Is this it?

[trailerkid]

Dude, I work in development and it has come to a grinding halt in the urban core and is barely breathing in the burbs.

Here, I will list the big projects in the metro.

Indep Arena (moving along)
Blue Springs Adams Dairy Landing (couple of big boxes, but tenants are dropping like flies)
Lee's Summit (same deal, RED had to get a loan just to keep these two projects going)
KCK (Speedway Plaza), big boxes, the few that will go up.
JoCo has a lot of projects that are on hold for now or are in extreme slow development mode mostly in Leawood and out near 135th and 69.

There are a couple of big distribution centers about to break ground, one near MCI and one near Olathe.

The Hammons hotel and convention center (if it gets built) will be the biggest project in the metro under construction next year outside the PAC.

Schlitterbaun is still very questionable, it they continue to build it, it will probably be about the same size as OOF.

That's it.

Urban Core?

The PAC. 

There has not been even the slightest interest in the urban core of KCMO since funkhouser was elected.  I'm not saying it's his fault, but nothing, NOTHING has even been in the pipeline for years (even before the economy crashed) except a couple of plaza developments which probably won't happen either.

And for the record, they shouldn't.

Tearing down buildings to build something new in this city is asinine when we have so much under-utilized land.

Asking for tiffs to tear down occupied, usable structures that give this area what urbanity it has and replacing those with tiff projects in an area of town that should no longer get tax breaks is crazy.

But then again, NOBODY is looking at the empty lots in east downtown, crossroads, midtown etc right now.

Nothing is going on and hasn't been going on for a few years in KC.

We are lucky to still be riding some of the left over wave of the Barnes era (P&L District, etc).

There definitely was this great sense of optimism for Kansas City around the time the library was u/c, all the lofts began to boom, talk of downtown baseball, Xroads got popular, renovations everywhere. After the arena vote I honestly thought that Kansas City could become like an Atlanta in terms of where it was going-- I don't see that happening at all now. It's just kind of like the bubble got slowly deflated as Barnes left and now everything is back to normal. There are a lot of people living here that really hate Kansas City, but know nothing about it. They don't want a vibrant city and just want suburbs with clean streets and sidewalks...short drives to the airport, mall and big box areas. It's really sad because our city is really one of the best and most charming cities in the U.S.

It's too bad we're already at the point where we have to make a comeback after having so much momentum a few years ago. I don't buy the economic downturn excuse as there were no sizable office/residential/housing projects in the pipeline before the crash.

[cdm2p]

Debate, alone, is not bad.  It is how that debate is conducted that is the problem as you observe.  Afterall, it would be quite boring if all that was said is:

(Blank) development is great.

Agreed

Agreed

Agreed

Agreed

Agreed

Agreed.

This is a pro-development forum.  By and large everyone agrees that development is great.  Debate is largely focused on details, such as design or tenant mix. 

Since the economy and Funkhouser have killed development, maybe we ought to start a thread on how to the rekindle the optimism that this town had from 03 to 07.

[KCTigerFan]

If reasonable people prevail at City Hall, you will also see work start on a hotel at 13th and Walnut and the Midland tower conversion to apartments. 

[GRID]

From another thread:

We have some amazing things to look forward to (basically what is still UC from the Barnes era (PAC, P&L District etc)

But for the most part, KC has really dropped the ball.

City Hall is a total disaster and will set the city back nearly a decade in my opinion.

When the economy does recover, all these other cities will pick up right where they left off and will fill empty office towers and condo towers and bust the cranes out to build more.

All while KC just wonders what the hell is going on.

We said no to hundreds of millions of dollars of federal money by completing screwing up any chance of building a transit system for another decade.

Something like 35 cities passed rail issues in the past year and the feds will hand out billions of dollars to those cities and others that are ready to expand or built transit.

We might get a few new buses out of the deal.

I have personally watched the development momentum shift from Johnson County to urban KCMO and the Northland over the past decade and over the past year or two, it has shifted right back to Johnson County.  What a fucking wasted effort if we are not going to continue and finish what we started.

Same can be said for downtown and the convention center.  Damn, we were so close to taking KC to the next level if we just continued the investment and continued playing catch up after 30-40 years of neglect.  We had a lot of work to do.

Now I wonder why we expanded Bartle, why we built the Ballroom and even the arena.  Why did we do all this and then just decided we were done.

KC has lost its way and in 2005, the city’s destiny was in its hands.   This city has come a long long way in the last 5-7 years.  But I’m not sure we have gained any ground at all on other large metro areas.  Actually, I think we probably slipped a few notches, although had we not did what we did, KC would have fallen to the bottom.

[bbqboy]

why does KC have to compete with other cities? A basic question, but a central one.

[GRID]

why does KC have to compete with other cities? A basic question, but a central one.

When I say KC fell a few notches, I mean that even though we have done a lot and really turned the city around, KC was so far behind most major metro areas (that also continued to rebuild and build their urban centers) that we probably have only simply stopped the bleeding and the freefall that was going on.  KC was a spiraling plane about to crash in the late 90’s.

I think you have to compete.  There are dozens of cities out there that offer near 24 hour bustling downtowns, solid well maintained infrastructure, a major corporate presence, pro sports (including arena sports), modern hotels, light rail and simply a far more dense, busy, urban core with a far greater percent of metro residents and employees in that urban core every day.

If you are young and have a choice between KC or Denver, Austin, Minneapolis, San Diego, Portland, Seattle etc, how do we get KC to stand out and be a desirable city?

We still don’t appeal to somebody that has lived in Denver or Boston, we just don’t.  I think we are getting there, but the momentum is so hard to keep going in this town.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m excited about what’s still going on in KC.  But it’s like we can never seem to reach the potential this town has before we go and do something totally arsine, like electing Funkhouser as mayor….

[LenexatoKCMO]

I think the biggest accomplishment the last several years in KC and really nationwide was making urbanity mainstream cool - and this will be lasting for awhile regardless of economic conditions and development slowdowns.  Ten years ago in the USA, conventional wisdom said that suburban living was the highest state of being and that urban cities were nothing but crime ridden cesspools that would only be inhabited by fools or people who have no choice.  That is no longer nearly the dominant attitude.  Suburbanites seem to have become much more conscious of the fact that there are drawbacks to their lifestyle, even if that doesn't mean they are ready to abandon it.  And cities have become much more glamorous and attractive options.  In my mind it will take a sifnificantly prolonged stagnation and rot to completely reverse this progress.  The psychological gains are still there.  

[cdm2p]

why does KC have to compete with other cities? A basic question, but a central one.

Growth is a natural thing.  Cities grow in population which translates into growth in jobs and income. 
Cities compete for growth.  If a city doesn't grow, the city falls behind.  Cities need to retain a share of their natural growth just to keep up.  Kansas City lost jobs, income, and population for decades.  We've fallen behind.  Everything that has been done in the last 5 years has been barely enough to get us caught up and, inspite of everything that has been done, we are not there yet.

[Midtownkid]

I think the biggest accomplishment the last several years in KC and really nationwide was making urbanity mainstream cool - and this will be lasting for awhile regardless of economic conditions and development slowdowns.  Ten years ago in the USA, conventional wisdom said that suburban living was the highest state of being and that urban cities were nothing but crime ridden cesspools that would only be inhabited by fools or people who have no choice.  That is no longer nearly the dominant attitude.  Suburbanites seem to have become much more conscious of the fact that there are drawbacks to their lifestyle, even if that doesn't mean they are ready to abandon it.  And cities have become much more glamorous and attractive options.  In my mind it will take a sifnificantly prolonged stagnation and rot to completely reverse this progress.  The psychological gains are still there.  

