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.
Well the Gods that Be should have created mountains and oceans nearby but did not. For whatever reason the odds were not in the city's favor. As such, Kansas City is destined to be a perpetually inferior city by any and all means, and is deserving of eternal criticism in this regard. Anyone who dares venture here should be well-apprised of the malignant tumor of inadequacy that afflicts our otherwise fair city. I bid thee to take heart, I daresay that perchance the Gods shall some day find it in their will and in their hearts to move the mountains in ways more amenable to disgruntled transplants.
This is cute, but I don't think it actually addresses what anybody is saying.
Kansas City has all the geographical advantages of Minneapolis, St. Louis, Nashville or even Paris (and in some cases, greater geographical advantages.) Naturally, these cities have all made plenty of their own mistakes. But there's nothing about being located on a river in a relatively flat, landlocked region that keeps a city from being great.
This is cute, but I don't think it actually addresses what anybody is saying.
Kansas City has all the geographical advantages of Minneapolis, St. Louis, Nashville or even Paris (and in some cases, greater geographical advantages.) Naturally, these cities have all made plenty of their own mistakes. But there's nothing about being located on a river in a relatively flat, landlocked region that keeps a city from being great.
Quite the opposite. That has been the preferred site of cities for the majority of their history. For good reason. It is a quite recent phenomenon that having play places for bourgie white people who spend their working lives indoors to have faux-adventures has become anything but the kind of minor consideration it should be.
Quite the opposite. That has been the preferred site of cities for the majority of their history. For good reason. It is a quite recent phenomenon that having play places for bourgie white people who spend their working lives indoors to have faux-adventures has become anything but the kind of minor consideration it should be.
Possibly. It's also a quite recent phenomenon for those same people to move back to cities after decades of a suburban migration, something I "think" you support.
The area around KC is obviously not a recreational destination, sure there are some lakes or whatever, but it is what it is. That doesn't mean that KC shouldn't excel at providing an urban recreational scene that not only improves the quality of life for residents, but makes the city more appealing to transplants, especially from younger generations.
The Kansas City metro has TOTALLY dropped the ball on this. Yes, KC is surrounded for hundreds of miles with private farmland. But the KC area is a lush wooded, hilly city built around two major rivers and several smaller rivers and has a large urban parks and boulevards system and some impressive (yet disconnected) suburban parks/lakes on the edges of the metro. There is no reason for KC to have such a poor recreational scene and be lacking in so much recreational infrastructure such as levee trails, bike trails, bike lanes, pedestrian only bridges across the rivers over major thoroughfares etc.
The parks in KC are all isolated, disconnected from other parks (or even their own parks, ie Penn Valley), and totally underutilized. Dedicated bike lanes are nearly non existent and nothing is connected to anything else in a user friendly manner. How do you get from Berkley Park to Kaw Point? How do you get from Penn Valley Park to Loose Park? How do you even get from one side of Penn Valley Park to the other without crossing Broadway? Why are there no dedicated pedestrian bridges over the MO or KS rivers that tie into a levee trail system, which then could tie into the city parks system and then connect to suburban parks via trails? Almost every city in the united states, even smaller cities in the midwest like Des Moines, Omaha, Tulsa and Oklahoma City and Little Rock have built miles and miles of connected urban trails that include major pedestrian structures (new or re-purposed) that are all very popular.
You should be able to go downtown on a Saturday and drive to Berkley Park or Penn Valley Park or greenway that don't exist today and find the streets lined with parked cars that come into the city just to enjoy the parks system. You see this in almost every city in America except Kansas City.
You can take that as insult and say that people don't really need that stuff or it's for "white" people (which is absurd if you ever go to other cities) or say yea, KC really needs to address this and improve recreation. I mean, Indianapolis and Columbus are in areas similar or worse than KC and they have done it. There is no excuse anymore and it should be a priority of both KCMO and KCK. I'm not saying KC should be Denver, or Portland or Boston or Minneapolis or Seattle or Austin or DC. That would be nice, but come on, shoot for what Omaha or Little Rock or Des Moines or Tulsa or Grand Rapids have done!
It was not long ago that it was just Dallas, OKC and KC with no urban recreation. Well, even Dallas and OKC are really building up their urban recreational infrastructure with levee trails, iconic pedestrian bridges etc in environments and much worse than KC.
Denver proper is way flatter and has rather ugly, barren topography compared to KC and people that actual live there rarely go to the mountains, but they do take advantage of a well built and comprehensive urban parks and trails system. KC should be doing the same thing.
This is cute, but I don't think it actually addresses what anybody is saying.
Kansas City has all the geographical advantages of Minneapolis, St. Louis, Nashville or even Paris (and in some cases, greater geographical advantages.) Naturally, these cities have all made plenty of their own mistakes. But there's nothing about being located on a river in a relatively flat, landlocked region that keeps a city from being great.
Well thanks, I've always strived to be "cute". But I was mostly being satirical in light of all of the threads about KC's inadequacy compared to more westerly metro areas, which is rather self-evident. I personally think KC is a fantastic place to live but the more people are scared away the better. We have enough people here, we certainly don't want to turn into overpopulated Denver.
