Quote:
Originally Posted by chingon
StL is larger and denser, and that's cool, but KC isn't quite the poster child for low density sprawl most people would like to paint it as. In fact it's pretty comparable to most other midwestern cities, yours included.
|
I think you read way too much into my observations of Kansas City being "laid back and spread out." It was admittedly a poor choice of words in the context of how KC is often misrepresented, but I was speaking from the point of view of when KC was booming and the urban core we now see was taking shape ... and when St. Louis, Cincy, and Chicago were horribly overcrowded and choked with coal smoke.
I view KC as a great model of late pre war urban planning - with organized walkable business districts (not to mention the plaza) and a great collection of deco towers, solid apartment buildings and modern (in a stylish 1920s kind of way) single family homes. I find this kind of almost romantic urbanity done right to have a really great feel - as Kansas City has - and I was not entangling this observation with any vieled reference to post war sprawl, which everyone has.
I was definitely wanting to avoid a city vs city scenario - which is why I was concerned about things like estimating and comparing density numbers -
especially when what I care much, much more about is aura and feel. In this respect, I am fond of differentiating Kansas City from St. Louis - KC feels almost exotic to me when I visit - and I truly appreciate how it feels and "behaves" differently. It's worth repeating - for the most part, anything I say when describing a city is more along the lines of "feel" and the intangibles that are none the less present - because that's all I really care about.