Turn the North Loop into a bigger living/working district?

[Anthony_Hugo98]

We really do need to attract more developers.

Can start by not chasing off the ones they have.

Those blood-sucking, luxury building capitalists!

How dare they raise the standard of living and provide more housing units.

[AlbertHammond]

I think we have decades worth of developable land in downtown. A full-blown central park to attract that development, families and dog owners and connects to neighborhoods to the east is the way to go!!

[Anthony_Hugo98]

I think we have decades worth of developable land in downtown. A full-blown central park to attract that development, families and dog owners and connects to neighborhoods to the east is the way to go!!

If you want to make KC a hot development market this is the exact plan to do that.

[beautyfromashes]

Where's the stadium?

[Anthony_Hugo98]

Where's the stadium?

12th street most likely, so just out of frame

[chaglang]

This was fully hashed out in the other North Loop thread.

Some cons to doing this:
-There is a lot of developable land in DT but this land happens to be directly adjacent to RM, and on/near the streetcar route, which makes it among the most valuable.
-Other developable parcels are owned by a variety of people, who may not be inclined to develop the parcels. Developing the Loop land could be done by RFP from a single entity. Redevelopment could happen comparatively quickly.
-Capping or filling the north loop will be expensive. Buildings generate tax money. Parks don't. So there are no future dollars to offset the cost of the highway removal.
-There's no evidence that a park would spur any adjacent redevelopment at all.
-The park would add a huge amount of land to the Parks Department, who are already underfunded. Which means we would be building infrastructure we can't afford. I am told that's a no-no.
- From a planning standpoint, it replaces a scar with another scar. And it's out of scale with the rest of the area, especially the RM.
-There's no evidence that a park this size is needed at all. It would be far easier to eventually buy single parcels and make them pocket parks.

Tl;dr: I don't see how the city can afford for the loop land be revenue negative.

[TheLastGentleman]

We have the opportunity to restore this and should not pass that up.

[AlkaliAxel]

This was fully hashed out in the other North Loop thread.
Tl;dr: I don't see how the city can afford for the loop land be revenue negative.

Correct. It was hashed out in the other thread.

I was the one who was leading the charge in *favor* of the park on the north loop. I ended up backing off that position and moved in favor of building development (granted it was my first week on Rag and I was still learning).

Here's why I support development over the park on this site now:

1. I think with adjustments and proper planning we could actually make Penn Valley Park into a much more superior park than this one. I drew some design idea's for it myself.

2. Allowing for development instead of a park here would add more population to downtown. That means higher chances to get more stores, retail, offices, etc. with more people in the area

3. Development will add to the tax base with residents, so we spend money for a park but we don't get anything back.

4. Development here would just add a more dense feeling overall to downtown. No gaps in the corridor. KC needs that.

Now with all that being said *the development should be more vibrant, colorful and exciting than just some plain old grey mixed using building plopped down with a pool. Put some energy and excitement into it, not just plain JoCo style shit. Juice it up.

[kas1]

-Capping or filling the north loop will be expensive.

If the linear park concept is pursued (which I'm not endorsing) then hopefully they wouldn't actually fill in 100% of the land. imo it would be better to leave it at least partially below grade so that people can walk underneath the intersecting streets to get from one park section to another. In the short-term all of the existing bridges could be left in place. When they reach the end of their service life then they can be rebuilt in a way that's better optimized for the current land use (eg make the bridge segments shorter and therefore cheaper to maintain, reduce noise caused by vibration, improve aesthetics). Filling in all of the land and then using it as disjointed park space seems really uninspired. A sunken park is more unique and makes better use of what's already there. To be clear, I'm not saying not to do any fill at all. Just something less than 100%.

[FangKC]

Kansas City has a terrible history of maintaining parks.

[AlkaliAxel]

-Capping or filling the north loop will be expensive.

If the linear park concept is pursued (which I'm not endorsing) then hopefully they wouldn't actually fill in 100% of the land.

Uhh no you definitely should fill the land. It won't be able to be as active if you're walking into a sunken hole. Imagine throwing a frisbee or playing soccer and you have deal with all these slopes. Or trying to gaze across at the buildings or skyline but you're have to crane up because you're in a hole. It would suck.

Think about how beautiful the Mall is in DC that it's just one flat straight rectangle park. You see everything easily around you. Sports are also great to play on it. If you're gonna do a park, that's the way to do it.

However, we need to develop the land- not build a park.

[moderne]

This would be a good opportunity to get rid of most of the too close/short freeway entrances and exits onto the loop and make the east and west ends of the former north loop into the main entrances into DT from the freeway system. Maybe push Independence to the south as a boulevard with treed median and very wide sidewalks. Get ride of 6th St. Develop what is left along the sides and where the vacated former Independence and Sixth were.
Would love to see a new triangle building between Main and Delaware.

[dukuboy1]

I like the idea of green space taking up a portion of the redeveloped North Loop ideas. perhaps being able to tap into the Columbus Park area there to the east when 9 HWY is lowered as well and those proposals. But I would like to see more development and buildings but a nice park in the area, nothing huge, would be great. So you would have urban greenspaces in the Riverfront, here in this area and in the Southloop cap as well. Will be nice to showcase these outdoor spaces to go with the residential and commercial development around

[AlbertHammond]

This was fully hashed out in the other North Loop thread.

Some cons to doing this:
1-There is a lot of developable land in DT but this land happens to be directly adjacent to RM, and on/near the streetcar route, which makes it among the most valuable.
2-Other developable parcels are owned by a variety of people, who may not be inclined to develop the parcels. Developing the Loop land could be done by RFP from a single entity. Redevelopment could happen comparatively quickly.
3-Capping or filling the north loop will be expensive. Buildings generate tax money. Parks don't. So there are no future dollars to offset the cost of the highway removal.
4-There's no evidence that a park would spur any adjacent redevelopment at all.
5-The park would add a huge amount of land to the Parks Department, who are already underfunded. Which means we would be building infrastructure we can't afford. I am told that's a no-no.
6- From a planning standpoint, it replaces a scar with another scar. And it's out of scale with the rest of the area, especially the RM.
7-There's no evidence that a park this size is needed at all. It would be far easier to eventually buy single parcels and make them pocket parks.

Tl;dr: I don't see how the city can afford for the loop land be revenue negative.

I disagree with everything in your post.
1. As you can see in this plan, there are a ton of way underused properties within a couple blocks of this site. There is also a lot of good density very close to this site. Parks are most valuable when placed most conveniently to where people are or where they pass by. A park like this would be the center of life of the city. It needs all these adjacent daily users to be successful. I can think of no better place in KC for a heavily used park.
2. If the value of their land is increased by this park, they are far more likely to sell/develop it sooner than later. If we add all this new acreage for development it will lower the value of their land making it unlikely to develop for decades and decades.
3. This would likely be filled, not capped. It was hauled off and can be hauled in. Sure, parks themselves are not profitable, but if done right, they will far offset their cost by making the land for blocks in all directions more valuable....and generating revenue.
4. ...that you know of. Other cities have capitalized on quality urban park space. Check Klyde Warren Park in Dallas. Balboa Park, Washington Square in SF, High line, Piedmont Park in Atlanta, Forest Park in STL, Grant/Millennium Park. Does Central Park in NYC make that part of Manhattan more valuable? If the park is marginally designed or maintained like Penn Valley Park, then sure. If done right and designed by the best national urban park designers, this could generate as much development excitement as the streetcar.
5. There are many other ways to fund parks. City Garden in STL is one example. 'Friends of' partnerships and non-profit foundations are common.
6. Jesus!...someone really hates dog parks, children's playgrounds, gardens, amphitheaters and fountains. For all these urban dwellers with no yard, this becomes their yard, their garden, their playground.
7. Pocket parks are good, no doubt, but well done large urban parks are what sets a community apart and will likely draw additional destinations nearby. Dream big to become a destination for out-of-towners or dream small and create small parklets.

Lastly, one way to create a place not worth caring about is to open a giant swath for national developers to build large, modern buildings that serve themselves more than serving the life of the city. Boring. This space could be the new heart of downtown, really all of KC, or it can become more forgettable development.

[AlbertHammond]

-Capping or filling the north loop will be expensive.

If the linear park concept is pursued (which I'm not endorsing) then hopefully they wouldn't actually fill in 100% of the land. imo it would be better to leave it at least partially below grade so that people can walk underneath the intersecting streets to get from one park section to another. In the short-term all of the existing bridges could be left in place. When they reach the end of their service life then they can be rebuilt in a way that's better optimized for the current land use (eg make the bridge segments shorter and therefore cheaper to maintain, reduce noise caused by vibration, improve aesthetics). Filling in all of the land and then using it as disjointed park space seems really uninspired. A sunken park is more unique and makes better use of what's already there. To be clear, I'm not saying not to do any fill at all. Just something less than 100%.

Rule #1 in designing a lifeless place is to separate it from the life of the city. It really must be raised to street level. The streets next to and crossing it need to be calmed for safe crossing. This is no different than a town square in many county seats in Missouri. Have you been to the square in downtown Bentonville? It is perfectly safe at city-life level and is VERY alive. City Garden in STL is somewhat successful as a more modern example. Our excellent grid downtown helps us by spreading out the traffic volumes, allowing every cross street to handle a calmed section at this park.

Perhaps some sections of this park use the grade for underground parking.

[daGOAT]

Would it be possible to create an urban creek acting as an alleyway behind any new construction? I like the idea of a park as well but think it should be less than half of the total useable land that will be reclaimed.

[kas1]

-Capping or filling the north loop will be expensive.

If the linear park concept is pursued (which I'm not endorsing) then hopefully they wouldn't actually fill in 100% of the land. imo it would be better to leave it at least partially below grade so that people can walk underneath the intersecting streets to get from one park section to another. In the short-term all of the existing bridges could be left in place. When they reach the end of their service life then they can be rebuilt in a way that's better optimized for the current land use (eg make the bridge segments shorter and therefore cheaper to maintain, reduce noise caused by vibration, improve aesthetics). Filling in all of the land and then using it as disjointed park space seems really uninspired. A sunken park is more unique and makes better use of what's already there. To be clear, I'm not saying not to do any fill at all. Just something less than 100%.

Rule #1 in designing a lifeless place is to separate it from the life of the city. It really must be raised to street level. The streets next to and crossing it need to be calmed for safe crossing. This is no different than a town square in many county seats in Missouri. Have you been to the square in downtown Bentonville? It is perfectly safe at city-life level and is VERY alive. City Garden in STL is somewhat successful as a more modern example. Our excellent grid downtown helps us by spreading out the traffic volumes, allowing every cross street to handle a calmed section at this park.

Perhaps some sections of this park use the grade for underground parking.

We're talking about something that slopes down about 10 feet from the adjacent streets, just enough to provide clearance beneath the bridges. It's not gonna be cut off from anything. Parks with textured terrain are more interesting anyway. 6th St is already basically at the same level as the highway around Baltimore/Main. Just fill in the other areas enough to create similar types of access while maintaining the ability to move around the whole area without having to cross streets.

The difference between this and a town square is that a town square is one block. Stringing together a dozen town squares isn't better than just having one town square. If I'm using an urban park, I'm either finding a place to sit down and talk to the person I'm with or I want to walk/jog. And if I need to cross a bunch of streets then it's not useful for walking/jogging and I'll pick a different location.

The best use of this land is for development on most of it and some small parks that are evenly spaced out. But if it's going to be used as a big park then it needs to be designed as a big park and not a bunch of little parks that are daisy-chained together.

It's been ages since I've been in San Antonio and my memories are vague, but I'm thinking of something like the River Walk as a roughly similar example of something that's like a grade-separated linear park that's easily accessible.

[AlkaliAxel]

If the linear park concept is pursued (which I'm not endorsing) then hopefully they wouldn't actually fill in 100% of the lan

Rule #1 in designing a lifeless place is to separate it from the life of the city. It really must be raised to street level.

We're talking about something that slopes down about 10 feet from the adjacent streets, just enough to provide clearance beneath the bridges. It's not gonna be cut off from anything.

Albert is correct. It all needs to be at grade and filled in. I just really don't see any appeal in walking under those bridges. The best parks are the ones with views and that are spread out to do rec activities. Just let the people walk and see the city, not a tunnel or grass slopes.

Also you'd prob find needles under those bridge tunnels within 2 weeks

[AlkaliAxel]

4-There's no evidence that a park would spur any adjacent redevelopment at all.

I disagree with everything in your post.

While I'm opposed to a park, his point #4 here I disagree with. A great central park would still entice residents and raise land values.

[FangKC]

The City spends a lot of its' resources going into City parks and relocating homeless camps, and having to then do park "blitzes" (their word) cleaning up associated trash and debris from the camp.

Having parks that go under the bridges would provide another perfect situation for the homeless to take up residence under the bridge. This is already happening all central KCMO. One bridge recently came close to being physically compromised because of a large fire caused by a homeless camp.

I have no objection to placing a park one of the blocks, but a linear park is a bad, bad idea. Once it becomes parkland, it will take a city-wide vote to decommission it if it becomes failed, and also another drain on City finances.

I'm not confident about creating more parks downtown. Ilus Davis Park is barely used. We are already creating a new downtown linear deck park over I-670. That should be enough.

Every new park that is created stretches the parks and public works budgets. It means less money for long-time parks in poor neighborhoods, which already get the short-end of the stick financially.

No one seems to be willing to say this, but the fact of the matter is that KCMO has too much parkland for its' population and financial health.