...By the time KC catches StL both cities will be struggling to be as relevant in the US unless KC really takes off in the next 20 years. Once you get too far from the top 30 metros, ...
...
I'm just being realistic. KC is a great town, but on a national scale it's slipping down the ranks. It may pass places like Cleveland and eventually STL, but it will still slip overall unless KC truly gets hot and stays hot for a while. For example, if KC did not currently have a MLB team, there is no way in hell it would get one today. There are just too many larger markets without a team now.

I agree with what you are saying except for one point. Relevance. Cities in the south and southwest are booming now, but they might not always boom. Kansas City and St. Louis might become more relevant again in the future.

Climate change may have huge effects on cities along the coasts and in the southern part of the USA. And since about half the political leadership in our country won't take climate change seriously, and even takes steps to block any attempt to remedy it, or slow it down, I'm not confident that the world will be able to minimize its' effects in time.

Many climate scientists and studies (and even our Defense Department studies) predict a lot of disruption. Cities like Phoenix, Tucson, Albuquerque, El Paso, and Las Vegas may be uninhabitable because of intense heat and lack of water within 100 years. Even in 50 years they might see massive depopulation due to lack of water. I already consider Phoenix uninhabitable for me. It's just too hot about five months of the year.

Miami/Ft. Lauderdale and most of Florida's coastal areas could see constant flooding. Florida's fresh water resources could be inundated with salt water as well as ground collapse (sinkholes) making building there unfeasible. Cities like Savannah and Charleston could be underwater regularly in decades and flooded out in 100 years. The insurance industry will doom a lot of coastal cities and Florida before the worst hits them.

Cities like Atlanta have already experienced water stress during long drought events. Texas is already experiencing long drought periods that will likely stress them as well for water. Houston is already seeing freakish storm events and flooding.

Not all of these cities will become abandoned, but they won't be able to support large populations.

As climate change worsens, KC and StL could actually have much more moderate weather in the winters making both cities more attractive.

So it's hard to definitively say that Kansas City will stall out at some point and be outpaced. Some of our largest cities now could see huge population declines like have been seen in the past with St. Louis, Buffalo, Cleveland, Pittsburgh and Detroit. Those cities could actually come back. Many are already citing places like Buffalo will benefit from climate change.

[brewcrew1000]

The South is booming because of all the tax breaks and other pro business policies they have put in place. Once that goes away and the playing field is level I think the south will see a decline, the rust belt still has a super strong university system compared to the Sunbelt, as long as that stays strong I think the rust belt areas will be fine. Didn't Boston basically have a big decline when all the textile Mills started closing? The strong university system kept Boston relevant and it reinvented themselves into a strong city in other ways.

[AlkaliAxel]

He keeps repeating that we’re “getting passed up by other cities soon” when in reality KC is in good position to pass up Cinci & Pittsburgh as well. The cities that we were to be “passed by” we’re Austin & Vegas and they already passed. So again, he’s just spouting. If anything, and we will pass up a couple cities.

KC has added like 5% to its urban growth every year since like 1980. If it keeps it up, then this should be the decade KCMO hits like 15% or more growth which would be considered “rapid”. Right now we’re at 10.7%.

And before you say “hurrr durr it’s all coming from Northland KC”, the urban KC area (the original pre-1950 KC lines) posted its first positive growth trend *since 1950*. The urban decline trend has been reversed.

[FangKC]

I wouldn't count Pittsburgh out. They have two major universities in the city proper: the University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie-Mellon University. Both are highly-ranked schools and have higher rankings than the universities of Missouri or Kansas. It has six Fortune 500 companies and five of them are located downtown. They have the capacity to innovate in their economy. The metro also lands high on livability indexes.

[GRID]

There is a good chance that Columbus and Indy will pass KC soon. Nashville will likely pass KC. Austin, Sacramento and Vegas all just recently passed KC. San Antonio, Orlando, Charlotte, Portland passed KC in the past ten years or so. Denver passed KC in the 90's probably.

I mean you are correct that most of the cities near the 2 million mark have already passed KC, but KC is not really gaining ground either.

I believe at its peak, KC was the 18th or 19th largest metro. Now it's 31 I think. KC will likely fall into about 32 or 33 once mid sized cities shake out a bit more over the next decade or so.

[GRID]

I wouldn't count Pittsburgh out. They have two major universities in the city proper: the University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie-Mellon University. Both are highly-ranked schools and have higher rankings than the universities of Missouri or Kansas. It has six Fortune 500 companies and five of them are located downtown. They have the capacity to innovate in their economy. The metro also lands high on livability indexes.

I can see St Louis bouncing back to growth more in line with KC over the next ten years as well. If StL gets back to 5-6% growth, KC will never catch them, at least not for a very long time.

Pittsburgh is a really cool city. It has a great urban university, a really big downtown with tons of corporate towers, downtown stadiums, recreation in the city and out in the mountains. A decent transit system. I mean it should be the Denver of the east. There is no way they stay down long. I think one thing that hurts Pittsburgh is that its suburbs are not that great. Which may be due to the topography of the area more than anything.

You have to have both a strong city and good suburbs. Metros like Denver have both.

[Highlander]

I wouldn't count Pittsburgh out. They have two major universities in the city proper: the University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie-Mellon University. Both are highly-ranked schools and have higher rankings than the universities of Missouri or Kansas. It has six Fortune 500 companies and five of them are located downtown. They have the capacity to innovate in their economy. The metro also lands high on livability indexes.

I can see St Louis bouncing back to growth more in line with KC over the next ten years as well. If StL gets back to 5-6% growth, KC will never catch them, at least not for a very long time.

Pittsburgh is a really cool city. It has a great urban university, a really big downtown with tons of corporate towers, downtown stadiums, recreation in the city and out in the mountains. A decent transit system. I mean it should be the Denver of the east. There is no way they stay down long. I think one thing that hurts Pittsburgh is that its suburbs are not that great. Which may be due to the topography of the area more than anything.

You have to have both a strong city and good suburbs. Metros like Denver have both.

St Louis's decline is an enigma as I rather enjoy the city. But to enjoy that city, you have to know it pretty well and that's not something the casual visitor is going to do. For a large city, it's urban areas are underwhelming. More so than even KC despite having more to work with. I don't see St Louis undergoing any big turnarounds any time soon as it seems to be a city that has developed a really poor reputation and has many fundamental problems as well.