KCRag Forum

longviewmo wrote: ↑Wed Sep 05, 2018 11:35 am I was going to suggest across the creek from Nelson Atkins, then realized that was the MRI Global property haha.

Don't think we have to worry about William Jewell becoming a big player, their accreditation is currently on probation.

longviewmo wrote: ↑Wed Sep 05, 2018 11:35 am I was going to suggest across the creek from Nelson Atkins, then realized that was the MRI Global property haha.

Don't think we have to worry about William Jewell becoming a big player, their accreditation is currently on probation.

Highlander wrote: ↑Wed Sep 05, 2018 11:50 pm

longviewmo wrote: ↑Wed Sep 05, 2018 11:35 am I was going to suggest across the creek from Nelson Atkins, then realized that was the MRI Global property haha.

Don't think we have to worry about William Jewell becoming a big player, their accreditation is currently on probation.

I'd leave MRI Global alone. It fits in well where it is and doesn't occupy enough space to really satisfy UMKC's needs. I think there is potentially plenty of space available for UMKC to expand. There are still a lot of surface lots that could be built on as garage/building combos. Quite a bit of surface lot space just north and east of Pierson. More space available east of the Biological Science Building and south and west of the Education Building.

In addition to surface lots, I think UMKC is poised to bridge the Troost divide in KC - and without encroaching on the Troostwood neighborhood. The area north of Brush Creek and east of Troost bound by Cleaver to the north and Paseo to the east would be an ideal area for UMKC expansion. Call it North Campus UMKC even owns property there now and the area is occupied only by strip malls, some UMKC ancillary offices, an electrical station (which could be a problem to relocate) and a Gates. It's about an 8 square block area that is low density with 1-3 story buildings and a lot of area occupied by surface lots and even vacant land. UMKC could make a deal with Gates so there restaurant could remain where it is today but inside of a UMKC building. Check it out on Google maps. It's a stones throw from the current campus and very underutilized land. You could throw in the Bluffs at Brush Creek Apts and University Meadows and have an excellent location for another building at UMKC which could be reached from the North Campus by a bridge over the creek and Volker.

chingon wrote: ↑Thu Sep 06, 2018 4:40 pm The City should just give them Theis Park.

beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Wed Sep 05, 2018 10:38 am

kcjak wrote: ↑Wed Sep 05, 2018 9:55 am Why would a small, private school sell land to UMKC when they (Rockhurst) are also burdened with the same lack of available land? Small private colleges like Rockhurst typically have significant endowments and operating budgets and higher tuition than larger public universities. That doesn't mean they aren't highly successful financially, even if they are not-for-profit. Ever hear of Duke, Rice, Gonzaga, Tulane, etc.?

I’m suggesting they sell their entire campus precisely because of the shortage of available land. They could receive a very large amount of money that they could use for purchase or construction of a new campus in a location in the metro of their choosing. This has been done by other catholic schools including St Thomas Acquinas which moves to Johnson County. I’m sure the same could be done for a college. It actually might be easier compared to moving kids to to a different HS location. Instead of two colleges battling it out for neighborhood land and tearing down houses, this would allow full expansion as part of consolidation.

flyingember wrote: ↑Thu Sep 06, 2018 6:15 pm

chingon wrote: ↑Thu Sep 06, 2018 4:40 pm The City should just give them Theis Park.

Give after a citywide vote to remove it from the park system.
I would expect that would get a lot of pushback.

chingon wrote: ↑Thu Sep 06, 2018 4:40 pm The City should just give them Theis Park.

Midtownkid wrote: ↑Fri Sep 07, 2018 12:48 pm

chingon wrote: ↑Thu Sep 06, 2018 4:40 pm The City should just give them Theis Park.

Don't see how that is a good idea. That is a great park and it is actually well-used.

This forum is full of ideas to get rid of parks and make every corner of the city 'dense'. One thing I love about the city (and most visitors notice) is all the great 'open space', green boulevards, and lack of heavy traffic. I think those are qualities we should emphasize and improve upon, not destroy.

I want to build up density in certain areas. God knows Main Street and Troost could use some good infill. But, I think the Plaza area is pretty much maxed out. It's great as it is, physically. All the open park spaces give that part of the city a slight countryside feel. I would hate to lose that. (leave the tennis courts alone, too).

anonkcmo wrote: ↑Fri Sep 07, 2018 2:31 pm Theis Park is a joke, never used and is simply open space.
If the right developer or project came along, the city should seriously consider the exchange.

anonkcmo wrote: ↑Fri Sep 07, 2018 2:31 pm Theis Park is a joke, never used and is simply open space.
If the right developer or project came along, the city should seriously consider the exchange.

Midtownkid wrote: ↑Fri Sep 07, 2018 8:17 pm

anonkcmo wrote: ↑Fri Sep 07, 2018 2:31 pm Theis Park is a joke, never used and is simply open space.
If the right developer or project came along, the city should seriously consider the exchange.

I was thinking of Southmoreland Park when I said it was well used. Still, I would never advocate for anything other than landscape improvements at Theis Park. The view from the steps of the Nelson to Brush Creek should be preserved. It's a great vista. You could never get that back.