OFFICIAL: Penn Valley Park (Ideas+redeveloment)

Issues concerning Downtown as described by the Downtown Council. River to 31st Street, I-35 to Bruce R. Watkins.
KCDevin

OFFICIAL: Penn Valley Park (Ideas+redeveloment)

Postby KCDevin » Fri Feb 13, 2004 7:47 am

ImageImageImage
[quote]
A plan with a view


Potential of Penn Valley Park inspires planners, unsettles others

By KEVIN COLLISON

The Kansas City Star


The hills of Penn Valley Park, downtown's largest green space, are alive with speculation, with ideas ranging from a 1,000-unit housing development to a skateboard park.

The historic park is home to some of the area's best-known icons, including the Liberty Memorial and “The Scoutâ€

User avatar
bahua
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 10850
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2003 7:39 pm
Location: Out of Town
Contact:

Penn Valley Park Master Plan Redone/Reviewed

Postby bahua » Fri Feb 13, 2004 1:06 pm

This, if it pans out, looks to put PVP very seriously in the running for KC's grand urban park.

User avatar
trailerkid
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 11221
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 4:49 pm
Location: San Francisco, California
Contact:

Penn Valley Park Master Plan Redone/Reviewed

Postby trailerkid » Fri Feb 13, 2004 1:40 pm

I realize PVP needs some help, but I am not sure land should be privatized and used for housing. It is a public park and I believe it should remain that way. Despite how desirable the housing might be, it does not belong in a public park.

We need a better solution or anchor to bring the park back. I like the idea of bringing the IRS and Fed into the fold...it is also in the interest of Crown Center Redevelopment. Devise a plan using the input of all the neighbors around it. Housing is a quick fix, but not necessarily the best fix.

JBinKC
Strip mall
Strip mall
Posts: 271
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 4:29 pm
Location: Plaza/Westport
Contact:

Penn Valley Park Master Plan Redone/Reviewed

Postby JBinKC » Fri Feb 13, 2004 2:00 pm

This housing plan stinks. Did you see where they want to put it???Surrounding two landmarks. We're talking apartments around the Scout. Why not just build on the front lawn of the memorial??? On top of that, the housing didn't sound like anything special.

Alternatives: If there must be housing in the park to bring it to life, or to fund the work it needs, build near the S end of the park by 31st St, or better yet, either reuse BMA for housing, or tear it down and put 1000 units in its place. Seriously, in the middle of the park is no place for this.

One part of this plan that sounds really cool is the waterfalls and ponds running from 31st St down through the ravine W of Broadway in to small ponds and the existing fishing pond. This would be awsome if bridges and trails ran across this as well. What a sight that would be.

User avatar
trailerkid
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 11221
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 4:49 pm
Location: San Francisco, California
Contact:

Penn Valley Park Master Plan Redone/Reviewed

Postby trailerkid » Fri Feb 13, 2004 2:05 pm

BMA was bought by Landmark Tower LLC and is supposed to be remodeled for office uses...
http://www.kcskyscrapers.com/kcforum/vi ... hlight=bma

User avatar
dangerboy
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 9029
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 8:28 am
Location: West 39th St. - KCMO

Penn Valley Park Master Plan Redone/Reviewed

Postby dangerboy » Fri Feb 13, 2004 3:40 pm

Apartments around the Scout and Pioneer Mother would suck. More housing around the park would definitely give it a big boost, but not where they proposed it. The southern 2/3 of the Trinity Hospital campus is available for redevelopment, right across Wyandotte Street and already with parking garages.

Turning over parkland to private development should be considered very carefully, because it would be an irrevocable decision. If is done, it would be more appropriate on the edges of the park than the interior. Perhaps along the west side of Wyandotte or the north side of 31st. There is also an area right across Southwest Trafficway that is ripe for redevelopment, next to the Signal Hill townhomes.

Image

KCDevin

Penn Valley Park Master Plan Redone/Reviewed

Postby KCDevin » Fri Feb 13, 2004 3:41 pm

dont ever say tear down the BMA Tower or anything else its size lol. It is 280ft and one of the most noticable buildings in our skyline. Built on some of the highest ground (the highest point downtown is actually on the Fed. Reserve site)
I want this to happen, I'd rather have nice housing there than a bunch of trees... Sure it's a park but you can't really go in those areas.
I'm sure you guys have been to the scout, it won't be around it, just behind it.
These houses will also blend in with some of the trees, because only being 4 floors, that is 40ft (at least) and most trees I have measured are almost 60ft tall.
I would rather have 1,000 more units than none. 1,000 is enough to push us over 10,000 more people downtown when all units are complete, that is double the current downtown population (16,000).
You will still have plenty of room to rest if needed. Housing doesn't mean taking away the peace and quiet of the park, it would be the same as having more people in the park, only the buildings are closer.

User avatar
DanCa
Valencia Place
Valencia Place
Posts: 1614
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 12:11 pm
Location: Denver, CO (Stapleton)

Penn Valley Park Master Plan Redone/Reviewed

Postby DanCa » Fri Feb 13, 2004 5:15 pm

I lived a block from City Park in Denver and used it a lot. It was successful because it had the Zoo and Natural History Museum in it, a small lake, great walking paths and magnificent views of the Front Range and downtown skyline. It was also surrounded by a lot of housing within easy walking distance. I think PVP is so under-used because few people can walk to it. Loose Park is probably more successful becuase of its proximity to housing.

User avatar
Downtowner
Western Auto Lofts
Western Auto Lofts
Posts: 561
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 10:43 am

Park Housing

Postby Downtowner » Sat Feb 14, 2004 9:49 am

This plan looks like something that belonga at 119th and College Blvd. If anything, they should build residential high rises on one small corner of the park---perhaps behind the Post office, across from Annie's lofts. This city badly needs high density population, not sprawling apartments. A high rise would there would be very marketable with great views of downtown and the park. The only downtown condo highrise is San Francisco tower. It has a waiting list for available units. It's a shame there aren't developers being sought to meet the need that is out there.

I think the downtown council needs to recruit out of town developers (such as the one doing the Western Auto Lofts) to build residential high rise condos. We are nearly out of buildings to convert to loft space.

User avatar
GRID
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 14054
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 12:20 pm
Contact:

Penn Valley Park Master Plan Redone/Reviewed

Postby GRID » Sat Feb 14, 2004 10:18 am

I agree with everything you guys are saying, especially about building higher density highrises instead of 3 story garden apartments. And there are plenty of other places around the park to build some condos etc without destroying the most parklike areas of the park.

I also agree that it's time for the suburban developers trying to develop the core to move over and let some out of town developers come in and build urban developments.

A highrise condo tower or towers in PVP is a nobrainer, the view from the property and the visibility of the towers from the rest of the the downtown area would be insane.

KCDevin

Penn Valley Park Master Plan Redone/Reviewed

Postby KCDevin » Sat Feb 14, 2004 10:54 am

what i'm saying, is not near the post office, nothing that can block the view of the scout.
By the way, a twin for San Francisco Tower is planned, but only at 24-26 floors.

User avatar
Downtowner
Western Auto Lofts
Western Auto Lofts
Posts: 561
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 10:43 am

Highrise

Postby Downtowner » Sat Feb 14, 2004 11:04 am

The last word from crown center was that they may build residential next to SF tower but it wouldn't be a highrise. They plan on doing a four or five story loft building instead. The original plan was for a twin tower but they've scrapped that idea. Too bad.

KCDevin

Penn Valley Park Master Plan Redone/Reviewed

Postby KCDevin » Sat Feb 14, 2004 11:06 am

time to ask city hall about highrises for quality hill and the east loop?

User avatar
DiggityDawg
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1393
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 9:31 pm
Location: Midtown

Re: Park Housing

Postby DiggityDawg » Sat Feb 14, 2004 12:11 pm

Downtowner wrote:This plan looks like something that belonga at 119th and College Blvd. If anything, they should build residential high rises on one small corner of the park---perhaps behind the Post office, across from Annie's lofts. This city badly needs high density population, not sprawling apartments. A high rise would there would be very marketable with great views of downtown and the park. The only downtown condo highrise is San Francisco tower. It has a waiting list for available units. It's a shame there aren't developers being sought to meet the need that is out there.

I think the downtown council needs to recruit out of town developers (such as the one doing the Western Auto Lofts) to build residential high rise condos. We are nearly out of buildings to convert to loft space.


I noticed that the buildings just north of Annie's Lofts have been torn down. Does this have something to do with the IRS move-in, or something else?

zonk
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1207
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2003 12:07 pm
Location: downtown

Penn Valley Park Master Plan Redone/Reviewed

Postby zonk » Sun Feb 15, 2004 3:53 pm

I noticed that the buildings just north of Annie's Lofts have been torn down. Does this have something to do with the IRS move-in, or something else?

yep, this is part of the IRS project. everything coming down from Annie's to Pershing Rd., Broadway to post office.

LyRiCaL GanGsTa

Penn Valley Park Master Plan Redone/Reviewed

Postby LyRiCaL GanGsTa » Mon Feb 16, 2004 9:16 pm

This plan looks like something that belonga at 119th and College Blvd. If anything, they should build residential high rises on one small corner of the park---perhaps behind the Post office, across from Annie's lofts. This city badly needs high density population, not sprawling apartments. A high rise would there would be very marketable with great views of downtown and the park. The only downtown condo highrise is San Francisco tower. It has a waiting list for available units. It's a shame there aren't developers being sought to meet the need that is out there.


My sentiments exactly, why can't the idiots that run this city talk to experts about URBAN PLANNING. The residential units should go up, not sprawl.... The more dense the projects are the more mass transit becomes a reality. We need a "corridor plan that works, this is an extremely important element in the 'corridor' plan and we can't screw it up.

KCDevin

Penn Valley Park Master Plan Redone/Reviewed

Postby KCDevin » Mon Feb 16, 2004 9:21 pm

do you think Kay Barnes, and the rest of the the city council are idiots? You obviously don't watch them every thursday ;)

LyRiCaL GanGsTa

Penn Valley Park Master Plan Redone/Reviewed

Postby LyRiCaL GanGsTa » Tue Feb 17, 2004 12:59 pm

I do watch them, not every Thursday. They appear to be inept, this city needs real leadership and vision. Barnes and ilk don't have it. Barnes is in the right place at the right time. Congressman Kit Bond did more for downtown then she did ( proir to Block and Bloch was already going to build somewhere) when he pulled the IRS project together. Barnes is a downtown supporter, but she isn't visionary or talented. Why would ANYONE consider putting residential in an ALREADY small urban park like Penn Valley? The park needs more amenities added while land is at a premium. There are a TON of vacant lots that could support TRUE URBAN RESIDENTIAL high and midrises within walking distance of the park. Instead, typical KC sprawl and somebody at City Hall is getting PAID by these developers to develop these spots with a great view. Instead, Barnes should be seeking developers to develop the vacant land AROUND the park and building a true core that will support a metro rail-line, not a suburban style sprawly apt. complex that will destroy the park forever. My theory about this is any high-rise built in that area will have fantastic views, instead, the developers want a low-rise that uses the hill height to support the view, ie: they don't want to RISK high-rise cost on an urban project. This is a shame and I see right through Barnes and the city leaders.

User avatar
trailerkid
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 11221
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 4:49 pm
Location: San Francisco, California
Contact:

Penn Valley Park Master Plan Redone/Reviewed

Postby trailerkid » Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:30 pm

For some reason, I just don't see the plan going through with the private housing in the middle of the park. It just sets a dangerous precedent for other parks and city property. Are we going to auction off all our assets to the highest bidder?

The park should produce development around the park. The plan should make the park such an asset that development follows around it, not within it. It would be great to see some towers on the periphery of the park with residents and office workers mingling throughout. What is the point of having a public park if we are developing its land for commercial uses? I thought the point of parks was to provide a beautiful public place different from surrounding commercial or residential settings-- not become them.

User avatar
staubio
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 6953
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2003 11:17 am
Location: River Market
Contact:

Penn Valley Park Master Plan Redone/Reviewed

Postby staubio » Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:40 pm

Penn Valley Park's location on a hill limits its ability to be flanked by buildings, a la Central Park. To the west, it hops the street and has another island. After that, the terrain plummets via signal hill. On the other side, you've got a ridge and then a hop over Main. The south side is the only hope, and this is pretty much built up already.

The topography is among one of the most charming and most frustrating parts of the urban core.


Return to “Downtown”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests