How satisfied/dissatisfied with your city are you?

[kcexpress69]

Kansas City

It's been a part of me for 48 out of the 50 years I've been on this planet. I've seen the best of the best and the worst of the worst in this city.

My praises:

I love the fact that KC is nearly centrally located in the middle of the U.S., which means that I could travel to anywhere in the 48 states and get there within a day or 2. The summers can be hot and the winters cold, but not quite as bad as maybe living in southern Arizona or northern Minnesota. Cost of living is much lower here than in other parts of the US, and the economy is strong enough here that you shouldn't have too much of a problem finding a job, or break the bank trying to find a place to live, although there are a few exceptions to that. Downtown and the surrounding area has made significant progress over the last 20 years to rehab old buildings, and build new ones. A new arena was built in the late 2000s in hope to attract an NBA or NHL team. So far, no team has relocated, but it still draws people constantly, to shows and concerts, and to my knowledge has been successful. More people have moved downtown and there's plenty of entertainment in the Power and Light District and in the crossroads. A new airport to replace the current one is finally underway and is expected to be complete by 2024. We do have a streetcar that's so far been successful, although it really needs to be expanded in order to get more potential out of it. Those are a few things that come to mind.


My grievances: (where to start)

The state line/river issue: Most large cities are near a body of water of some kind, be it an ocean or sea, a lake, or a river. Kansas City happens to be at the conjunction of two rivers... the Missouri and Kansas Rivers. The Missouri River pretty much splits the city in two, with the population nearly divided up fifty/fifty, believe. (I've been Googling but unable to find the exact population of KC just north of the river) Anyway, most of the north population is suburban which is almost in its own enclave from the rest of the city south of the river. As if that's not bad enough. Missouri/Kansas State Line, runs right smack dab through the middle of the Metro Area. Nearly two million people live in the seven most populous counties between the two states, and 58% live on the Missouri side, and 42% on the Kansas side. I really wished that the state line was 20 miles west or east of downtown KC, because I believe that would alleviate many of the problems that this city has, not to mention that the population of Kansas City could easily be close to 700,000 people.

There's no light rail, and likely never will be. The street car is nice to move people around downtown (and to the plaza eventually) but it's not an effective mode of transportation, and you really need light rail to move people in and out of the city effectively. People just rely on cars too much and the city on both sides of the state line are not interested in funding a system like that.

Like many large cities, the public school system is a disaster, and may never get fixed, which is preventing families from moving back into the city.

Because of the divide, many large projects get stalled for years, sometimes decades before they become a reality. As mentioned, the new airport terminal is being built, but that's after many years of debating on whether or not we needed one. (trust me, we did). Also, our downtown convention center hotel is set to open in April, but that's only after about 25 years of fighting over financing and other stupid crap that's kept us from getting better conventions and as a result, losing millions of dollars of revenue. There's now a debate heating up on relocating the Kansas City Royals downtown. The lease at the current location isn't up for another 10 years, but already there's talk about where to put it, and trying to avoid them moving across state line into Kansas. Anyway, that's a few issues. I'm sure there will be more that I will thing of after I post this!!

[Barney Greengrass]

Originally Posted by kcexpress69

Kansas City

It's been a part of me for 48 out of the 50 years I've been on this planet. I've seen the best of the best and the worst of the worst in this city.

My praises:

I love the fact that KC is nearly centrally located in the middle of the U.S., which means that I could travel to anywhere in the 48 states and get there within a day or 2. The summers can be hot and the winters cold, but not quite as bad as maybe living in southern Arizona or northern Minnesota. Cost of living is much lower here than in other parts of the US, and the economy is strong enough here that you shouldn't have too much of a problem finding a job, or break the bank trying to find a place to live, although there are a few exceptions to that. Downtown and the surrounding area has made significant progress over the last 20 years to rehab old buildings, and build new ones. A new arena was built in the late 2000s in hope to attract an NBA or NHL team. So far, no team has relocated, but it still draws people constantly, to shows and concerts, and to my knowledge has been successful. More people have moved downtown and there's plenty of entertainment in the Power and Light District and in the crossroads. A new airport to replace the current one is finally underway and is expected to be complete by 2024. We do have a streetcar that's so far been successful, although it really needs to be expanded in order to get more potential out of it. Those are a few things that come to mind.


