KCPD East Campus

[aknowledgeableperson]

The crime lab takes up as much space as the police station. Granted one can disagree with the design and amount of space being used but identifying the complex as just a police station does not fully describe how the space is being used.
"heart of a major city", well the area it is in isn't near the city's true heart (as the city exists now) and as a major city it is a city that will be influenced more by it's suburban nature in the future than it's urban nature. It's urban nature may be growing but it's suburban nature is growing faster.

[FangKC]

Until one drives around the campus, one doesn't really grasp the poor use of space, and how unnecessary it was to demolish so many people's homes for it. It is just a horrible, horrible waste of space. It certainly could have been constructed on a much smaller footprint, and avoided the necessity of demolishing so many houses. One easily could have accomplished the task with half the space, and maybe even a third of the space. A police station should not take up four city blocks. The main police headquarters building downtown only takes up one city block, and it shares that block with the municipal courts building.

Instead of two separate low-rise buildings, there could have been one multi-story building where the crime lab and the police station were in one structure. Just doing that alone would have reduced the sq. footage of the roof, and the future cost of maintaining and replacing it. The grassy area around the campus is completely unnecessary, and serves no real purpose. In addition, it just adds a large area that the City now has to mow.

Seeing the finished product, I can see why so many residents are left angry, especially those who had houses facing Brooklyn in the area that is nothing but grass.

It is also a huge stretch to make any claim that this campus will have a significant economic impact on the neighborhood.

This project should be widely criticized, and those who approved this design should be constantly taken to task for bad decision-making. There should be a constant parade of citizens showing up at council meetings to remind leadership of what a stupid plan this was, and not to repeat it in the future.

I am convinced a new station and crime lab could have been constructed somewhere on the East Side without displacing so many residents. It probably would have saved the City money, because they wouldn't have had to buy out so many property owners.

This is the perfect example of everything that could possibly be wrong with an urban project. It is certainly among the worst choices the City has made in a long, long time.

I really didn't get angry over this project until I drove past the finished product. It was only then that I realized what a huge boondoggle it was. If I had been forced out of my long-term home to build it, I probably would have just left the City entirely out of disgust.

[FangKC]

"heart of a major city", well the area it is in isn't near the city's true heart (as the city exists now) and as a major city it is a city that will be influenced more by it's suburban nature in the future than it's urban nature. It's urban nature may be growing but it's suburban nature is growing faster.

And if this attitude doesn't change, this city is doomed financially in the future. The continuation of low-density suburban development is not only bad for city finances, but for the environment and sustainability.



The City has five times the physical land area today, and about the same number of people as in 1970. There is a lot more city to maintain, and service (fire, police, code inspectors, parks staff, snow removal) than back then.

[aknowledgeableperson]

"and avoided the necessity of demolishing so many houses"

If my memory is correct around half the lots were vacant, of the remaining 50% or so half of those had vacant houses that were mostly owned by Land Trust and in various states of disrepair. So 44 houses out of 4 blocks were occupied. Much more than that were taken by various schools when the KCMO was modernizing it's schools in the 80's.

[chaglang]

"and avoided the necessity of demolishing so many houses"

If my memory is correct around half the lots were vacant, of the remaining 50% or so half of those had vacant houses that were mostly owned by Land Trust and in various states of disrepair. So 44 houses out of 4 blocks were occupied. Much more than that were taken by various schools when the KCMO was modernizing it's schools in the 80's.

The choice, obviously, isn't between the current complex and doing nothing. Or it was, but it shouldn't have been. It's a colossal failure of imagination and design.

[aknowledgeableperson]

Granted, much of what was done in the name of the KCSD was a disaster with regards to the attempt to modernize the school properties but we will have to agree to disagree with the police facility.

[Highlander]

"and avoided the necessity of demolishing so many houses"

If my memory is correct around half the lots were vacant, of the remaining 50% or so half of those had vacant houses that were mostly owned by Land Trust and in various states of disrepair. So 44 houses out of 4 blocks were occupied. Much more than that were taken by various schools when the KCMO was modernizing it's schools in the 80's.

The choice, obviously, isn't between the current complex and doing nothing. Or it was, but it shouldn't have been. It's a colossal failure of imagination and design.

Bored at work today. Went into Google Map and calculated only 17.5% of the site is actually occupied by the actual building. Indeed a colossal waste. Should be in an urban planning course as a type study of waste, inefficiency and stupidity. Rivals the Glover plan as one of the worst use of space in the urban part of the Kansas City.

[chaglang]

As of a few weeks ago, you could streetview the old blocks (2400 Olive was pretty nice looking), but if you crossed 27th going south and turned around, the crime lab appeared.