Battle of the American Royalty: Charlotte vs. Cincinnati vs. Kansas City vs. Sacramento (living, best)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Two Queen Cities, the City of Royals, and the City of Kings. Where would you live?
Which offers the most amenities (arts/culture, museums, history, beauty), quality of life, and has the best prospects? Which offers the most bang for your buck?
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,754 posts, read 23,836,665 times
Reputation: 14671
Quote:
Originally Posted by woxyroxme
The best Queen City is Bangor Maine.
Burlington, VT also calls itself the Queen city. Not being a Vermont native, from my perspective it's Vermont's ONLY city and it's tiny. Montpelier, Rutland, and Barre are towns but it's adorable when native Vermonters refer to them in the context of cities.
For the thread selection I'd pick Cincinnati for visiting (OTR/architecture/hills & Ohio River) with KC a close second (mostly for food/BBQ). For living I'd pick a leafy neighborhood in Charlotte.
Last edited by Champ le monstre du lac; 07-22-2023 at 04:17 PM..
At first I thought you were referrring entirely to sports teams
(e.g. KC Royals baseball, Sacramento Kings basketball).
Remember that LA has a 'royal' team too (LA Kings hockey).
Burlington, VT also calls itself the Queen city. Not being a Vermont native, from my perspective it's Vermont's ONLY city and it's tiny. Montpelier, Rutland, and Barre are towns but it's adorable when native Vermonters refer to them in the context of cities.
For the thread selection I'd pick Cincinnati for visiting (OTR/architecture/hills & Ohio River) with KC a close second (mostly for food/BBQ). For living I'd pick a leafy neighborhood in Charlotte.
The term city is defined by it being incorporated. It's adorable when people from the northeast call places like Denver tiny.
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,754 posts, read 23,836,665 times
Reputation: 14671
Quote:
Originally Posted by annie_himself
The term city is defined by it being incorporated. It's adorable when people from the northeast call places like Denver tiny.
Nice plot twist, but I've lived in the Mountain West. In New Mexico, Denver was kind of a big deal and I've visited frequently and seen its transitions and robust growth during the 2010's. I quite like Denver.
Real talk, Burlington has some out sized amenities because it's a touristy college town, but under 50K city and about 225K metro. Like the one Costco in the whole state kind of small.
Last edited by Champ le monstre du lac; 07-22-2023 at 05:56 PM..
I am not the biggest fan of Sacramento, but I would prefer residing there over Kansas City and Cincinnati.
In my opinion, Sacramento would be my favorite city of the three, with Cincinnati being my 2nd favorite and Kansas City being by far my least favorite.
Sacramento is low-amenity for it's size, but the weather is moderate compared to the typical city, it has good parks and is extremely clean overall. It is close to other major cities, mountains and the ocean.
Cincinnati has nice architecture and unique neighborhood but the violent crime rates are extremely high. Cincinnati has alot of wasted potential and there doesn't seem to be much pride because they let the city go down-hill so much.
Kansas City has some nice tourist areas and the fountains are nice but it is one of the most violent cities in America. The amenities overall seemed to be very low for a metropolitan area of it's size and the weather is very extreme also.
Kansas City and Cincinnati aren't that much more inexpensive than Sacramento either. The Kansas City metro area seems very, very expensive for the little it offers outside of tourist amenities.
Sacramento in my opinion is a fairly low-amenity city overall but many months of the year it is a very lush city similar to the Midwest.
Sacramento has far, far lower violent crime rates than Cincinnati and Kansas City.
Sacramento is much cleaner overall than Cincinnati and Kansas City.
Cincinnati is more unique than Sacramento or Kansas City in regards to architecture and uniqueness of neighborhoods. Cincinnati is above it's weight when it comes to amenities for a city and metro area of it's size.
Sacramento also has a fairly mild climate compared to Kansas City or Cincinnati. Sacramento cools off at night in the summer and has mild afternoon temperatures in the winter.
I think there is alot of potential with Cincinnati and Sacramento is okay for what it is and will likely not change much.
Nice plot twist, but I've lived in the Mountain West. In New Mexico, Denver was kind of a big deal and I've visited frequently and seen its transitions and robust growth during the 2010's. I quite like Denver.
Real talk, Burlington has some out sized amenities because it's a touristy college town, but under 50K city and about 225K metro. Like the one Costco in the whole state kind of small.
It's still incorporated though. So, it's a city, regardless of its size.
Nice plot twist, but I've lived in the Mountain West. In New Mexico, Denver was kind of a big deal and I've visited frequently and seen its transitions and robust growth during the 2010's. I quite like Denver.
Real talk, Burlington has some out sized amenities because it's a touristy college town, but under 50K city and about 225K metro. Like the one Costco in the whole state kind of small.
FWIW, Denver's nickname is "The Queen City of the Plains," which I actually consider something of a misnomer. Yes, it sits at the west edge of the Great Plains, but its economy doesn't depend on Plains agriculture, and its popular image rests more heavily on the mountains to its west.
But given the criteria laid out in the OP, Denver belongs in this discussion as well. But the grain grown on the plains of eastern Colorado ends up in Kansas City.
I'll admit to being a homer here regarding KC, which I think one poster upthread sold short. Its civic amenities IMO are actually quite good, and some of those "touristy" places the locals also value (like the National World War I Memorial and Museum and the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, the latter among the nation's 20 best). Ditto the Country Club Plaza, the nation's first planned shopping center. And there's BBQ, of course. I hate to say this, but the city's sharp racial residential segregation means crime isn't all that much of a worry west of Troost, which is also where all those nice amenities lie (save for Swope Park).
I'd have to check the house prices, but if it's close to Sacramento, then I'd still say the amenities tilt the scale in KC's favor. Its winters may work against it for many Americans, however, relative to Sac.
I'd probably rank Sacramento third behind Cincinnati. However, doing that sells Charlotte short. Charlotte in the last two decades did what KC did in the 1920s and 1930s, namely, build an impressive infrastructure of civic and cultural amenities in a relatively short time. And it has a more extensive light rail network than any of the cities in this group save possibly Sacramento.
Edited to add: I do note, however, that this thread is titled "Battle of the American Royalty." Well, Kansas City is home to the American Royal (livestock and horse show since 1899, rodeo and World Series of Barbecue, all held concurrently in the fall).
Last edited by MarketStEl; 07-23-2023 at 12:13 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