My grievances: (where to start)

The state line/river issue: Most large cities are near a body of water of some kind, be it an ocean or sea, a lake, or a river. Kansas City happens to be at the conjunction of two rivers... the Missouri and Kansas Rivers. The Missouri River pretty much splits the city in two, with the population nearly divided up fifty/fifty, believe. (I've been Googling but unable to find the exact population of KC just north of the river) Anyway, most of the north population is suburban which is almost in its own enclave from the rest of the city south of the river. As if that's not bad enough. Missouri/Kansas State Line, runs right smack dab through the middle of the Metro Area. Nearly two million people live in the seven most populous counties between the two states, and 58% live on the Missouri side, and 42% on the Kansas side. I really wished that the state line was 20 miles west or east of downtown KC, because I believe that would alleviate many of the problems that this city has, not to mention that the population of Kansas City could easily be close to 700,000 people.

There's no light rail, and likely never will be. The street car is nice to move people around downtown (and to the plaza eventually) but it's not an effective mode of transportation, and you really need light rail to move people in and out of the city effectively. People just rely on cars too much and the city on both sides of the state line are not interested in funding a system like that.

Like many large cities, the public school system is a disaster, and may never get fixed, which is preventing families from moving back into the city.

Because of the divide, many large projects get stalled for years, sometimes decades before they become a reality. As mentioned, the new airport terminal is being built, but that's after many years of debating on whether or not we needed one. (trust me, we did). Also, our downtown convention center hotel is set to open in April, but that's only after about 25 years of fighting over financing and other stupid crap that's kept us from getting better conventions and as a result, losing millions of dollars of revenue. There's now a debate heating up on relocating the Kansas City Royals downtown. The lease at the current location isn't up for another 10 years, but already there's talk about where to put it, and trying to avoid them moving across state line into Kansas. Anyway, that's a few issues. I'm sure there will be more that I will thing of after I post this!!

You inspired me to Google Earth Kansas City and, whoa! That is not the neat and tidy layout I had in my head where KS and MO are separated by a river. It's complex and fascinating, the freeways are almost as defining as the rivers. The state line is not defining at all. A lot more urbanity than I expected, and now I'm very intrigued by the river and rail island of Armourdale. I'm surprised there isn't more light rail, it's laid out perfectly for it. The streetcar looks like a nice start.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Of course, white slave owners in the 13 colonies and the U.S. frequently had (consensual, coerced or non-consensual) sexual relations with female African slaves and often fathered children with them.

But as I mentioned previously, unlike the Spanish-Portuguese-French with indigenous people in the Americas, they never founded families with them. Nor was it common at all for British settlers to found families with indigenous people.

Oh for sure, just an interesting aside which actually fits in with that desire to remain separate from indigenous populations. To that end I think there's probably another divide within the Protestant faction as the early Dutch colonials (and later Afrikaners) tended to be hardcore Calvinists and firmly believed in full separation between racial lines and divides of power. Taken to extremes it could get pretty grim. The English were a bit more, pragmatic I guess? They weren't forming families with indigenous people but they also weren't necessarily opposed to letting locals have some administrative autonomy / minor positions of power. So long as they were in control and reaped the profits in the end. More efficient to run things that way, after all. Of course places like Canada and Australia started to go a different direction from other colonies as demographics shifted.

As you mentioned the divides in class in Spanish-Portuguese-French evolved in a much different way as there was significant mixing and tended to be less of a "two separate societies operating alongside each other" situation. And at the same time ended up with class distinction based largely along racial lines, but not necessarily as clearly defined.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

I wouldn't throw in the towel on Toronto just yet.

