OFFICIAL: Port Authority Riverfront Project

[beautyfromashes]

This is exactly what happened with the Convention hotel. Demand for hotel rooms grows at a good rate, enough where at that rate for a couple of years there would be enough for a convention hotel. The only problem was that we kept approving smaller hotels that stole some of the demand, enough that it was never feasible to build the large convention hotel for decades. Sometimes it's better to throttle development to get what you ultimately want/need. That's the case with the Riverfront development. Perhaps it's a decent development like Mission Farms or Park Place Village. It's not what we need in the long run and it stunts the growth that we really need.

[dnweava]

The riverfront is disconnected from the city, and it's going to remain disconnected so long as it's an empty field alongside a gravel levee. As a pleasant riverside park with thousands of people living next to it, it will get connected.

In the long-term, the connections (or their lack) might make or break the neighborhood. But things can get rolling without them, and I think there's a very good chance that streetcars will roll down there at some point, perhaps surprisingly soon. Without a streetcar line, I wouldn't want to live down there, but with one I imagine it could be pretty fantastic. We'll see.

The biggest problem is the train tracks between the river and columbus park and the fact there is only 1 bridge that crosses them and it's non-bike/non-pedestrian friendly. Slow moving trains can block the at grade crossing for long periods and the pedestrian bridge is halfway to the Broadway bridge. buy the tracks and remove them or putting them in a cut and cap tunnel will be the only way that the riverfront and the city can be connected.

[Eon Blue]

As the riverfront and Columbus Park both develop, I expect one or more bridges to be built over those tracks. Hopefully at least one that is focused on bicycle and pedestrian use. The tracks aren't going anywhere, and any sort of grade chance on them would be fantastically expensive (and borne by the city).

[pash]

.

[normalthings]

Id rather see east village than this.

[pash]

.

[beautyfromashes]

^ alright, what's your stake in this game? You live in Columbus Park? Designed the project?

[flyingember]

buy the tracks and remove them or putting them in a cut and cap tunnel will be the only way that the riverfront and the city can be connected.

this is a new record for not understanding the cost involved

This is one of the single busiest segments of rail in the country. The two lines are worth billions.

And burying them? You're talking about a multi-billion dollar project right there. it's six tracks with five junctions. cut/cover would be a massive undertaking that makes building a new bridge over the river look simple. it could take decades to complete with all the coordination required. And any digging has the fun of making a tunnel not collapse in what's basically soft farmland and deal with the stone bluffs.

[flyingember]

A better route for bicycling would be nice, but with the way Columbus Park is shaping up, more bridges aren't going to help much. The River Market might forever be the nearest center of activity. Since that's too far to walk very conveniently,

The center of the park is 1.1 miles from 5th/Main via the trails. That's 20 minutes.

If people won't walk one mile then why are we bothering to build a walkable city?

[Eon Blue]

Where is the East Village's MOTHERFUCKING RIVER?!

Davis Park (fka "East Village") has a river of CARS along its eastern boundary.

Where else in KC has that?!

Oh, right.

[Highlander]

Why? If we were talking about the East Village, I would almost accept beautyfromashes's "we don't need no new neighborhoods" line. The East Village has nothing going for it that makes it a better, more attractive development sites than many others downtown.

Conversely, the riverfront has two big things going for it. First, Port KC is making it happen. Second ... what was second ... oh, right, there's a river down there.

Where is the East Village's MOTHERFUCKING RIVER?!

In any event, this nonsense about where else you would rather see development is pointless. Port KC's project is not putting the damper on development elsewhere, despite beautyfromashes's claims. To the extent that there's any choice here, it's a choice between (a) development on the riverfront, plus the development that private developers make happen elsewhere, or (b) only the latter, with the riverfront site playing a continuing role as an expansive shitting ground for River Marketers' dogs.

The problem with the Port Authorities project along the river front is that they are likely to draw from the same pool of potential residents that downtown is drawing from. So every 1000 people that want to live along the riverfront will be a 1000 that won't be living downtown and supporting the night life etc... that is already in place.

Not that developing the riverfront isn't a worthy objective - KC's riverfront is pretty embarrassing compared to most cities with a similar sized river - it's just that the momentum it will take to get something going will definitely take away some of the momentum in downtown. And it will take a lot more than a stranded apartment complex to create a critical mass along the riverfront....it may be relatively close to DT but in development terms, it might as well be in Point Barrow. The pool of potential residents for the urban lifestyle is finite - I'd rather see downtown establish some sustainability, establish it as the unchallenged place to be in KC, and then do something along the riverfront.

[loftguy]

The problem with the Port Authorities project along the river front is that they are likely to draw from the same pool of potential residents that downtown is drawing from. So every 1000 people that want to live along the riverfront will be a 1000 that won't be living downtown and supporting the night life etc... that is already in place.

Not that developing the riverfront isn't a worthy objective - KC's riverfront is pretty embarrassing compared to most cities with a similar sized river - it's just that the momentum it will take to get something going will definitely take away some of the momentum in downtown. And it will take a lot more than a stranded apartment complex to create a critical mass along the riverfront....it may be relatively close to DT but in development terms, it might as well be in Point Barrow. The pool of potential residents for the urban lifestyle is finite - I'd rather see downtown establish some sustainability, establish it as the unchallenged place to be in KC, and then do something along the riverfront.

I disagree Highlander. There has been a perception for 30 years that the number of people wishing to live downtown is 'finite'.

Of course there is some limit, but we are far from reaching the end of the procession. The number of people discovering the opportunities to be found in living downtown continues to increase. We have a downtown that is becoming more attractive, but there are also societal changes that influence this rising population and broaden the pool.

Of the people choosing to live downtown, there are many subgroups. Some wish to be artsy loft dwellers in the River Market. Some want a P & L luxury pad. Others are scrambling for a victorian bungalow on the Westside. There are also those people in a subgroup that want to live in a new apartment building, with stainless steel appliances, danish designed cabinetry, walk-in closets, swimming pool, bike storage and parking in a garage..........down by the river. And then when these 650 people move in to the park-like setting on the edge of the Missouri, they will have ten friends and family members that will suddenly discover that there is a possibility for life downtown. And one or two of them will make the choice to move into a Crossroads flat, or build a container house on a lot in Columbus Park, or............

If we are going to have 20,000 to 40,000 additional people living downtown, there are going to be a lot of different dreams for which to build.

[taxi]

I agree with loftguy.

I think a ped/bike bridge from CP proper to the new Riverfront development is essential and doable. If it were to also include a streetcar, all the better.

[JBmidtown]

How far is the riverfront development from Columbus Park? I can't picture this area for some reason. I hate to admit it but I just recently discovered Columbus Park. I depended on the bus system for 6 years which made that area non existent to me.

[missingkc]

The riverfront development is on the southern edge of Berkeley Park.

[taxi]

The riverfront development is (technically) in Columbus Park, whose northern boundary is the Missouri River.

[pash]

.

[beautyfromashes]

I've lived in five other cities on rivers, and all of them had great riverfronts. (Several of those cities are so extensively and intimately connected to their rivers that it's silly to talk about their "riverfronts".) The contrast with Kansas City is stark. A river is a terrible thing to waste, and we're wasting ours.

Alright, I see your point. We just disagree on what order development should happen and whether one development affects another for number of residents. I understand your point that we need many different types of people who want different environments to rebuild the core of the city. Personally, I don't think we even have a true urban environment for those that want to type of location. DT is still sleepy and lacks the constant energy of other DT's I've visited.

I'm curious about the great riverfront cities that you have seen. I have been to most every city in the U.S. and can't think of a really remarkable riverfront area. Chicago has their river, but it's mostly all about the lake. St. Louis has the arch but not much else yet. Cincy? Pittsburgh? What cities do you see us emulating?

[Eon Blue]

Minneapolis interacts very nicely with the Mississippi River, but the dynamics of that river are completely different than the Missouri here. I struggle to think of ways we can cost-effectively move beyond just being adjacent to the river to actually interacting with it, given the current configuration of the river. The focus on shipping creates a narrow, fast channel that discourages recreation and the steep, armored bank along the south shore reduces accessibility. There's probably potential along the Kaw through the West Bottoms up to the confluence for something interactive, but that's too far away from Berkley to have the desired effect there.

[flyingember]

that's back to my point.

the people who get to pick the order and what gets developed is the land owners. the city doesn't get to pick any such order. the entire point is irrelevant because "should" never plays a part real world.

the only way the city can control the type of development is through zoning. the logical order would be the most permissive zoning gets developed quicker so you end up with projects in less ideal locations happening first and you are stricter in key locations later.

so your entire idea is flawed. you should be wanting less idea spots to be developed right now