Kansas City things

[michigancat]

hear me out

slc and austin aren't big boy cities

[MakeItRain]

Austin is the 10th most populated city in the country, it's good be a big boy. However, it's a new urban area that  sits in the middle of nowhere. When it comes to greenbelts I think it's a different game for relatively new urban areas like Austin and SLC than it is for much older cities.

[420seriouscat69]

It's amazing how many more applicants I get for Austin vs places like Dallas- Fort Worth, Atlanta, New York, etc. It's the new place everyone wants to be these days.

[Spracne]

hear me out

slc and austin aren't big boy cities

If Austin is not a "big boy city," then neither is KC. I believe Austin is like the 10th or 11th largest city in the country now.

[Spracne]

It's amazing how many more applicants I get for Austin vs places like Dallas- Fort Worth, Atlanta, New York, etc. It's the new place everyone wants to be these days.

It's a great place to live, so long as you make good money. I'll probably try to venture back some day.

[Brock Landers]

hear me out

slc and austin aren't big boy cities

If Austin is not a "big boy city," then neither is KC. I believe Austin is like the 10th or 11th largest city in the country now.

Yeah IMO it's pretty difficult not to consider Austin a big boy city.  SLC on the other hand is way more small timey than I thought.  Their population is basically identical to Overland Park. lol

[michigancat]

I had no idea Austin was the 10th (or 11th) largest city. And Fort Worth is 13!

[michigancat]

austin, ft. worth, jacksonville: big boy cities
SF, Boston, AtL, Miami: meh

[tdaver]

Agreed that SLC is definitely not big boy city, but by this metric it is a much bigger boy than KC.

[mocat]

kc is not a big boy city but it's not about population. imo it's more about population density than population.

as of the 2020 census, there are 326 cities in the US with a population of at least 100k.  all but 15 of them (!) have greater population density than kansas city, mo.

incredble:

From 1940 to 1960, the city more than doubled its physical size, while increasing its population by only about 75,000. By 1970, the city covered approximately 316 square miles (820 km2), more than five times its size in 1940.

[Spracne]

austin, ft. worth, jacksonville: big boy cities
SF, Boston, AtL, Miami: meh

Agreed that SF sucks, but you're being arbitrary here. I guess you'll need to define what counts as a "big boy" city. If we're not going to use any objective data, then I don't know. Miami is pretty small, and Boston (though historically relevant) isn't far behind. Btw, Jacksonville is basically the Kansas City of Florida.

[michigancat]

I don't need to do anything, thanks.

[tdaver]

hear me out

slc and austin aren't big boy cities

If Austin is not a "big boy city," then neither is KC. I believe Austin is like the 10th or 11th largest city in the country now.

SLC on the other hand is way more small timey than I thought.  Their population is basically identical to Overland Park. lol

CSA populations are essentially the same.  SLC proper just has a very small footprint.

[mocat]

austin, ft. worth, jacksonville: big boy cities
SF, Boston, AtL, Miami: meh

you have to include all municipalities in a metro area if you want to compare total population sizes. for example it was infurating to me during the coverage of the royals WS parade when i heard someone say "there were over a million people there, which is crazy because only 400,000 people live in kc?!?!?" like the people that live by the airport are relevant here but the people who live in downtown kck are not?

the only time you should compare actual city proper population is if you're trying to compare tax bases or density or something where a person living in the city proper matters, vs living in a "suburb".

almost 5 million people live in the "San Francisco" area, which does not include San Jose, by the way.
salt lake city hosted the god damn olympics.
austin is the capital of god damn Texas. and despite Austin not being a hub of a single US airline, you can fly nonstop to almost anywhere in the US, not to mention frankfurt or heathrow

[Spracne]

I don't need to do anything, thanks.

What you need to do is move your rough ridin' car, because it's Tuesday. And don't get snippy with me, mr. big city boy.

@mocat, while I understand your point, when it comes to accessing to certain amenities, I guess I just don't really think it's worth considering people in far-flung suburbs when it comes to amenities like parks and greenspaces in the heart of the anchor city, but maybe I'm just lazy. And I could be wrong about that.

[Brock Landers]

hear me out

slc and austin aren't big boy cities

If Austin is not a "big boy city," then neither is KC. I believe Austin is like the 10th or 11th largest city in the country now.

SLC on the other hand is way more small timey than I thought.  Their population is basically identical to Overland Park. lol

CSA populations are essentially the same.  SLC proper just has a very small footprint.

I was surprised when I looked up SLC's population a minute ago. I figured they'd be like in the 3-400k range.  I'm sure hosting an Olympics is what made me think they'd be more substantial, stuff like that definitely adds to your big boy city clout.

[michigancat]

SLC and Denver are also probably "bigger" than their actual population because they're so isolated and get pretty much every "big boy city" thing because there's nothing else in like an eight hour radius

[8manpick]

If you don’t have usable mass transit you aren’t a big boy city, you’re a highly populated suburb. Sorry, streetcars need not apply.

[Phil Titola]

Using "city" populations is a dumb way to compare cities.

KC has a pretty good transit system for its size and budget.  We don't have much commuting transit but that's because nobody would use it because we have no traffic.  You can easily live in the core and not own a car (as long as you can get a job also in the core)

[DQ12]

Anyone that opts to not have a car (like if it's' not prohibitively expensive) in KC is a psychopath.

[mocat]

If you don’t have usable mass transit you aren’t a big boy city, you’re a highly populated suburb. Sorry, streetcars need not apply.

there are a lot of metrics to look at, but this is a big one to me

[Phil Titola]

Anyone that opts to not have a car (like if it's' not prohibitively expensive) in KC is a psychopath.

I have one but I despise driving

[steve dave]

Anyone that opts to not have a car (like if it's' not prohibitively expensive) in KC is a psychopath.

yeah, what on earth.

A) it's easy as crap to drive around KC. It's not busy anywhere. parking is also readily available everywhere. it's not compact.
B) you can't get to anything via foot or public trans. Nothing is in the middle or any other area you want to be. KC is wide, not tall.

[Phil Titola]

B is not accurate.

[steve dave]

B is not accurate.

subjective for sure