It's good to hear perspectives like this sometimes! Honestly I think for us it will come down to whether or not we end up having kids, based primarily on my wife's family being fully located in Ottawa. Plus her job allows her to work in either city on a day to day basis. If kids don't pan out I'm definitely finding a way to make Toronto work in the long run. Even if we do I could see moving back to Toronto after a while.

[Centropolis]

st. louis

cons

sluggish population growth
high violent crime rate in certain areas
severe decentralization
dysfunctional city/county democratic-machine politics
metropolitan balkanization
dysfunctional state/republican politics
weak transit/only two rail lines
large swarth of physical and economic decay in missouri and illinois


pros

high affordability
ease of airport access/ease of access to both coasts
decent contiguous swath of mature/improving urbanity/walkability/civic amenities/urban parks better (in my opinion) than just about every metro between coasts outside of chicago
family proximity
legacy assets like washington university finally being leveraged (8 billion endowment/neighborhood investment/cortex)
some subway stretches
ease of travel (traffic)
quality professional sports experience (if you are into that)
decent selection of pre-war suburbs with good public schools which seem to be weirdly rare between the coasts

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

The one thing I wish I learned sooner was to talk to a mortgage broker - not a stringently conservative bank who will just say "no", but somebody who will actually hunt for a creative solution for you. I was absolutely floored what we qualified for - we didn't even come close to using the full amount. The mortgage payments are kind of hefty, but not obscene. Before I had my kid, we could still do pretty much afford everything we did before we owned. Neither I nor my wife make six figures, either.

The second thing I think that I wish was that younger Torontonians spread out a bit more. There seems to be an aversion to moving north of St. Clair, even though there are perfectly decent neighbourhoods up here. You can find unrenovated but solid 3 bedroom bungalows in areas like Warden & Danforth or Rockcliffe-Smythe for $650k - often with rentable basement suites. These places are kind of on the edge of what I would consider to be walkable, but with enough critical mass these places will get there. Some of these aren't even that bad in terms of transit accessibility or having the bones of a walkable commercial main street.

That's an interesting idea and something I hadn't considered. Just gauging things based on the various banks' mortgage calculators, even with 2 incomes and some help from the parents on a down payment I'd only be eligible for a max $600,000 mortgage (even though I could actually afford a bit more in monthly payment). In which price range there are currently all of...7 houses on the market in the entire city - all of them in awful locations, and most of them needing extensive renovation to be habitable. Alternatively, that could buy a 500 sqft condo downtown.

Part of the problem I think, is the finite amount of nice, walkable neighbourhoods relative to population, as well a lack of housing options that fall somewhere in between fixed-supply SFH and small 1-bedroom condos. I'm somewhat envious when I look at New York real estate for example, as while even though average prices are a bit higher than Toronto, there still exist a lot of options for middle class 3/4-bedroom pre-war apartments in far-flung but urban, transit accessible neighbourhoods like Sunset Park or Jamaica or whatever.

I wonder if Toronto had been a bit bigger as a pre-war city if it wouldn't also be a bit cheaper.

[Handro]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

That's an interesting idea and something I hadn't considered. Just gauging things based on the various banks' mortgage calculators, even with 2 incomes and some help from the parents on a down payment I'd only be eligible for a max $600,000 mortgage (even though I could actually afford a bit more in monthly payment). In which price range there are currently all of...7 houses on the market in the entire city - all of them in awful locations, and most of them needing extensive renovation to be habitable. Alternatively, that could buy a 500 sqft condo downtown.

Part of the problem I think, is the finite amount of nice, walkable neighbourhoods relative to population, as well a lack of housing options that fall somewhere in between fixed-supply SFH and small 1-bedroom condos. I'm somewhat envious when I look at New York real estate for example, as while even though average prices are a bit higher than Toronto, there still exist a lot of options for middle class 3/4-bedroom pre-war apartments in far-flung but urban, transit accessible neighbourhoods like Sunset Park or Jamaica or whatever.

