Jump to content

Cities on the Fall


Recommended Posts

well, donalto, we know that most of the units in KC (not only downtown units) have been sold so at the amount that's being built, that's alot of people...

muler quit avoiding my questions, don't bother responding if you are just doing this because your bored or just because you want a rise out of someone. I take people insulting my city very personally.

I don't post my sources because for one, I have been keeping track of all of the units that were proposed and there is no one single source for all of them. I have been adding them since late 2003. In early 2004 there were about 8,000 units proposed and i've added units as more projects were proposed. And I also make sure I don't add them twice. Since I've been adding them there have been so many that it adds up to over 9,000 units. That is only 2,000 proposed in 5 months. Like I've said, you don't live here, and you don't study Kansas City every day, all day like I do. So you haven't the knowlege or the right to challenge the information I figure out.

The only reason I am insulting muler is because the way he is acting. I don't like dealing with people who act the way he does. And so I get agitated very quickly.

And Jive, you know that Census estimates are just that, estimates and are nearly never accurate. Like they estimated Chicago lost 1 million people in the 90s, yet the census in 2000 proved otherwise, and after they gained people, they still estimate it is losing people. Also, the estimates are based on 2000 information. Which, for KC, was 1 year before our boom began.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

That is only 2,000 proposed in 5 months
According to the source you posted:

http://www.downtownkc.org/Housing/January2...ng%20Report.pdf

downtown Kansas City had 1300 proposed units by the end of January 2004 and you claim that 2000 units get proposed every five months, which would mean now that would be just over 3300 units not 9000. I also don't believe that 2000 get proposed every five months since so much misinformation has been claimed so far. A source would be helpful.

according to census estimates, people are also leaving Philadelphia, Boston, Baltimore, DC and San Francisco. Does the same blanket statement apply to those cities as well?

No, because those cities are seeing much more reinvestment and have been for years and are except for Baltimore a lot more active with actual pedestrians and businesses to patronize - they have active neighborhoods and downtowns. Boston, D.C., San Fran, Philly on par with midwestern cities. Come on.

Btw, the census did not estimate that Chicago lost a million people during the 1990's they estimated a 100,000 loss when in actuality the city gained just over 100,000 people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest donaltopablo

well, donalto, we know that most of the units in KC (not only downtown units) have been sold so at the amount that's being built, that's alot of people...
And I understand that. Obviously, if they did not come close to selling out, development would slow. But that does not illustrate population loss in other parts of city, which could be for any variety of reasons. I'm not saying this is the case, but it's certainly a possibility the census is considering when they are stating that there is a population loss.

The only reason I am insulting muler is because the way he is acting. I don't like dealing with people who act the way he does. And so I get agitated very quickly.

Please don't insult him. That does not to improve the situation, nor does it help prove your point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Muler-- it's just weird that you think the census estimates are somehow incorrect for Boston, Philly and DC, yet you think the same estimates are accurate for certain Midwest cities. If you're not consistent then how do you expect to be credible? And really-- how much do you know about the reinvestment taking place in Midwest cities? It sounds like you aren't too in tune to what's going on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's just weird that you think the census estimates are somehow incorrect for Boston, Philly and DC, yet you think the same estimates are accurate for certain Midwest cities.

I never said census estimates are somehow incorrect for Bos, Philly and D.C. and the same estimates are accurate for midwest cities. Find were I did.

You can tell me that midwest cities are on par with East and West Coast cities. Please. The midwest is dying, there is not much reinvestment, the coasts aren't. Go to downtown Philly and tell me somewhere as vibrant in the midwest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

muler, you are just being very biast to the east and west coasts. Don't talk about something if you don't know anything about it. You CANNOT use census estimates as a basis for your information. They are proven to be VERY innacurate. And it's based on information from the year 2000, that was 4 years ago! Kansas City DID NOT lose people I can tell you that. Like i've told you, I study Kansas City EVERY SINGLE DAY! I know the moving trends and I know the growth rates for each part of the city.

in Northern and in the urban core, Kansas City is gaining people. In southeastern Kansas City, it is slightly losing people (like below the single digit percentiles).

Why can't you accept that I know more about the midwest and MY OWN CITY than you do?

Tell me how Kansas City is dying please. Our downtown is growing and we have over 100,000 workers there and over 15,100 people living there. Also, it will have the largest entertainment district in about a 350-400 mile radius. Beating out St. Louis, Omaha, Wichita, Oklahoma City, Des Moines, Tulsa, Little Rock, and Denver.

IF the midwest is dying then why didn't the 2000 census show that most of the states are losing people when none of them actually are?

Check this out: http://www.citistates.com/dtchart.pdf

http://www.smartkc.com/3_locating/3a_kc_pr..._population.htm

Unfortunately I cannot post the KC Star article on KC's growth rate since they don't let you see it unless you pay. But it said that at our current rate of growth, Kansas City will be the size of SAN FRANCISCO in 30 years. I've even done the math and that is correct.

By 2010 our downtown population WILL be over 25,000 people.

With our current number of proposed units and the average occupancy downtown, our dt population will double by 2010 to over 30,000. That is 10,000 people per square mile downtown.

http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=5239

Looking at that, you still cannot say we are on the decline. Because ALL of those are in the urban core.

Here is that article I was talking about:

http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=2970

Now that I have more sources, I can prove to you that YOU are the one that is wrong. STOP hating the Midwest, it is no better OR any worse than the east or west coasts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said census estimates are somehow incorrect for Bos, Philly and D.C. and the same estimates are accurate for midwest cities. Find were I did.

You can tell me that midwest cities are on par with East and West Coast cities. Please. The midwest is dying, there is not much reinvestment, the coasts aren't. Go to downtown Philly and tell me somewhere as vibrant in the midwest.

What Midwest city is as vibrant as Philly? Chicago. And no offense muler, but you obviously haven't traveled much if you think there is little reinvestment taking place in Midwest cities. They are all making impressive strides in their urban cores. Don't be an ignoramus, come see for yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You CANNOT use census estimates as a basis for your information. They are proven to be VERY innacurate. And it's based on information from the year 2000, that was 4 years ago! Kansas City DID NOT lose people I can tell you that.

Why can't you accept that I know more about the midwest and MY OWN CITY than you do?

The census estimates, whether for the midwest, the south, the east, or the west, are going to be more accurate than any other figures available.

It is a mischaracterization to say that those estimates are using 2000 census data. The census only uses the 2000 count--which everyone said was the most accurate in history--as a baseline to add onto or subtract from in their subsequent estimates. Those estimates are based on a number of things--utility hookups, the number of housing permits, school enrollment figures, changes in property tax rolls, etc.

The estimates proved wrong during the 1990's because the 1990 census was generally considered to have a significant undercount. With the accurate 2000 census, most cities and msa's showed a surprising increase over both the estimates and the 1990 census--not that there were more people, just that they all got counted (most of them).

So, it's probably fair to say that comparing the 1990's estimates with the 2000's estimates is comparing apples and oranges in terms of accuracy since the 1990 baseline was inaccurate and the 2000 baseline was accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uhh, for one, Kansas City's numbers are VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY wrong. I have used FOUR population indicators ALL based AFTER the 2000 census and ALL show Kansas City having a population of 500,000 by 2010.

However they predicted a decline in population when the inner metro/city migrations show people coming into the city in double digits (percentiles) and people leaving in the lower single digits.

This year, the census SCREWED UP big time. And even the highest people in our city agree that they did. THEY DON'T LIVE HERE so how can they estimate population trends for OUR city?

From THEIR own website:

The estimates are based on Census 2000 population counts
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then I'd like to know who runs the census in Kansas City because they must be a bunch of idiots.

4,743 housing permits were issued from Jan. 2001 to Dec. 2003

In downtown, 3,000-4,000 units have been completed since 2000.

That means over 8,000 units have been built or will be built since 2000.

At the least, since 2000, Kansas City has gained over 20,000 people. And so you can't tell me that 19,900 people have moved out of Kansas City without anyone noticing.

And moving trends show that people are moving to the northland at a very high rate and moving downtown at a very high rate.

Overland Park may be gaining lots of people, but not all of the housing is as affordable as the Northland of Kansas City.

Also may I mention that over 10,000 units are planned for downtown? that's automatically a gain of at least 15,000 people in 6 years.

So by 2010 Kansas City will at least have 480,000 people.

And if we reach 500,000 people, 6% of Kansas Citians will be living downtown. And about 1/2 will be living in the urban core.

And I can testify for the northland because half of my family lives north of downtown and I commute through the northland and can say most of the houses are sold very very quickly. And regarding downtown, most of the units are sold out before the building is even renovated or constructed.

And Overland Park people will want to move closer to work because even though they live less than 15 miles from downtown, it can take them an hour to get there because of traffic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then I'd like to know who runs the census in Kansas City because they must be a bunch of idiots.

4,743 housing permits were issued from Jan. 2001 to Dec. 2003

In downtown, 3,000-4,000 units have been completed since 2000.

That means over 8,000 units have been built or will be built since 2000.

At the least, since 2000, Kansas City has gained over 20,000 people. And so you can't tell me that 19,900 people have moved out of Kansas City without anyone noticing.

And moving trends show that people are moving to the northland at a very high rate and moving downtown at a very high rate.

Overland Park may be gaining lots of people, but not all of the housing is as affordable as the Northland of Kansas City.

Also may I mention that over 10,000 units are planned for downtown? that's automatically a gain of at least 15,000 people in 6 years.

So by 2010 Kansas City will at least have 480,000 people.

And if we reach 500,000 people, 6% of Kansas Citians will be living downtown. And about 1/2 will be living in the urban core.

And I can testify for the northland because half of my family lives north of downtown and I commute through the northland and can say most of the houses are sold very very quickly. And regarding downtown, most of the units are sold out before the building is even renovated or constructed.

And Overland Park people will want to move closer to work because even though they live less than 15 miles from downtown, it can take them an hour to get there because of traffic.

If 4,743 housing permits were issued in 2001, 2002, and 2003, and 3,000 to 4,000 units constructed downtown since 2000, that does not mean that a total of 8,000 units have been completed since 2000.

The 4,743 housing permits issued for those three years would include permits issued for downtown. You seem to be counting twice.

Moreover, building permits issued obviously do not include the number of residential properties taken off the tax rolls, nor does it reflect any net figures for residential utility hookups, nor any school enrollment figures. The census estimates include all of those.

Building permits are just that--permits issued for new construction. It doesn't indicate anything concerning net population gain or loss, or any net gain in residential units for a city. A city can issue several thousand building permits and still have not only a population loss, but a net loss in residential units.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no wonder, they are in KCK, the "ghetto" of the metro area.

Also, you are wrong on that first statement. Housing permits aren't the same as loft units. Because they list the number of permits for each county and each city in each county, the northland has the majority of those 4,000+ permits and jackson county has slightly less than half. Yet when you add up all of the units built since 2000 they add up to be over 4,000. So therefore, the permits issued DO NOT include the loft units downtown.

4,225 permits were issued for Kansas City, MO in Clay County (Northland) from Jan. 2001 to Dec. 2003.

1,565 permits were issued for Kansas City, MO in Jackson County (South of the River, includes downtown) from Jan. 2001 to Dec. 2003.

1,219 permits were issued for Kansas City, MO in Platte County (North of the River, west of Clay Count)

Yet over 4,000 units were completed downtown from Jan. 2001 to Dec. 2003. That shows that it doesn't include the downtown units.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The census guys are nothing but a bunch of idiots and for one, it is reason for them to be wrong because the Kansas side of the metro ISN'T interested in Kansas City, MO development at all. They only care about themselves.

And YES the number of housing permits issued does mean an increase because most of those houses HAVE BEEN OCCUPIED. Like the housing department of Kansas City said, only 75 houses haven't been sold.

Quit being so freaking stubborn and please, just listen to what I have to say. The census IS NOT CORRECT on their numbers! Just because they are a government organization DOESN'T mean that they are ALWAYS correct. They SCREWED UP this time and please, just accept it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no wonder, they are in KCK, the "ghetto" of the metro area.

Also, you are wrong on that first statement. Housing permits aren't the same as loft units. Because they list the number of permits for each county and each city in each county, the northland has the majority of those 4,000+ permits and jackson county has slightly less than half. Yet when you add up all of the units built since 2000 they add up to be over 4,000. So therefore, the permits issued DO NOT include the loft units downtown.

4,225 permits were issued for Kansas City, MO in Clay County (Northland) from Jan. 2001 to Dec. 2003.

1,565 permits were issued for Kansas City, MO in Jackson County (South of the River, includes downtown) from Jan. 2001 to Dec. 2003.

1,219 permits were issued for Kansas City, MO in Platte County (North of the River, west of Clay Count)

Yet over 4,000 units were completed downtown from Jan. 2001 to Dec. 2003. That shows that it doesn't include the downtown units.

If what you say about permits is true--and I'm certainly not convinced it is--no doubt the census bureau is informed of that and takes it into consideration when they establish their population estimates.

Every city in the country issued housing permits from 1990 to 2000, including such population losers as East St. Louis. It doesn't mean they gained population.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My information about permits is 100% true. The LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS ALOT MORE ACCURATE THAN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

WHY can't you guys accept that the census CAN BE WRONG ALOT OF THE TIME?

This is really making me mad trying to explain to you guys why I know that my city hasn't lost any freaking people. I don't think I will reply anymore since you guys are being so freaking stubborn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not debating the whole population of Kansas City just the downtown and the amount of construction.

Yet over 4,000 units were completed downtown from Jan. 2001 to Dec. 2003.

Last year, 2003, according to a source you posted only 389 residential units were completed in downtown. How can 3611 units have been completed in the two previous years if 2003 sales were up over the previous years?

Jivecitystl, I meant Midwest cities are falling apart. Walk around East coast or west coast cities and see the difference. There is people and businesses and public transport being used in huge numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My information about permits is 100% true. The LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS ALOT MORE ACCURATE THAN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

WHY can't you guys accept that the census CAN BE WRONG ALOT OF THE TIME?

This is really making me mad trying to explain to you guys why I know that my city hasn't lost any freaking people. I don't think I will reply anymore since you guys are being so freaking stubborn.

When you post some information about inmigration, outmigration, births, deaths, school populations, residential utility hookups, residential property tax rolls, etc., in addition to housing permits, then you might have a valid argument.

By itself, your housing-permit-equals-population-growth theory is meaningless and is no reason to take your word over that of the census.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

muler, you are saying that you don't trust the Downtown council's number of 15,100 people? Or are you saying you don't trust that 3,000 to 4,000 units have been completed downtown since 2000?

I have told you before, we know ALL of the projects that have been proposed and are under construction. We took the total units out of all of the projects we know of and it adds up to be over 9,000 units at the least.

Here are the following projects not included in the early 2004 study...

Cold Storage Building-204 units

Power & Light District-1,200 units

Penn Valley Park Plan-1,000

Landmark Tower-200 units

Metropolitan Condos-236 units

Pinnacle Tower-2?? units

East River Market-1,200 units

W Lofts-17 units

Plus others that I cannot find right now.

That is over 4,000 units not shown in that study.

Ah, ok, I wasn't really paying attention to my former posts. Hahaha I humbly apologize... Man I feel stupid... Over 10,000 units built, under construction or planned.

But that means over 8,000 units are planned/under construction/built downtown. Including the one's I've forgotten.

So my number of 10,000 is slightly off, 8,000 is still a high number.

Our mayor wants to build 10,000 more units in the downtown/plaza area:

"In the next four years, I expect 10,000 more new and rehabbed housing units to be constructed in the River-Crown-Plaza"

That is alot, and the way we are going, that will become a reality. And probably 2/3 of those will be built downtown. Since the plaza is running out of area. (it already has more skyscrapers than Omaha and Des Moines)

Here is another clip, I dunno if i've posted it before

Housing expected to remain strong

Low interest rates, immigration should support market

By ERIC PALMER The Kansas City Star

The housing market had incomparable growth the last six years, but it has been a boom, not a bubble, housing experts told a Kansas City business gathering Tuesday.

While housing starts have nearly doubled since 1991 to 1.8 million starts last year, growth has been fueled by market forces that won't evaporate overnight, said Kent W. Colton, a scholar with the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University.

Home price appreciation has been more contained during the last five years than in any period for the last 30 years, and new-home inventories are at historic lows, Colton said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KCDevin-- ^those numbers are full of crap. There is no way to get a consistent measure of downtown population, as each city has different parameters of what they consider downtown. And don't those KC numbers include Crown Center too (not part of downtown)? I thought one of the KC forumers said that. In other words-- downtown population figs are meaningless. And if they are 100% accurate, then a lot of downtowns at the top of that list are awfully dead for having so many people living there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those number do include Crown Center which OFFICIALLY is part of downtown. Many forumers on the KC site disagree with what the Downtown Council (and City Hall too) Considers downtown but what really matters is the facts.

Like I said, both City Hall and the Downtown Council consider downtown to consist of 3 square miles from the river to 31st street and from I35 to Bruce R. Watkins.

Therefore downtown Kansas City has a population density of 5,033 so that means that those numbers ARE NOT ludicrus.

Also, all of those numbers come from either the city's downtown council or the city hall of those city's so they aren't full of crap. And some are still from the year 2000. (only ones under 5,000 people)

Here are the population density numbers:

City Density/ppsm

Minneapolis 13,100

Cincinnati 6,831

Milwaukee 6,371

Detroit 6,000

Kansas City 5,033

Salt Lake City 4,025

Denver 4,000

Pittsburgh 3,828

Indianapolis 3,134

Cleveland 2,666

St. Louis 2,500

Charlotte 2,379

Louisville 2,316

Buffalo 2,078

Columbus 1,750

Memphis 1,538

Houston 1,500

Nashville 1,165

Oklahoma City 1,025

Some of the other cities number might be full of crap but Kansas City's isn't. You just don't like seeing Kansas City having higher numbers and a higher density than St. Louis.

The members of the downtown council of Kansas City:

http://www.downtownkc.org/council_members.html

Most of the members are located in downtown, from the river to 31st street.

With so many members who are included in the whole 3 square mile area, plus having the support of City Hall, their numbers are accurate. And downtown DOES include Crown Center because the downtown council says so, and because City Hall says so.

Like I said, the forumers on the other site go by their own definitions, some think just the loop is downtown, some think the river market and the loop is downtown, some think downtown is river market, the loop and the crossroads. But THEIR opinions don't matter because the facts say otherwise.

So in the end, what I define as downtown is the same as what the downtown council and city hall consider downtown.

And how are they dead for having so many people in such small areas? If KC's DT was dead, units wouldn't still be selling out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.