KCRag Forum

Have we discussed why the "billboard mafia" is so hard to bring down? Nobody likes these things yet they have tons of money to fight tooth and nail for any encroachment on their visual pollution.

KCPowercat wrote:Have we discussed why the "billboard mafia" is so hard to bring down? Nobody likes these things yet they have tons of money to fight tooth and nail for any encroachment on their visual pollution.

money, lawyers, advertising as free speech, etc.

KCPowercat wrote:Have we discussed why the "billboard mafia" is so hard to bring down? Nobody likes these things yet they have tons of money to fight tooth and nail for any encroachment on their visual pollution.

Capitalism

DaveKCMO wrote:

KCPowercat wrote:Have we discussed why the "billboard mafia" is so hard to bring down? Nobody likes these things yet they have tons of money to fight tooth and nail for any encroachment on their visual pollution.

money, lawyers, advertising as free speech, etc.

Guess it proves how much profit those things produce.

Advertising in urban areas is very profitable. And it is not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself. Advertising has been uncovered in ancient Egyptian, Greek, and Roman ruins.

I am not opposed to outdoor advertising per se. The painted, or fabric printed, billboards on the sides of some older buildings in the Crossroads is kind of neat. I think we all delight in seeing old painted advertising exposed on the sides of old buildings when a neighboring building is demolished. It's like a snapshot back in time.

In some cases, some older historic buildings, that might have been vacant, only remained standing because of the money made on advertising on the building sides, or roof. It provided revenue for the building owner until the day came that the building could be renovated and repurposed.

The billboards become problematic though when it's so difficult to remove them when a parcel is being considered for redevelopment. It seems some sort of new ordinance is needed where billboard structures have to be renewed by permit every so many years. I am not advocating eliminated them entirely. They do provide income to property owners.

But, the City needs to have a policy to make it clear to advertising companies that all their billboard structures are temporary ones--approved by permit for set periods of time. This would make it easier for City officials to not renew a permitted billboard for any reason, and especially in the case where the land parcel is up for redevelopment. We also need to require this so that the City or developer doesn't have to compensate the billboard company for any claim of future years of revenue loss from the billboard removal.

I do think the City should also work with billboard advertising companies to move the structures when need be--to trade land, or find another location that is similar.

from the development review committee:

8:50 AM
JR 3. SD 1490A - Final Plat - 2001 Main - To consider approval of a final plat in District DX-15 (Downtown Mixed Use (dash 15)) on approximately 1.9 acres generally located 2001 Main St, creating 2 lots, and vacating certain street right-of-way.

Agent: 2001 Main Lodging Partners LLC

Maybe I missed this earlier, but here is the Downtown Neighborhood Association's letter to Sunflower Development Group and others... Earlier it was alluded to that the design had changed, by the sounds of this letter, that doesn't really seem to be the case.

We are excited by your development, but concerned that the proposed design unnecessarily undermines the hard-won progress and aforementioned significant City investments in the neighborhood. We understand the design is preliminary and, with that in mind, offer the following specific suggestions for simple improvements to enhance not only your project, but the neighborhood as a whole.

The central concerns of this design are the configuration of the entrance and ground floor parking. At the intersection of two major public investments to enhance the pedestrian experience and facilitate Downtown Kansas City’s evolution to a more walkable, transit-oriented district, the entire ground floor of the proposed development is devoted to parking.

http://www.dnakcmo.org/blog/2015/2/9/20 ... t-proposal

Those are all good suggestions.

Is good to see DNA not content with the nice momentum of projects hitting downtown. It's time to start raising the bar and setting expectations with developers for higher quality and to consider aesthetics and pedestrian flow at streetlevel, especially along streetcar line.

I would hope that the City Council would also be more vigilant in enforcing the City's own design guidelines before approving these projects. I would also think the City could exert some subtle pressure on design if it's providing any sort of financial incentives to the project.

FangKC wrote:I would hope that the City Council would also be more vigilant in enforcing the City's own design guidelines before approving these projects. I would also think the City could exert some subtle pressure on design if it's providing any sort of financial incentives to the project.

the city doesn't have design guidelines for this area and there's been very little new construction to test what does exist.

Why does DNA make reference to them in their letter then?

To better understand why this design is problematic for this location in particular, please consider the City’s adopted area plan and draft transit-oriented development policy.

FangKC wrote:Why does DNA make reference to them in their letter then?

To better understand why this design is problematic for this location in particular, please consider the City’s adopted area plan and draft transit-oriented development policy.

that plan hasn't been published to anyone outside of city hall yet (to my knowledge).

I don't know why the City bothers commissioning, or adopting, these plans if they don't intend to follow through on them.

FangKC wrote:I don't know why the City bothers commissioning, or adopting, these plans if they don't intend to follow through on them.

i was only referring to the TOD plan.
i'm pretty sure the planning department isn't really following the GDAP and the GDAP implementation committee hasn't been pushing it.

Well, it's just a waste of money and time to keep doing these long-range development plans, or setting up guidelines and recommendations for urban planning, if the City Council and City departments are just ignoring them.

I'm all for cities doing long-range planning, and setting up standards, guidelines, and ordinances that encourage quality development, but that assumes the City leadership will follow through on it. If they aren't going to follow through, then there is no point in spending the money or time developing them.

they shouldn't create plans. they should recommend zoning changes the city council approves or doesn't. formalize development goals into the requirements developers follow

This stuff just seems like common sense to me.
* You have property that connects under the bridge to some very popular restaurants in the Freighthouse District. Don't block it with your trash cans.
* You are right on the new streetcar line. Don't kill all orientation that would connect to that property benefit. I'm hoping someone has an epiphany about what this building could actually be.

beautyfromashes wrote:This stuff just seems like common sense to me.
* You have property that connects under the bridge to some very popular restaurants in the Freighthouse District. Don't block it with your trash cans.

This is an excellent point that never occurred to me. It would be entirely possible (and easy) to have a walkway under the bridge to avoid going over and down the otherside.

beautyfromashes wrote: * You are right on the new streetcar line. Don't kill all orientation that would connect to that property benefit. I'm hoping someone has an epiphany about what this building could actually be.

Take a look at the DNA DC letter if you haven't. It addresses this--only hope the dev will take the recommendation.

IIRC there were new renderings forthcoming. Is that still the case?