KCRag Forum

chrizow wrote:from that description, it doesn't sound like streetcar fared well at all. or were those folks who "like to drive" the minority amongst the pro-streetcar contingent?

survey says...

That was great. I was surprised that the Midtown businesses in their survey are very, very happy (80+% positive responses), while Midtown residents gave positive responses in the 30%-40% range.

There was also a semantic debate about two of the goals. One states support for the existing businesses, and the other only states support for an urban form, not the exisitng urban form. Apparently the steering committee thought the latter would overconstrain development. I saw it as large institutions and landholders on the steering committee (KC Life, St. Lukes) tilting the discussion to favor their standard development practices.

midtown is interesting.

what midtown needs is to have more little things that add up over time to encourage development and neighborhood support.

not a heavy handed approach

next round of meetings start monday:

http://www.kcmo.org/CKCMO/Depts/CityPla ... /index.htm

I've filled out questionnaires for the Area Plan, but never attended a meeting. After reviewing the notes from the April meeting for my district (basically 39th St West), I'm planning on going. Not happy with the some of the comments that the building at 39th/State Line is TOO urban and residents are concerned it could lead to tear-downs of buildings that bring character to the area.

get rid of the parking minimums if you want to reduce teardowns.

kcjak wrote:I've filled out questionnaires for the Area Plan, but never attended a meeting. After reviewing the notes from the April meeting for my district (basically 39th St West), I'm planning on going. Not happy with the some of the comments that the building at 39th/State Line is TOO urban and residents are concerned it could lead to tear-downs of buildings that bring character to the area.

I can see their point. urban generally means density.
whereas some parts of town are full of buildings not conductive to renovating to density without tear outs.

part of Quality Hill is like this. it would take a crazy good reason to tear down some of the old houses or old apartment buildings just to get more density in the area

I saw a part of Houston near their downtown undergoing this kind of conversion. It was full of single family homes and moving towards 2 to 3-story apartment buildings taking over.

I see the point, but arguing that an awful vacant building surrounded by a sea of surface parking is better for the neighborhood than the new structure is pure ridiculousness.

Those meetings are about 30% old people who want nothing to threaten their parking, 40% young urbanist types, and 30% neighborhood meeting attenders who never seem to say anything. I'm glad you're going, but don't sweat the comments too much.

I think the residents are rightful to be afraid of teardowns. The houses there are too cheap and small not to appeal to developers. But this project isn't typical of what they'll start seeing. It'll be more like the multiunit housing that Volker is fighting in the 39th/Bell area. There's nothing that's come up at the PMAP meetings I've attended that would have prevented the 39/SL building from going up. If anything the city is pushing this building type as a neighborhood asset.

I'm of the opinion the council right now is completely ignoring the "do nothing" crowd.

they may not agree on what to do in every case, and want to be smart with money, but they all seem to agree that the status quo is not working

the best comments to give right now aren't "do nothing" but "do this instead, here's why." smart ideas from residents are being listened to and acted on. NB Main 7th to 6th was repainted, they put up multiple signs and added a new crosswalk because of things I pointed out.

I watched part of the statistics meeting online (need to watch the archived video) and the whole jist of it is the changes underway are making people happier to live and work in KC, what can we do to keep this up?

I went to the meeting last night, which was focused on the NW section bounded by 31st on north, 43rd on south, State Line on west and Main (or was it Broadway) on east. There were about 30 of us there and I was surprised that most of us were 45 years or younger.

The subgroups we broke into focused on specific areas that the planning committee needed advice on for appropriate zoning going forward. Recommendations including extending 39th St West to the east with mixed use retail/residential above as appropriate. Better pedestrian, mass transit and biking connectivity in the area. Future discussions to include architectural guidelines.

Nothing earth-shattering, but I would imagine the Plaza meeting next month would be a little contentious between neighborhoods and business/Plaza.

kcjak wrote:Recommendations including extending 39th St West to the east with mixed use retail/residential above as appropriate.

did anyone mention the elephant in the room for the midtown area plan? converting southwest trafficway back to a regular street (with permanent on-street parking and left turns). that seems like a major barrier to "extending west 39th" to the east.

DaveKCMO wrote:

kcjak wrote:Recommendations including extending 39th St West to the east with mixed use retail/residential above as appropriate.

did anyone mention the elephant in the room for the midtown area plan? converting southwest trafficway back to a regular street (with permanent on-street parking and left turns). that seems like a major barrier to "extending west 39th" to the east.

to take this further, that you can't even get onto 39th St directly from SW Blvd is a barrier to the area.

NB there's simply no way without detouring to the east and then doubling back. SB you can get onto that short parallel street that's just a waste of space (and isn't well marked)

Actually SW Trafficway came up a lot; in terms of speed, impeding pedestrian connectivity between neighborhoods, zoning and traffic speeding down Karnes and Roanoke Rd to bypass the 39th/SW Trfy intersection. One of the moderators from the City (I can't remember his name) kept bringing up the fact that there could be options ahead to slow traffic including turning into 'regular' street, installing bumpouts, changing to 4-lane road with center turn lane. But my group spent too much time on the other subjects to get into the options very much.

I left the meeting with the feeling that something is in the early planning stages, but I may be off the point.

Another interesting point I heard was that the new Gomers building was given incentives of some sort to move their building up to the sidewalk instead of the original intent of setting it back in the parking lot. That may have been mentioned here, but I don't recall.

Tonight's meeting focuses on the central/north section - Broadway/Main from 31st to north Plaza. Would like to go but have to work late.

If the city really did pay to have Gomer's moved up to the sidewalk, it's a little frustrating they couldn't also make them have a proper entrance from the sidewalk instead of the parking lot only. It looks like they half-assed something at the NE corner, but it still faces north instead of east.

Yea if that's so, it's like the City missed the entire point of bringing the building up to the sidewalks.

Linwood is the north end of midtown so this seems relevant

http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/s ... l?page=all

He estimated the shopping center would support $250 million of new housing.

he referrers to Steve Block, I assume of Block Real Estate

Is there any way to tell if Midtown Markeplace has gotten anywhere near directly influencing $250 million in new housing in the area? It was implied to serve river market to the plaza

flyingember wrote:Linwood is the north end of midtown so this seems relevant

http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/s ... l?page=all

He estimated the shopping center would support $250 million of new housing.

he referrers to Steve Block, I assume of Block Real Estate

Is there any way to tell if Midtown Markeplace has gotten anywhere near directly influencing $250 million in new housing in the area? It was implied to serve river market to the plaza

Has it directly influenced even one single housing unit?

Not that I'm aware of. I really don't think that is a part of their plan anymore. I mean, they have vacant lots next to taco bell they could build apartments on. Not to mention the millions of miles of parking they have.

No, I think they just scratched that part of the plan.

Demosthenes wrote: Has it directly influenced even one single housing unit?

Not that I'm aware of. I really don't think that is a part of their plan anymore. I mean, they have vacant lots next to taco bell they could build apartments on. Not to mention the millions of miles of parking they have.

No, I think they just scratched that part of the plan.

Or everyone has decided that Armour is a much nicer street to live on than that stretch of Linwood.

chaglang wrote:

Demosthenes wrote: Has it directly influenced even one single housing unit?

Not that I'm aware of. I really don't think that is a part of their plan anymore. I mean, they have vacant lots next to taco bell they could build apartments on. Not to mention the millions of miles of parking they have.

No, I think they just scratched that part of the plan.

Or everyone has decided that Armour is a much nicer street to live on than that stretch of Linwood.

At this exact moment in time maybe. Doesn't have to be that way in the future though.

A simple redevelopment of Linwood from Main to Gillham could have a very positive result. Get rid of the fast food and dumpy houses, build nice apartment buildings on both sides of street, and give Linwood a road diet and beautification and it could suddenly be a great street to live on. Especially if the streetcar goes down Linwood in the future.

There is plenty of room for both Armour and Linwood to succeed.