Thanks for the support.
It appears that you are advocating the Dick Cheney :twisted: school of ruling from behind the scenes.
Groovy.
/
Yes, the density was amazing. The distinctive architecture and texture of the built environment then was astounding to say the least. Kansas City was such a Victorian-era city.
In addition, the commerce that occurred in that era was astounding. Kansas City was had the third or fouth largest garment district in the USA, and was among the banking and insurance capitals as well. In the 1920s-30s, Kansas City was the third biggest convention city in the country; had the second largest stockyard and meatpacking industry after Chicago; and were the second largest rail center in the country after Chicago (still are for that matter). More cars were built in Missouri than any other place outside of Detroit, with KC having two auto plants. Missouri is still second to Michigan in that respect.
I don't have consistently good health to have the energy to be mayor. Sorry.
In addition, I don't have the political connections and support to mount a campaign, nor access to money to do so. However, I would be willing to serve in a sort of "kitchen cabinet" advisory capacity to the next mayor if asked.
I'd be perfectly happy though to serve on the landmark's commission or a TIF commission, but only if the mayor and council were actually willing to carry out recommendations. I wouldn't want to waste my time and energy if they just continued to ignore the advice of those entities.
Again, thanks for the support and encouragement. I'm very flattered. If things were different, I would have a lot of fun challenging and irritating some entrenched interests.
Most of my ideas are just common sense and there are a lot of people who probably conclude the same things when they have only the well being of the city at heart, and not special interests. Despite the lack of smart leadership and innovative thinking,
Kansas City has a lot going for it, and has succeeded in many respects despite the worst that has been thrown at it. We have a very durable, stable economy; educated and productive workforce; and a reasonable pace of life.
Regarding the density issue, it's very sad to look at these old photos and see the full blocks and lovely old architecture that have been lost. The reason I'm always showing these old photos is to remind people of how great this city used to look, and what a dense, vital, integrated business district looks like. That we need to create that again.
It has been my opinion for a long time that Kansas City would have a much better convention, hotel, and tourism industry had we just not torn down so many of our great old buildings. The charm of that era would have attracted visitors in much the same way as places like Boston, New Orleans, San Francisco, Chicago, Philadelphia, and New York. People go there because they just like walking around looking at the historic cityscapes. With so many American cities looking virtually identical these days, it would have made Kansas City very distinctive. This used to be such a fascinating Victorian-era city.
If I could go in a time machine, I'd go back to visit Kansas City from the 1880s to 1940s. That would be fun.
As far as photos of density and change go, look in the East Village post in the next few days for a before and after rendering I've been working on. I want to show everyone how dense the east loop used to be.