I wonder if Toronto had been a bit bigger as a pre-war city if it wouldn't also be a bit cheaper.

Chicaog's got the same issue. There are lots of affordable homes here in ok neighborhoods, but you're getting to the edges of the city with an hour+ commute on public transit and no real urban amenities. At that point, you might as well opt for a nice suburb with a pre-war, walkable downtown and a Metra (commuter train) stop.

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by Handro

Chicaog's got the same issue. There are lots of affordable homes here in ok neighborhoods, but you're getting to the edges of the city with an hour commute. At that point, you might as well opt of a nice suburb with a pre-war, walkable downtown and a Metra (commuter train) stop.

I've always thought Chicago fares pretty well as a realitvely high-income city with very large prewar bones that provide plenty of affordable urban options. I get really jealous checking out the nice prewar detached or semi-detached houses $500,000 can get you in a neigbhourhood with a subway connection and plenty of urban amenities nearby.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

I've always thought Chicago fares pretty well as a realitvely high-income city with very large prewar bones that provide plenty of affordable urban options. I get really jealous checking out the nice prewar detached or semi-detached houses $500,000 can get you in a neigbhourhood with a subway connection and plenty of urban amenities nearby.

Handro is overstating the issue in chicago.

our forum's own LVDW just bought a fixer-upper SFH in irving park a couple blocks from an el stop for a little over $300K.

and chicago also has an unbelievable SHITLOAD of legacy flats that can work for families too, but because everyone with kids wants the detached SFH, larger flat units like mine can be had at a pretty good discount over a SFH in the more trendy urban neighborhoods.

~10% of housing units in trendy urban core neighborhoods are detached SFH, and demand for them WAY outstrips supply, so of course there's a huge price premium on them. at the same time ~50% of units in those same areas are in flat buildings (2-flats, 3-flats, 6-flats, etc.), and those units can be had for much less, and come with a lower tax bill to boot.

we are nowhere near toronto's crisis level of housing affordability.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

decent selection of pre-war suburbs with good public schools which seem to be weirdly rare between the coasts

I think most of the Midwest metros have top-ranked school districts in inner suburbs. Perhaps they're proportionally less common than in the NE Corridor, but it seems that every Columbus has a Bexley, every Detroit has a Grosse Pointe, etc. It's not that hard to prioritize "old, semi-walkable and good schools".

[Steely Dan]

^ yeah, chicagoland and metro milwaukee also have a fair amount of "pre-war burbs with good public schools" too.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Handro is overstating the issue in chicago.

our forum's own LVDW just bought a fixer-upper SFH in irving park a couple blocks from an el stop for a little over $300K.

and chicago also has an unbelievable SHITLOAD of legacy flats that can work for families too, but because everyone with kids wants the detached SFH, larger flat units like mine can be had at a pretty good discount over a SFH in the more trendy urban neighborhoods.

~10% of housing units in trendy urban core neighborhoods are detached SFH, and demand for them WAY outstrips supply, so of course there's a huge price premium on them. at the same time ~50% of units in those same areas are in flat buildings (2-flats, 3-flats, 6-flats, etc.), and those units can be had for much less, and come with a lower tax bill to boot.

we are nowhere near toronto's crisis level of housing affordability.

Yeah, the issue with Chicago affordability is that urban professionals often want SFH. Chicago is cheap for a family if you're into vintage condos/coops near the lake (though there will be extremely high monthlies and limited resale) but SFH in gentrified neighborhoods aren't cheap.

In, say, NYC, SFH don't even enter into the equation. I have one friend with a SFH in the city, and he has family money and four kids, and lives around 8 miles from Midtown (Prospect Lefferts Gardens). And the home was a three family when he bought it. Everyone else is raising kids in highrises or midrises, and those who want SFH are in suburbs.