Well thanks, I've always strived to be "cute". But I was mostly being satirical in light of all of the threads about KC's inadequacy compared to more westerly metro areas, which is rather self-evident. I personally think KC is a fantastic place to live but the more people are scared away the better. We have enough people here, we certainly don't want to turn into overpopulated Denver.
My apologies. I think I misunderstood your satire.
Yes, KC is surrounded for hundreds of miles with private farmland. But the KC area is a lush wooded, hilly city built around two major rivers and several smaller rivers and has a large urban parks and boulevards system and some impressive (yet disconnected) suburban parks/lakes on the edges of the metro. There is no reason for KC to have such a poor recreational scene and be lacking in so much recreational infrastructure such as levee trails, bike trails, bike lanes, pedestrian only bridges across the rivers over major thoroughfares etc. The parks in KC are all isolated, disconnected from other parks (or even their own parks, ie Penn Valley), and totally underutilized. Dedicated bike lanes are nearly non existent and nothing is connected to anything else in a user friendly manner. How do you get from Berkley Park to Kaw Point? How do you get from Penn Valley Park to Loose Park? How do you even get from one side of Penn Valley Park to the other without crossing Broadway? Why are there no dedicated pedestrian bridges over the MO or KS rivers that tie into a levee trail system, which then could tie into the city parks system and then connect to suburban parks via trails? Almost every city in the united states, even smaller cities in the midwest like Des Moines, Omaha, Tulsa and Oklahoma City and Little Rock have built miles and miles of connected urban trails that include major pedestrian structures (new or re-purposed) that are all very popular.
THIS. SO much this. While Tacoma and its environs have had their share of ills, I do miss the large parks and the many greenspaces that were all over the area. Seattle definitely has made outdoor recreation a priority, and they've got crappier (ie rainier) weather by far.
The rails to trails program in Wisconsin is very popular, and many urban areas such as my hometown and the capital - Madison - have repurposed disused rail-lines into recreational trails that are heavily used. With KC's history as a cowtown heavily dependent on the railways, surely there are disused lines and railway easements that could be put to better use than growing crops of noxious weeds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcmo
You can take that as insult and say that people don't really need that stuff or it's for "white" people (which is absurd if you ever go to other cities) or say yea, KC really needs to address this and improve recreation.
With the amount of vacant plots scattered about east of Troost and listed in the KC Land Bank, I am very surprised that there isn't more greenspace and recreational activities added - even if it is a park that spans a couple of lots mid-block. It beats crappy vacant land, and it puts amenities where they would could contribute to some urban revitalization.
I'm from brookside and I would run or bike the trolley track trail to the Indian Creek trail in Kansas out to overland park. The bikers and runners that lived in Kansas including my friends out there would turn around before crossing into Missouri. They would not dare continue onto the mo side trails. That was bothersome to me.
2. Not passing the two major city backed light rail starter line plans in the 90’s. The first one was a very basic line from the River Market to the Plaza. It was pretty far along in preliminary planning and design, had a very good shot of being mostly funded by the federal government. Mayor Cleaver basically killed it calling it "touristy frou frou" for not going to the east side. Had that line been built, the city would probably have several expansions by now, including the east side. The other plan came later after the city reversed the Clay Chastian plan that passed a vote. The city put out a well thought out starter system that was to go from south of Gladstone to Swope Park with two lines south of downtown (one to the plaza and another along 71). It failed. Again, had the city passed that, it would have put KC in a totally different league of cities. It would have connected downtown to the plaza, connected the east side to northland jobs, and there would likely be expansion to the suburbs or into Kansas by now. Instead the city is just now getting a streetcar line that only goes 20 blocks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwiksell
Streetcar - Every city except San Francisco got rid of their streetcar system. (And SF's was just there to be iconic and touristy. Call it "frou frou" if you will.) What was city hall supposed to do, prop up the system with billions of dollars for decades on the off-chance that culture would do a 180 eventually? And even now, with people all about streetcars, 90% of that original system would be underused today if it remained in place.
While I realize that our abundance of concrete and relatively easy commuting in the KC metro would work against such a plan, a comprehensive rail system would be amazing... especially with rail service from KCI to the downtown KCMO area, and trains to the burbs. We are on par with Portland in terms of size and burb-ed-ness, and they have a very nice system that we utilized while staying for an extended period that got us from the outskirts to the downtown and around for much less cost than paying rent for our car in a lot somewhere.
I realize it would require cross-state coordination, and, as such is pie-in-the-sky, yet for a metropolitan area of its size, it is odd not to see more robust public transportation options since both KCK and KCMO would benefit from such an arrangement.
another place where KC went, and spent wrong, was annexing all the land north of the river. The city should sell that land off to Gladstone, Liberty, Parkville, Smithville, Platte City, Claycomo and let those suburbs develop the land. KC is spread way to thin for it's population, which never materialized as the city envisioned it would 60 years ago. Let KC have it's 58 miles in Jackson County and let KC deals with it's problems it has there.
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.