I definitely agree with that.  The media has really turned on the suburbs and glamorized city living.  Just look at the movies and TV shows out there.  If they take place in the burbs it is usually with a cynical outlook.

As far as the forum dieing...it don't think it is.  It's just changing.  There is still a lot of development and more to come I'm sure, but we have slowed down a bit.  And as it has been mentioned before, there was a lot of dreaming before, but now those things we were dreaming about have come into being (usually to some harsh criticism). 

Debate on here is good.  I just see a lot of un-needed head-biting-off between certain members.  People take topics that are perfectly good and turn the conversation into something totally unrelated.  (Fighting about being racist, insensitive, using bad grammar, using the wrong words/definitions etc.)  If people would just try to stick to the topics and worry less about dumb shit that doesn't matter (see above) than things would be a little more like back in 2004-2005. 

I still enjoy the forum and am glad it is still around!

[bahua]

i have managed to actually make some friends off this thing. people i have met in kc and hung out with. shit, one that even brought his family to my home in pittsburgh. others i just had dinner and what not with in kc. here is the thing. the ones i have maintained good relationships with that no longer post, and they are all consistent on why they bailed. take the note i got from tat2kc, regarding how there are not intilligent people with to converse on here anymore, how the quality went to hell.

I too have made a lot of friends through this forum, but I don't think that really sets this forum above any other. Urban development is exciting, and people congregating to cope with their excitement, and to inquire of other as to why they may or many not share that excitement to the same or to a greater degree, tends to work well in forging friendships.

Also, it causes people to tell their friends, and eventually, sites like this get noticed by the media and channels of greater influence and visibility. That brings more people in, and that increases the amount of posting. Increased posting brings increased noise, and the good stuff is drowned out by that noise. This is the reality of the internet. The internet reflects directly back at the world, and the world is full of a lot of people with a lot of useless things to say. And that's fine.

I'm sorry tat2kc feels that way, but he's entitled to his opinion. I too have been a little more frugal in my posting as of late, but it isn't because I've been "driven away," and it certainly isn't because I think there's something missing on the forum that used to exist. There are, if anything, more intelligent and informed people here than there ever have been. There's also more noise than ever before, but that's the nature of an open forum.

I personally think it's bullshit to think that something's missing now. It isn't.

[Highlander]

I don't understand the forum angst.  Most posters have essentially demonstrated an ebb and flow posting pattern over years I have been involved and very few have completely abandoned the forum.  Of those, not everyone left because they were unhappy with the evolution of the forum; some left town and others just have to deal with issues in their life that are more important than online discussions.  As far as I am concerned, the forum differs only in one way than it did when I first posted ~5 years ago; there are more people.  When one acts like an ass or posts something that is dumb or erroneous, they simply do it in front of a larger audience. 

The major issue I have with the forum is not unique to this forum; it exists in any venue where there is a cloak of anonymity to retreat to.  We can be pretty uncivil to each other at times which I find rather disappointing considering that most of the members are professionals who probably pride themselves in behaving very differently in face to face encounters.  Having said that, I feel this forum is actually pretty good in that regard considering the diverse political spectrum from which the members are drawn.  Additionally, it does get annoying at times that the only thing that will spark a discussion is an extreme position that may or may not involve race baiting, stereotyping local subpopulations, or smack talk on the sports pages.  Frankly, I'd actually rather engage in mutual back patting where we stack hands on an issue than a forced discussion on an extreme position taken by a particular forumer.  The former is tolerable while the latter just wastes my time. 

The forum is fine as far as I am concerned.  Looking forward to discussing KC development well into the future. 

[trailerkid]

Ten years ago in the USA Kansas City, conventional wisdom said that suburban living was the highest state of being and that urban cities were nothing but crime ridden cesspools that would only be inhabited by fools or people who have no choice.

WTF?

10 years ago places like Denver, Chicago, MPLS, Seattle, et. al were STOCKPILING amenities in their downtowns while Kansas City sat on its ass trying to rebuild 18th and Vine. Urban living HAS been cool for longer than 10 years in the US and it's only now coming halfway around in KC.

If reasonable people prevail at City Hall, you will also see work start on a hotel at 13th and Walnut and the Midland tower conversion to apartments. 

So the plan now is just a hotel on 13th with no residential aspect? Lame. I'd veto it and let the site sit until a better plan comes along.

From another thread:

We have some amazing things to look forward to (basically what is still UC from the Barnes era (PAC, P&L District etc)

I wouldn't call adding to the P+L and finally getting the PAC built amazing.

Amazing?

40,000 people living downtown in 10 years.

More than 5 real hotels downtown.

Over 5,000,000 sq feet of Class A office space added in the next 10 years.

100,000 employees working each weekday in the Loop.

A free downtown only bus.

A proper multi-modal transit center.

Walking from the loop to Crown Center without seeing a surface parking lot.

Bike lanes on every street downtown.

Commuter rail/BRT running along I-35 in KS and I-70 in MO into Union Station.

Narrowing the massive streets and making them all two way traffic.

Crown Center integrating its south end into Union Hill with loads more housing.

A dense Crossroads local retail district with street activity on weekends.

A dense Loop retail district with street activity on weekends.

[voltopt]

WTF?

10 years ago places like Denver, Chicago, MPLS, Seattle, et. al were STOCKPILING amenities in their downtowns while Kansas City sat on its ass trying to rebuild 18th and Vine. Urban living HAS been cool for longer than 10 years in the US and it's only now coming halfway around in KC.

Haha.  I think its funny when people refer to cities as whole entities, as if this were some sort of war or something.
The truth is that these other cities are inherently attractive to people.  Kansas City is too - just in a different way.  Talking about how "cool" urban living is to prove a point disproves any relative perspective that you may have.  Remember - you are a part of this Kansas City.  What have you done lately for it?

[trailerkid]

Haha.  I think its funny when people refer to cities as whole entities, as if this were some sort of war or something.
The truth is that these other cities are inherently attractive to people.  Kansas City is too - just in a different way.  Talking about how "cool" urban living is to prove a point disproves any relative perspective that you may have.  Remember - you are a part of this Kansas City.  What have you done lately for it?

It kinda is war when you look at the history of suburbanization and its destruction of urban fabric both here and elsewhere. It is definitely a fight when you consider the human cost of suburbanization.

Urbanity is considered sophisticated in American culture. It is! Much of what is "cool" in our culture has its roots in cities. There is a cultural perception of cities being morally bankrupt, but they are surely the centers of American commerce, art, cuisine, fashion, etc. etc. etc. By making this statement I am not indicting myself of some sort of lack of relativism-- I never claimed to have this. The suburbs can suck on a bag of dicks IMHO. They're horrible...

I don't live in Kansas City, Missouri. I live in Lawrence. There are a lot of things I don't like about Kansas City and am reconsidering any investment I've made spiritually, mentally or whatever else. I do believe that enhancing the character of my satellite city (through my job as a city employee dealing with citizens, personal decisions towards a more urban lifestyle, input to civic leadership, where i spend my money, etc.) helps the overall good of the region we all live in. I think we could all have a much greater voice and impact. I'm not really sure what you're alluding to...aren't we all on here to discuss, analyze, critique? I think that's part of the difference between being on a web site and being a community activist. If you have "done more lately" for Kansas City and feel certain people's ideas matter more because of it then by all means ignore the rest of us.

[bahua]

Everyone is drunk!

[voltopt]

It kinda is war when you look at the history of suburbanization and its destruction of urban fabric both here and elsewhere. It is definitely a fight when you consider the human cost of suburbanization.