But our Chicago friends with kids in city proper are almost all in SFH. But if you insist on a SFH and can afford, say, a $1 million house, you can buy in almost any Chicagoland suburb with top-notch K-12 schools. Even the North Shore has gotten a lot cheaper.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

But our Chicago friends with kids in city proper are almost all in SFH. But if you insist on a SFH and can afford, say, a $1 million house

the people you know in chicago sound like a pretty narrow cross section of the city.

i live here and i don't know anyone who owns a 7-figure house. the VAST majority of chicagoans do not live in 7-figure homes.

however, i do know plenty of families with young children living in flats and bungalows that cost much less than 7 figures.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I think most of the Midwest metros have top-ranked school districts in inner suburbs. Perhaps they're proportionally less common than in the NE Corridor, but it seems that every Columbus has a Bexley, every Detroit has a Grosse Pointe, etc. It's not that hard to prioritize "old, semi-walkable and good schools".

yeah but i mean i said "seem rare between the coasts," which i think is generally true. even "older" midwestern cities like kansas city and indianapolis are missing a decent selection of true pre-war suburbs with good public schools.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

the people you know in chicago sound like a pretty narrow cross section of the city.

i live here and i don't know anyone who owns a 7-figure house. the VAST majority of chicagoans do not live in 7-figure homes.

however, i do know plenty of families with young children living in flats and bungalows that cost much less than 7 figures.

The only person I know who lives in a 7-figure house in the city is my boss, who I worked for at a previous startup and work for at another startup now. He, of course, did far better than me in the previous startup, but this time I'm hoping to do better and at least the cash is double what I started with at the last startup, so there's that. Anyway, he lives in a beautiful and large SFH in the Armitage area of Lincoln Park (just off Armitage, between the 'L' and Halsted). I think he rents, though, because it hasn't sold since before he lived in Chicago (he's not American) according to real estate sites. But for someone to afford what must be around a $20,000/month rent, one could easily buy it if they wanted to assume the risk and tie up the capital. Which I'm guessing he doesn't since he seems primarily to be acting as a venture capitalist for the moment.

Other families I know living in the city have a combination of town homes, two-flats, and single-family homes in places like North Center, western Andersonville, Wicker Park and Lincoln Square, with one family owning a townhome in Lincoln Park. Almost all of those cost below $600k, and all of them cost less than $800k. A few that were bought at the right times and had some investment might be close to worth seven figures now, but the owners didn't pay nearly that much for them.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

I like Chicago and it works quite well for me. It doesn't work so well for everyone though. I wish the gangs would somehow lose power and that places like Englewood or Roseland would become safe and stable. Also wish that the Metra Electric would accept my Ventra monthly pass so I could choose between the ME and express bus when going to work .

If you use the Ventra mobile app on a smartphone, you can have both a CTA pass on it, and a Metra pass on it.

[muppet]

Originally Posted by hauntedheadnc

And yet to Americans, London has a transit system that is light years ahead of anything on this continent, and my husband noted on our first visit there that London was the first place he had ever been where he did not feel -- and was not relentlessly reminded -- that he was black, and lesser, other, and an outsider.

I'm not knocking your perspective since you live there and know it better than I ever could, but I find the different perspectives fascinating.

Yep, subconscious bias in London doesnt so much manifests itself with people persay, it's more systemic within institutions. For example job interviews don't have the prejudice face to face (and admirably many counter any prejudice), but applications on paper from behind blank screens and you' get it. I've found this throughout my career, dealing with people who don't directly work with me I often come up against a subtle (or not so subtle) screen of assumption even from one step away, but those within no such problem.

The London transport system is actually very good and can't be faulted on comprehesive coverage - but it can on how creaky the system is (built 150 years ago, with spare parts now being sourced from museums). Even retro-fitted it still has to deal with the smaller spaces and restrictions built for a 19th century city of 6 million rather than 9-20 million. And the way it's run is catastrophically expensive and inefficient, thanks in part to trade unions/ big business too strong and too bullying (read: corrupt) on the public purse.

case in point, my local - Bank station, capacity 100,000 - yet still closes on average every 3 days due to overcrowding. Go any other time and you'd think it a wonder of organisation and efficiency: