KCRag Forum

kas1 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 25, 2019 3:26 pm And imo, it would actually improve the project overall. Linear parks form barriers, and breaking up the park space with some retail would tie the two neighborhoods together much more seamlessly and encourage more pedestrian flow. The park space is already divided up by the roads, and that limits the benefit you might otherwise get from having four blocks of contiguous park space.

Would you have this commercial block be on the east or west end? I agree that the natural flow would be much more effective if it were to contain commercial developments.

Missouri doesn't allow commercial uses on (or above) their property, or at least that's what the city and consultants (HNTB) found when looking to add tax-generating uses on top of 670. In addition, adding buildings added weight (and, thus, cost) to the structures.

IMO it's the only reason to cap 670 is to add tax-generating uses. Just green space will only add a financial liability to the city's balance sheet because MoDOT won't have anything to do with maintaining it.

Extend the convention space?

DaveKCMO wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2019 7:29 am Missouri doesn't allow commercial uses on (or above) their property, or at least that's what the city and consultants (HNTB) found when looking to add tax-generating uses on top of 670. In addition, adding buildings added weight (and, thus, cost) to the structures

Is there any way we could change the policy, or get an exemption? I understand it would be larger upfront cost to have to build a larger structure to add buildings above, but if it would allow any return on investment wouldn't it negate the upfront cost?

If cordish wants to build a greenspace, let them!

DaveKCMO wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2019 7:29 am Missouri doesn't allow commercial uses on (or above) their property, or at least that's what the city and consultants (HNTB) found...

Wouldn’t capping the loop including using Truman Rd South for building along with the land south of the highway? I thought the idea was to sell that land to use for the project. Truman would technically be city property, correct?

beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2019 9:18 am

DaveKCMO wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2019 7:29 am Missouri doesn't allow commercial uses on (or above) their property, or at least that's what the city and consultants (HNTB) found...

Wouldn’t capping the loop including using Truman Rd South for building along with the land south of the highway? I thought the idea was to sell that land to use for the project. Truman would technically be city property, correct?

The north side is heavily used by large trucks for the sprint center so there would be pushback on a two-way conversion.

I would think it would be better to keep them both one-way and take away a lane for a two-way cycle track on the south side.

Why would two-way on the north side of 670 affect large trucks? The designs I've seen simply moved Truman Road south lanes to the north side of the interstate and ran them over part of the cap.





Constructing buildings over an active interstate might get the kabosh from the Feds because of terrorism concerns.

^^ The UN is built over a highway.

It was built before 9/11 though.

langosta wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2019 1:46 pm ^^ The UN is built over a highway.

Regardless, that's not a MoDOT highway.

How old is this image? I've never seen it before

FangKC wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2019 1:36 pm

The Sprint Center is the wrong color and that's the old AT&T logo, so very old.

DaveKCMO wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:23 pm

The image was first posted here on April 15, 2010.

Got to finally see Klyde Warren park down in Dallas this weekend, and if Kansas City never realizes the idea of putting a park over 670, it might be the most ass backwards decision this city ever makes. That was hands down the greatest piece of green space I’ve ever experienced in an urban environment.

Anthony_Hugo98 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 19, 2019 12:38 am Got to finally see Klyde Warren park down in Dallas this weekend, and if Kansas City never realizes the idea of putting a park over 670, it might be the most ass backwards decision this city ever makes. That was hands down the greatest piece of green space I’ve ever experienced in an urban environment.

You should check out Forest Park or Central Park sometime.

Seriously though, I don't know that Klyde Warren Park is the greatest--arguably it might be a little overprogrammed--but it sure is nice. And so much nicer that crossing an interstate canyon. Obviously very expensive for just a short few blocks, but I really think a 670 lid could become the place to spend time in downtown KC. Great for visitors and residents alike.

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2019 8:27 am If cordish wants to build a greenspace, let them!

Worth repeating.

DaveKCMO wrote: ↑Mon Aug 19, 2019 3:14 pm

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2019 8:27 am If cordish wants to build a greenspace, let them!

Worth repeating.

DaveKCMO wrote: ↑Mon Aug 19, 2019 3:14 pm

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2019 8:27 am If cordish wants to build a greenspace, let them!

Worth repeating.

Didnt cordish mention something about this earlier in the year, when asked about 3 light?

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Mon Aug 19, 2019 3:28 pm

DaveKCMO wrote: ↑Mon Aug 19, 2019 3:14 pm

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2019 8:27 am If cordish wants to build a greenspace, let them!

Worth repeating.

Surely Cordish can help out, but this would benefit everyone, not just Cordish though it would sit at the front door of their (our) investment.