"Truman Blvd"??

[shaffe]

so you're saying that kay barnes had nothing to do with downtown revitalization and that it would've magiclly happened "on it's own"?

i can't think of anything to say to that really.

[trailerkid]

You've fallen into this trap that defines downtown as this little circle of highways that locks everything in.  Downtown is more than inside the loop.  I'm sorry you've bought into the city planners of the 1960's. 

People rarely move from Blue Springs to a highrise downtown.  It's too much of a jump to have lived in the suburbs all your life and then to experience downtown.  Now, they might move to Waldo or Brookside or possibly Valentine.  Then, once they see what living in the city is all about then become more brave and move closer to the heart.  It's the Missouri Show Me mentality.  We're cautious.  That can be positive or negative.  These areas ARE in the sphere of downtown and people living in these areas experience more of downtown then people from Blue Springs or Lee's Summit because of simple local.  That's just how I see it.

Yeah...you're right. I don't subscribe to the idiotic notion that downtown stretches from Briarcliff to the Plaza. Saying Brookside has the same kind of connection to Downtown as the West Side or Union Hill is friggin' hilarious.  And Waldo? Isn't Ward Parkway Mall further north? The further north you move, the more revitalization happens downtown I guess so everyone move to Waldo or Mission.

Weren't people moving from Jo Co to the Plaza in the 70s and 80s? Wonder where that Brookside/Plaza influx to dowtown went in the 90s...

[mean]

so you're saying that kay barnes had nothing to do with downtown revitalization and that it would've magiclly happened "on it's own"?

i can't think of anything to say to that really.

There is nothing magical about the culture of the USA swinging a little back toward urbanism. It's not even very surprising given a little thought.

Now, if we had a mayor who actively wanted to HINDER revitalization, fine, I will concede that it would happen at a slower pace, if at all. But that would have to be one stupid, unpopular mayor.

[shaffe]

somebody should really branch this to another thread.  it's not about truman blvd. anymore.

[trailerkid]

Now, if we had a mayor who actively wanted to HINDER revitalization, fine, I will concede that it would happen at a slower pace, if at all. But that would have to be one stupid, unpopular mayor.

Not to start anything, but opposing light rail to connect our many urban attractions comes pretty close.

[Tosspot]

Barnes has just been pulled on the coattails of the people who were here before her.  You can't give her credit for Crossroads, or the River Market, or urban renewal.  It would have happened if she was the mayor or not.  I hate that people give her all the credit for the forward thinking of architects and business owners and artists and real estate individuals who have started to turn this city around.  All shes done is hitch her wagon to a carvan that would have moved just as fast without her.

Barnes may not have been the sole industrious, primary instigator, but she had the vision to expound on the gaining momentum in her term as best as possible.

TK Are you sure we really need yet more hoity-toity neighborhoods? I say let's get some basic services within walking distance among urban-style design, with a grocer, a dry-cleaner/laundromat, and a post office-- all amid housing units (not of the single-family variety).

[trailerkid]

TK Are you sure we really need yet more hoity-toity neighborhoods? I say let's get some basic services within walking distance among urban-style design, with a grocer, a dry-cleaner/laundromat, and a post office-- all amid housing units (not of the single-family variety).

How are you going to build some neato organic 'hood in the midst of a giant reconstruction of the freeway loop? I don't support putting in stuff like HUD housing with YJ's on the bottom between the Xroads and the CBD...nor do I find it fitting.

Of course, there are other ways of making middle class to working class neighborhoods from scratch, but I don't really think this is the spot for it.

[mean]

Not to start anything, but opposing light rail to connect our many urban attractions comes pretty close.

Well, I'll go with you insofar as Cleaver's arguments against LRT were pretty stupid ("Touristy frou-frou?" Come on!), and he finished his term more popular than he deserved to be (sensing a trend here?) despite that he, like certain other mayors, did do a good thing or two. Personally, I oppose light rail because it's too expensive compared to possible alternatives; but the concept of connecting urban attractions with city transit I fully support, which Cleaver apparently did not (but does now, go figure).

[Gladstoner]

Now, actually speaking of Truman Boulevard, what would be the best way to arrange the street if they did deck 670 over? Keep Truman where it is and create a median park? Or move the lanes closer together and create more space along the sides? If they did the latter, what should fill the newly created space?

[mean]

A wide-as-670 Truman would be pretty hostile to pedestrians, ideally it'd be made narrower to more or less replicate pre-Interestate conditions. But of course, a boulevard by definition is wide with a landscaped median. So that's what we'll get, I'm sure, if anything.

[Thrillcekr]

The 1990's was the beginning of the turn for the city.  People started to turn their attention more to areas inside the 435 loop.  And while people didn't jump directly from Lee's Summit and Stanley to highrises downtown, they started to conside a 'more' urban lifestyle and moved to Brookside and Waldo and Westwood, etc.  This was as comfortable as people were who basically grew up in suburbia.  It was a stretch for people used to living to themselves inside larger house with mass space between them and their neighbor to think about living in a closer-knit community with porches and being able to walk to whereever they wanted instead of driving.  After they became more comfortable, downtown became more of an option.  Hence, what we are seeing now is the expansion of the urban pioneers.

I worked inside the loop in the 90''s and there wasn't a hell of a lot going on I can tell you that.  The federal court house was the only major project that I can think of off of the top of my head.  If it wasn't for Timothy McVay you would have never seen that happen.  They needed a new courthouse in this region so there weren't a lot of places to compete against us.  Mostly all there was before Barnes came into office was a whole lot of talk and not a whole lot of action.  Barnes made this happen not only with her own vision but also by putting the right people in places underneath her that had the knowledge to make things happen.  That's what they didn't have before and, because of that, you never would have seen what you see happening today if the same people were still running the show. 

Some other cities have downtown revitalization projects going on but you would be very hard pressed to find a city of similar size to Kansas City that is experiencing anything nearly as dramatic.  That's because we have an advantage and that advantage is the people running our city from the mayor to the city manager and on down the line.

[GRID]

Anybody noticed they are working on the Truman bridges over 670 and the retaining wall near the AT&T building?  I need to get a hold of what Modot is planning to do with the southloop.

[Deleted User]

.

[LenexatoKCMO]

I have to second Michael on that (god did I really say that?  ) 

Even if she did nothing else, how long has it been since we have had a mayor where the projects actually got off the ground rather than just talked about? 

[dangerboy]

Anybody noticed they are working on the Truman bridges over 670 and the retaining wall near the AT&T building?  I need to get a hold of what Modot is planning to do with the southloop.

They are supposed to be completely replacing those bridges.

[Long]

I've heard the McGee bridge is coming out (since it would just dead-end into the arena anyway)

It would be nice to see all those bridges replaced-- they are in pretty bad shape.  There is exposed rebar on the curbs, the sidewalks are too narrow.  There's a hole in the Oak St. bridge sidewalk where you can see clear through to the highway below.

New bridges wouldn't be as nice as completely decking over the freeway, but if these bridges had wide sidewalks, maybe with some nice paving material, and a nice outer rail (not the cages they have on the north loop overpasses, but better than the 30" guardrails they have now) it would go a long ways. 

[Tosspot]

The downtown land use plan from 2003 alludes that the city has in mind decking over those highways at some point in time.

[K.C.Highrise]

Anybody know how much that would cost roughly.

[dangerboy]

No one has ever published an estimate for KC, but it wouldn't be cheap.  Right now there is no real plan, it's just at the stage of people saying "golly, a lid would be a really cool idea."

St. Louis's lid to the Arch grounds is estimated at around $40 for three blocks.  They already have a plan agreed upon by the stakeholders that is currently being pushed for state and federal funding.

Phoenix constructed a lid with a park on top, it was around $80 for a 1/2 mile long lid.

[Long]

I just think the money for a "lid" could be better spent in other places.  It really isn't that far from one side of the freeway to the other.  If you have development coming right up to the edge on both sides, and a nice bridge in between, it will be fine. 

I think this thread is starting to repeat itself 3 months later. . .