FangKC wrote:
There are a couple of parcels south of the tracks that could accommodate large garages. They are along NE Industrial Trafficway (aka E. 3rd St) at Gillis. I've indicated them in red on the photo below. The grade is already excavated, and high-rises could front E. 3rd Street. That stretch already has the makings of a parkway, so it could be made quite nice.
The linked photos appear to show some medium-sized buildings along there though.
I would like to see more population in the plan. I'd also like to see right-of-way left for some light-rail component to service the neighborhood. I'd like to see this be a demonstration project experimenting with how the City, and developers, can create a high-density, mixed-use, and pleasant, neighborhood from scratch. One that can be innovative in how to hide parking, and incorporate mass transit. This is the type of development that might take 50 years to complete.
With the fast-growing senior population, I would also like to see a neighborhood that includes a grocery, drug store, and medical offices so that people can age-in-place and still meet their needs without a car.
I've looked into those parcels in your photo, outlined in red. They're owned by MoGasEnergy or whatever they call themselves. They've demolished all but one of those buildings. I've been told by their attorney that they would consider an offer for purchase, but will not give any more info. When I asked about environmental issues, they pretty much said no comment. I've asked around to other people who are familiar with the history of that land, and they've told me that there is no way to develop it, because of many years of some kind of coal processing and that, even with grants, the cost of clean-up is astronomical. I've offered to help get things moving, but they are not interested.
I still don't understand how some land owners are responsible for correcting environmental problems, while others are not.
What a shame. That's a nice chunk.
"Hit it, lick it, split it and quit it." -James Brown
taxi wrote:
I still don't understand how some land owners are responsible for correcting environmental problems, while others are not.
Not sure about this case but sometimes the cost of cleanup exceeds the value of the land. And in this instance, probably, the current owner of the land was not the entity that poluted it.
I may be right. I may be wrong. But there is a lot of gray area in-between.
FangKC wrote:
What part of the railroad tracks do you propose decking Loftguy? Are you talking about the tracks north of 2nd Street between Grand and Washington?
I'm thinking in terms of the land between Grand and Broadway, spanning above the railbed and the flood levy. It would take you to the edge of the river, much as the ped bridge at 1st and Main does now, but along this full distance.
I don't get how capping 670 comes anywhere close to being compared to this or any other project. I mean, KC's short, narrow freeway canyon is just not like these other projects and the plans I have seen to cap it are nothing more than throwing concrete decks over the top of it, which I think would make it worse. You still have Truman on both sides and the right of way of the freeway is so small and it's so chopped up into so many little pieces with the overpasses that it can't really be developed once capped.
Do it one block at a time. The Convention Hotel is a great way to cap another block or two and actually make the space over the freeway into usefull space.
I don't see how anybody can be in favor of spending 200-500 millions dollar to cap the loop yet not see a need to replace the terminal at KCI.
You want cap something, cap the NORTH LOOP. So much more potential. So much more to work with. So much more in return.
capping the north loop would be quite a sum of money.
It's funny you think it's ok to replace KCI with federal funds....an airport that gets national awards...but those of us who live and walk this freeway everyday are idiots for wanting to use federal funds (much less btw) to improve downtown.
Surprised to see the incline slope up to the wyadotte grade - I always figured they would build it all lower at the grade of the other streets. I would think the steep slope to make it connect with street level at Wyandotte would add a heck of a lot to the engineering complexity and cost.
Ok, I really like this. For the first time, somebody came up with a plan and renderings I like. Everything I have seen before this seemed to only make it worse.
er... am i the only person who thinks that rendering looks awful?
This... this would be a tragedy. To wast- er- invest that much money and end up with something that looked like that.
It's a four lane street with a median strip, running alongside a bunch of diffuse and unstructured greenery on the side. The greenspace looks like the random stuff that gets left over from highway builds (especially that triangle in the center surrounded on all sides by traffic). Would anyone honestly want to go hang out on that triangle?
How about letting a firm that has a proven track record creating awesome public places take a whack at this. (instead of the firm that has designed/built just about every shitty piece of highway infrastructure downtown in the first place). HNTB can handle the engineering of the cap, let architects and urban designers design what goes on top.
Design this as a PLACE for PEOPLE, and fit the streets around that. Rather than designing the street and then leaving the left over land as "green space".
God.... honestly....
(and please, for future reference mr. render man, delete that nonsensical spotlight. IT'S DAYLIGHT!!! That transparent attempt to make the rendering more "festive" just insults the viewer's intelligence.)
Last edited by ComandanteCero on Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
KC Region is all part of the same animal regardless of state and county lines.
Think on the Regional scale.
shinatoo wrote:
but but but what about the iconic and artful bridges they just built.
I know that you are joking, but if it will happen it will be over the next 10 years:
The Missouri Department of Transportation anticipates the need to replace four bridges over I-670 within the next 10 years; these bridges are at Baltimore, Main, Walnut and Grand. The City is proactively looking at the bridge replacement as an opportunity to create an asset for the City, to build on the recent successes of Downtown, to improve the pedestrian environment, to catalyze further urban development and to promote urban density and activity. The schedule for the bridge replacements allows time to analyze the highest and best use for the corridor and examine the feasibility of varying concepts.
this was compared to brush creek tonight... which is pretty loaded comparison. how good/bad is that? i mean, yes it's better than a concrete trench... but the squandered potential, years of delays, and reliance on earmarks!
anyway, the steering committee recommended the northern realignment of truman road. the new green space -- surrounded and segmented by arterials -- would face the crossroads as a result. cost is ~$180 million in 2009 dollars with a 10 year timeline (3-4 years for construction to allow the roads and freeway to remain open).
honestly, i'm still pretty cold to this since it will require more earmarks -- an earmark paid for the study -- and there are plenty of better ways to spend that kind of money (ahem, regional transit?). the artsy bridges we now have are unique. the real impediments are the still-too-narrow sidewalks, broken/barren streetscape to the south, and the lack of dependable snow removal.
Hideous. Either put buildings on the "park" land or wipe out all the north-south streets between about Oak and Central and make one big(ger) urban park, funneling northbound and southbound traffic around a big Truman Road loop sorta kinda vaguely like a larger, rectangular version of Penn Square in Philadelphia. A bunch of little blocks with useless greenspace is only a fraction of a step above what is there now. If we can't connect the CBD and the crossroads with urban continuity, at least make the capped space there useful. Otherwise, save the money.
"It is not to my good friend's heresy that I impute his honesty. On the contrary, 'tis his honesty that has brought upon him the character of heretic." -- Ben Franklin
I don't think we have to worry much about earmarks in the future. Kit Bond is retiring this year, and neither Robin Carnahan nor Roy Blunt have much interest in KC issues. Claire McCaskill doesn't do any earmarks.
KCPowercat wrote:my guess is the greenspace is a placeholder for builds...hence putting truman road over i670, not the greenspace.
i did not ask this question last night, but it had been repeated in previous meetings that building atop the lid would add considerably to the construction cost. it will be green space, period. that is why i do not support the project.
I've always leaned more toward support for capping the loop...until I took a look at the rendering. The road looks like a clusterfuck that does nothing to make navigating the area between the Xroads and downtown any easier - I thought THAT was the point of the cap at some time? Why not have Clay Chastain put his damn ferris wheel in the green space when he proposes his next transit plan?
If costs rise by allowing buildings on the cap, wouldn't it be still cheaper to not allow a new Truman Rd on it, keep traffic on both north/south sides of greenspace? A sculpture garden or some kind of public amenity that encouraged better synergy between downtown and crossroads would for sure garner more support than the rendering. The Dallas project looks a million times better and more of what I was anticipating.
So is the estimated $180 million in addition to what it would cost to replace just the current bridges over 670. How much just to replace the bridges?
. But it's better than what I have seen from them before.
