Kansas City will be one of the top in mid-west
#1
Posted 13 June 2005 - 12:44 AM
#2
Posted 13 June 2005 - 07:08 AM
B ) Downtown St. Louis is significantly bigger than downtown KC, with a lot more to do as well
C ) You don't know what the hell you're talking about
D ) So KC has a bigger city pop than STL, big deal. Jacksonville has a bigger city population than Boston. Is Jacksonville a bigger city? No. Metro population is all that matters, and STL is almost twice the size of little KC. Let's not even talk about density, you will be embarrassed.
E ) You don't know what the hell you're talking about
F ) STL has a lot more over KC than just the Arch, come on how old are you
G ) You don't know what the hell you're talking about
H ) The mere fact that you are comparing KC to STL exposes what an inferiority complex you people have. Deep down you know you can't compete, but it makes you feel better to try.
I ) You don't know what the hell you're talking about.
btw, KC does feel a lot smaller than STL because it is.
Metro KC: 1.90 million
Metro STL: 2.75 million
http://www.demograph...b-2004metro.htm
Why don't you worry about surpassing Milwaukee first.
Edited by JivecitySTL, 13 June 2005 - 07:15 AM.
#3
Posted 13 June 2005 - 07:56 AM
#4
Posted 13 June 2005 - 10:35 AM
My life's mission is to take a few days and visit each city back-to-back in order to discover the truth. From my knowledge, St. Louis has the sophisticated edge over KC, but I would also be very foolish to claim KC isn't a great Midwestern city, which is why I challenge the title of this thread because KC ALREADY IS one of the top in the Midwest.
#5
Posted 13 June 2005 - 03:59 PM
#6
Posted 13 June 2005 - 04:14 PM
1. Utterly stupid or silly: asinine behavior.
2. Of, relating to, or resembling an ass.
This has to be one of the most Juvenile, threads I have ever seen. This is more silly than the debate they are having in the urban discussion forum, under the title " next famous US skyline" where they are debating the finer points of why Charlotte NC is the greatest place on earth. Let's have some intelligent debate. Who cares about St. Lous v. Kansas City.
KC does not have the density of St. Louis, It's three times the land size of the St Louis with out three times the people. St. Lous has a substantially Larger metro area. There is a reason, St. Louis put MO on the map. Kansas City is the largest city in that state. But only because the city government covers five times the land area!!!!
Either way, just take pride in your city, your not going to convince anyone on here that KC is better. It's something akin to the people of Michigan having the debate over Grand Rapids and Detroit. Theres just no comparison.
#7
Posted 13 June 2005 - 04:21 PM
#8
Posted 13 June 2005 - 04:36 PM
density is how tightly packed a city is
kc 318 sq mi with 441k people in it
st louis is only 62sq mi with 320k people in it
i need say no more
#9
Posted 13 June 2005 - 04:42 PM
#10
Posted 13 June 2005 - 04:45 PM
and I couldn't tell you a darn thing about any of the buildings in KC although i'm very happy for you how proud you are of your tall apartment building.
#11
Posted 13 June 2005 - 04:53 PM
#12
Posted 13 June 2005 - 05:02 PM
I currently live in KC, Kansas right off of I-35 (it looks like a suburb around this area). Anyhow, I have been very impressed with the future developments that will be completed in KC. However, let's not kid ourselves here, KC is years behind getting a downtown to the extent of Portland, Oregon which is what KC should be shooting for as a goal.
To say that St. Louis is crap is a broad generalization. I wasn't particularly impressed with its downtown, but there is progress being made. Also, tall buildings does not equal a great city. Look at the streetlife in KC on a Saturday.....dead. There is a long way to go. I'm rooting for both cities and frankly want to see dense urban areas do well in America.
KC is definitely on the way up with teir developments, and STL is coming back, too. If STL utilizes their waterfront better, then who knows what could develop.
#13
Posted 13 June 2005 - 05:06 PM
#14
Posted 14 June 2005 - 10:59 AM
#15
Posted 14 June 2005 - 11:28 AM
#16
Posted 24 June 2005 - 08:42 AM
Neither of them will be Major Players in this Country. St Louis's "HeyDay" was 100 years ago, it will never be a significant city such as it was in that time again. KC never has reached it's potential and probably never will.
KC has a larger "City" population than St Louis, but Metro populations with 2004 estimates are KC with 2 million and St Louis with 2.8 million. St Louis has always been about 600,000-800,000 more in the metro area than KC. St Louis is not twice as large as posted though. Both cities have rich history's with both have more than their fair share of famous people in the country(Celebrities, politicians, etc) KC gave the world President Truman and former US Ambassador Price to the UK. KC wouldn't have hosted as many world figures as it has if it wasn't for the Truman Legacy. A couple of corrections about St Louis though, is that ST Louis wasn't the gateway to the West, the Gateway to the West was Independence and Westport(both in KC), St Louis was smart enough to capitalize on the term "Gateway to the West'' and built it's Arch that will forever tie St Louis with Gateway to the West. Another fact that St Louis doesn't recoginze is that TWA was not a "St Louis" airline, but a Kansas City airline, TWA was born in KC and had most of it's operations for 50 years in KC, it was only the last 20 years or so of TWA that it was associated with St Louis. Another fact that is lost with KC, is that KC is recoginze for it's rich Art Deco heritage. KC's downtown is from the Missouri River to Crown Center. The reason it may not come across as large as St Louis is because KC doesn't have the Sports stadiums downtown and KC's urban shopping, hotels, restaraunts are located 4 miles south of downtown KC in the Plaza district, not in the downtown loop area. Both cities are special to the Midwest. St Louis is comparable to say Cincinnati and KC is comparable to Milwaukee or Indianapolis. Neither KC or St Louis is in the league of Chicago or Dallas or Minneapolis.
#17
Posted 24 June 2005 - 09:55 AM
#18
Posted 24 June 2005 - 10:18 AM
#19
Posted 27 June 2005 - 05:41 PM
I really hope that st. louis county and city will merge, or atleast the urban sub citeis around the downtown and midtown area. I mean has anyone seen clayton these days, its not a bad skyline. Here is a site where u can see clayton http://www.emporis.c...094&aid=3&sro=1
#20
Posted 28 June 2005 - 01:56 PM
FromMo, on Jun 24 2005, 10:18 AM, said:
http://www.demograph...b-2004metro.htm
Don't lie to prove a point that doesn't exist. It's funny that you say "St. Louis and Kansas City are not in the same league as Minneapolis, Chicago or Dallas"-- as if Minneapolis is in the same league as Chicago! lolololol! Minneapolis is MUCH more comparable to STL than it is to Chicago, you deny that and you just make yourself look foolish. Mpls-StP has about 600,000 more in its metro than STL, an even smaller population disparity than exists between KC and St. Louis. You don't know what you're talking about. Minneapolis is a wonderful city and it has a lot going for it, but it still doesn't compare favorably to STL when it comes to urban fabric, not by a longshot.
"The Twin cities are known more throughout the world than either KC or StL."
^I doubt it.
Edited by JivecitySTL, 28 June 2005 - 01:58 PM.