Urbanity is considered sophisticated in American culture. It is! Much of what is "cool" in our culture has its roots in cities. There is a cultural perception of cities being morally bankrupt, but they are surely the centers of American commerce, art, cuisine, fashion, etc. etc. etc. By making this statement I am not indicting myself of some sort of lack of relativism-- I never claimed to have this. The suburbs can suck on a bag of dicks IMHO. They're horrible...

I don't live in Kansas City, Missouri. I live in Lawrence. There are a lot of things I don't like about Kansas City and am reconsidering any investment I've made spiritually, mentally or whatever else. I do believe that enhancing the character of my satellite city (through my job as a city employee dealing with citizens, personal decisions towards a more urban lifestyle, input to civic leadership, where i spend my money, etc.) helps the overall good of the region we all live in. I think we could all have a much greater voice and impact. I'm not really sure what you're alluding to...aren't we all on here to discuss, analyze, critique? I think that's part of the difference between being on a web site and being a community activist. If you have "done more lately" for Kansas City and feel certain people's ideas matter more because of it then by all means ignore the rest of us.

I wouldn't suggest I've done any more than anyone else.  The "you" in the previous post wasn't directed at you in particular, but at generalist negativity -it was difficult to find the correct words after a night at the Zoo Bar.  I appreciate your post - it is clear and direct and level headed.  Criticism can get heated and emotional sometimes, but I appreciate when it is done in a clear, thoughtful way.

[aknowledgeableperson]

It kinda is war when you look at the history of suburbanization and its destruction of urban fabric both here and elsewhere. It is definitely a fight when you consider the human cost of suburbanization.

I think that it is odd when one personifies an abstract item or items such as suburbanization.  Did the movement of people from the central city have a negative effect on the central city?  Yes, but at the same time many central cities were already in a suffering mode of existence.  Just take a look at some of the movies from the 30's.  The Dead End Kids were not some social club that was positive influence on the community.  And from the 50's the Blackboard Jungle was not a pretty picture of an urban school nor its urban environment.  Even Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House gave many reasons to move from an urban highrise to a suburban, countryside home.

Although there are many reasons for the growth of the suburbs many fail to realize that the ills that already existed in the urban environment also contributed to society's movement from the central cities.  One could say, if you wnat to identify it as a war, that the central city was its own worst enemy.

[trailerkid]

Although there are many reasons for the growth of the suburbs many fail to realize that the ills that already existed in the urban environment also contributed to society's movement from the central cities.  One could say, if you wnat to identify it as a war, that the central city was its own worst enemy.

This point shouldn't be lost. American cities were often dirty, racist, classist places where lots of horrific things took place. I can understand the movement to suburbanize. However, instead of improving the conditions in our central cities...white people packed up, abandoned them and destroyed what was left for parking or cheap fast food and light industrial. The war for urban America is one to revitalize and improve our central city at any cost. 

[Beermo]

This point shouldn't be lost. American cities were often dirty, racist, classist places where lots of horrific things took place. I can understand the movement to suburbanize. However, instead of improving the conditions in our central cities...white people packed up, abandoned them and destroyed what was left for parking or cheap fast food and light industrial. The war for urban America is one to revitalize and improve our central city at any cost. 

there is no war for urban america.

[aknowledgeableperson]

I can understand the movement to suburbanize. However, instead of improving the conditions in our central cities...white people packed up, abandoned them and destroyed what was left for parking or cheap fast food and light industrial.  

First you say you understand the movement to suburbanize but do you accept it?  Yes, white people left the central cities but are you trying to put the decline of the cities entirely on the white flight?  The decay of the cities was caused by many things that happened in our society.  But to blame my parents, or any parent for that matter, for the decay by their moving of the family from the central part of KCK to an area that was then outside of KCMO city limits on the southside is way off-base.  And much like almost 22 years ago my wife and I moved our family from the Hickman Mills area to the Red Bridge area out intent was to have a better environment for our children and if that caused a little decline in the Hickman Mills area then sobeit.