GRID wrote:
This is one case where I have to agree with Funk. There is something wrong with KC's parks system. Too many of the parks are not being used efficiently, they are nothing more than undeveloped land. I'm not sure what Funk has in mind and I'm not even sure if that is why he wants to mix things up, or if it's just another "give the regular people power" trips.
But KC's parks have so much potential and I don't think they are coming close to it.
Penn Vally Park should be KCMO's pride and joy, it could easily rival Forest Park if the city wanted it to.
I'm not saying people should be fired, I'm saying Funk or whoever should step up and get the parks system out its "funk"...haha..
I take this back. After reading the Star article, what funk did has nothing to with with reasons I would have shaken up the parks board (I wouldn't have replaced them anyway, I would have simply tried to get them to do more with the parks). It has everything to do with his "regular people" BS.
Again, what have all you funk supporters done to our city???
Last edited by GRID on Wed Jun 13, 2007 6:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
GRID wrote:
I take this back. After reading the Star article, what funk did has nothing to with with reasons I would have shaken up the parks board (I wouldn't have replaced them anyway, I would have simply tried to get them to do more with the parks). It has everything to do with his "regular people" BS.
Again, what have all you funk supporters done to our city???
we've killed it. it will all be soon spinning down the drain of your destiny.
Why is corporate welfare better than public socialism?
Beermo wrote:
we've killed it. it will all be soon spinning down the drain of your destiny.
It was sarcasm beermo, but I still don't see what the big deal was over funk and why everybody just had to remove everybody that had their hands in turning KCMO around.
But hey, we we can read about Funk's car every day in the paper. He probably has six people working full time on his car situation. The lawyers are already loving him.
Swope Park is 22nd in the nation for the number of annual park visitors. Cities with single larger park
attendance are New York, Chicago, San Francisco, San Diego, St. Louis, Washington, Philadelphia, Sacramento, Indianapolis, Dallas, New Orleans, Cleveland, Detroit, and Houston.
I find all this talk as if the Parks Board has been ruled with the iron fist of white elitists since its inception amusing, considering it was Ollie Gates baby throughout all of the 90's.
One real problem with the old parks board was their unwillingness to embrace any kind of change in programming. Our Parks department has been very slow to embrace new ideas that other cities have used to attract more users and serve new segments of the population - things like dog parks, mountain bike trails, spray grounds, aquatic parks, skate parks, etc.
These types of things only starting appearing in the parks system in the last few years, and only after great effort by "regular" folk who lobbied for new and different parks services. A parks department that touts such a famous heritage really ought to be out on the forefront of new ideas, not actively discouraging them.
That's a real interesting list. I'm surprised to see Swope on there to be honest. I'm also surprised to see Forest Park so high, but I really shouldn't be, its a terrific place.
i would assume that forest park's numbers are substantially boosted by the awesome st. louis zoo, st. louis art museum, muni, etc....which also shows how pathetic swope park is.
I've been to most of these parks, and I personally think Prospect Park is the best of the lot. As everyone knows, Forest Park is a great urban park as well, with a much better location than Swope and a concentration of great amenities, some of which are very good (SLAM), and some of which are pretty mediocre, but free (the zoo).
Swope certainly doesn't measure up to Prospect Park, Forest Park, Lincoln Park, etc., but I don't think it is in the least bit pathetic. Its simply not an urban park, at least not in the way a lot of the others on this list are. Its a huge park on the outskirts of the urban core abutted on one side by one of KC's more blighted, violent neighborhoods, and on the other 3 by essentially undeveloped land. Given these handicaps, I'm pretty amazed it ranks as high in attendance as it does. But I don't think its really analogous to the other parks on the list. Penn Valley is our central city park, and I think that IS pathetic.
I was also surprised that Swope Park had that sort of attendence, and was equal to that of Millennium Park in Chicago. I'm guessing that Starlight, the zoo, and golf courses bring the numbers up, which might support the argument that attractions are bringing people in and not so much the park itself.
Regarding George Kessler and parks planning, both arguments are a bit true. Kessler did work with J.C. Nichols to create Ward Parkway and certainly there was an attempt to create a corridor that would enhance and maintain real estate values. However, I do think that was originally the goal of the Paseo and Independence Avenue as well. The fact that they weren't maintained had little to do with Kessler, and more to do with people who managed them afterwards.
Affluent whites abandoned the residential corridors of Independence Avenue, Troost, Benton, and Paseo. Some of the grandest mansions in our history were along Independence Avenue and Troost. It's sickening that almost all of them were lost.
Bad zoning and development practices, and racial prejudices of the time, probably had a great deal to do with their decline. I would make an argument that banks red-lining loans on most east side neighborhoods based on racial issues had a greater effect though.
The fact that the neighborhoods around Ward Parkway remained of value probably had more to do with deed covenants and neighborhood associations, which came into wide-practice after Independence Avenue, Troost, and Paseo were developed.
I don't care what the past park boards have done at this point. But I will say that Swope and Penn Valley parks have been underutilized, and to some extent, ignored for decades.
Despite who is insulted, there appears to have been some degree of elitism in regards to the parks system. The Paseo and Ward Parkways are two sides of a coin. The Paseo was allowed to really deteriorate, while Ward Parkway was not. The Paseo was once a very famous and heralded parkway. I'm embarrassed by what it has become, and would hesitate to show it to someone in any attempt to impress them. It tends to sadden me more than impress me.
Private contributions or not, there is a huge difference in the appearance of Loose Park versus Swope and Penn Valley parks. Residents and visitors probably aren't aware of the private funding for parks in affluent areas. The just see that the affuent neighborhoods have good parks and less-affluent don't.
I think whatever was done with Loose Park should be replicated for Penn Valley Park.
Taxes and services cannot be allocated based on how much your neighborhood contributes. If that were true, New York City would have freeways paved with gold and Kansas City, Kansas, would have gravel.
FangKC wrote:
I was also surprised that Swope Park had that sort of attendence, and was equal to that of Millennium Park in Chicago. I'm guessing that Starlight, the zoo, and golf courses bring the numbers up, which might support the argument that attractions are bringing people in and not so much the park itself.
The same could be said of the Lincoln Park Zoo, the Botanical Gardens, or any of the number of attractions inside Central Park.
chrizow wrote:
i would assume that forest park's numbers are substantially boosted by the awesome st. louis zoo, st. louis art museum, muni, etc....which also shows how pathetic swope park is.
How is that an indication of how pathetic Swope Park is? I actually think 22 is pretty good for a park that is not served by public transport, is not in a desirable neighborhood, nor is it all that central to the walkable part of town and is located in a city with an even lower rank in US urban areas. We like to say how bad the park is but I find it a spectacular place, the zoo is great (although it has its problems), the Starlight is a nice venue, at least one of the golf courses is pretty nice but what I really think is underutilized are the extensive forests on the east side of the park. With a decent trail and/or mountain biking network, that area could go from totally unvisited to the envy of urban parks all over the country. For good measure pump water down one of the drainages descending from the east part of the park towards the Blue River and have a nice little Kayak run.
Highlander wrote:
How is that an indication of how pathetic Swope Park is? I actually think 22 is pretty good for a park that is not served by public transport, is not in a desirable neighborhood, nor is it all that central to the walkable part of town and is located in a city with an even lower rank in US urban areas. We like to say how bad the park is but I find it a spectacular place, the zoo is great (although it has its problems), the Starlight is a nice venue, at least one of the golf courses is pretty nice but what I really think is underutilized are the extensive forests on the east side of the park. With a decent trail and/or mountain biking network, that area could go from totally unvisited to the envy of urban parks all over the country. For good measure pump water down one of the drainages descending from the east part of the park towards the Blue River and have a nice little Kayak run.
I completely agree -- Swope actually has some great elements to it with the Zoo (which is a pretty good zoo for a city our size), Starlight (which is way underappreciated by most) and two golf courses (with Swope being very underrated too). My only problem with the park is that there is so much underutilized space....I would really like to see them add in some good hiking trails, MT. Biking trails, and use the huge grass area on the Northwest corner (63rd and Swope Parkway) as a huge dog park (similar to the one in Penn Valley) to attract more dog owners to the park (who would then venture around some of the walking trails they should be building).
i think swope park is ok but in disrepair...you can barely tell the difference between the actual park and the surrounding wilderness. by contrast, forest park is neatly groomed, has a great zoo and museum, and is adequately integrated into the surrounding neighborhood. PVP is even more of an outrage.
chrizow wrote:
i think swope park is ok but in disrepair...you can barely tell the difference between the actual park and the surrounding wilderness. by contrast, forest park is neatly groomed, has a great zoo and museum, and is adequately integrated into the surrounding neighborhood. PVP is even more of an outrage.
And it still manages to be the 22cd most visited urban park in the country.
Balboa Park isn't on the ocean front and it's ocean views are negligable.
It's high on the list because it's a great park with art, museums and tons of other amenities with a proximity to downtown not unlike PVP. KC should take note and do more with PVP.
Think before inserting your knuckle up your sphincter.
I suppose Mission Bay park doesn't have any ocean views either. The statement was surprise that San Diego had two on the list. Maybe it has two because one of then is ocean side.
I also suspect the topography and scenary in Balbo is probably a little better than Swope (as well as weather in January and August) . Do you really expect Swope to compete with San Diego parks for attendance in January? Fill me in oh wise one.
Yes, Central Park has its' attractions, but the majority of people go there just to hang out (sit, walk, rollerblade, bike, play with pets, and sunbathe. Concerts, festivals, and plays bring a lot of people into the park as well.
Forest Park is well-groomed because it is the State of Missouri's official Botanic Garden. The fact that they have a world-class zoo there helps a great deal as well.
There is really no reason that Swope and Penn Valley parks cannot be up to the quality of Forest Park in St. Louis. Kansas City actually has more population within its' borders than the old City of St. Louis does now, and our City population is actually going up (albeit slowly). We also have the ability to still grow; whereas St. Louis is landlocked. While I'm not for more sprawl, at least our City still has a lot of undeveloped land parcels within our present borders to grow for years. If the City adopts some high-density land development policies, we could make the most of our future residential development and add hundreds of thousands more people to KCMO to support these amenities.
However, our City has made some big mistakes with park development and maintenance in past years. We also need to prioritize increased population density per sq. mile. That would make our city stronger than almost any other thing.
This whole park board committee thing is embarrassing....Funk is GOOGLING people to make sure they are ok? Even then he misses that one of them is in the Minutemen????
I try to give Funk an honest shot but he continues to make gaff after gaff and his constant attempt at trying to appeal to the east side is looking like the dude that says "I like black people, I have a black friend". Shut your mouth Funk.....you aren't digging out, you are digging deeper.
