most underrated & overrated KC urban neighborhood?

FangKC · Post by **FangKC** » Thu Dec 25, 2003 3:05 am

kcmajik wrote:what's the neighborhood over on clever ii just around the vacinity of nelson-atkins? plaza east? i like that neighborhood pretty well but haven't strayed too far off clever or east of paseo. don't know what it looks beyond that.

The neighborhood around the Nelson-Atkins is called Southmoreland. Its boundaries are 39th on the north, Main on the west, Gillham on the east, and 47th on the south.

KCK · Post by **KCK** » Thu Dec 25, 2003 6:46 am

KC0KEK wrote:
I based my perception that $100K-$150K is affordable by comparing it to the national average, which was about $243K a couple of years ago, as I recall. I don't know what the KC metro average is, but my guess is that $100K-$150K is still affordable by comparison.

I realize that affordability is relative. Do the homes just across Mission Road sell for three to four times as much as mine would? Sure. But I don't get upset about that disparity. What would that accomplish? Life is too short for envy.

Envy....lol that is funny. I dont envy Johnson County, I pity it. One day people will see they are living in a plastic pseudo reality as devoid from real life as possible.

Post by **bahua** » Sun Dec 28, 2003 12:44 pm

Well, and also, it will one day be a vast expanse of spent suburb, like Roeland Park or Hickman Mills. Like all sprawled suburbs, its success is temporary.

FangKC · Post by **FangKC** » Sun Dec 28, 2003 3:30 pm

One only need be reminded that parts of Independence Avenue used to be lined with shade trees and stately homes of affluent people. Today's Leawood could someday become like Independence Avenue.

All it takes for this to happen is the continuation of a consumer-oriented society (consume and throw-away), urban sprawl, automobile-based culture, mass spending on highway construction, and inability to deal with crime and substance abuse.

Society spends billions on constructing new highways on the periphery of the city (I-435)--and new streets--in rural areas instead of maintaining the infastructure of the urban core. In the race to expand and grow, cities compete for rural, unpopulated land in an effort to extend the city boundaries before another municipality can take that land. All the while, the problems of denser, populated areas of the existing city are ignored.

Unfortunately, many people have the tendency to run away from problems instead of trying to solve them.

KCK · Post by **KCK** » Sun Dec 28, 2003 5:32 pm

FangKC wrote: All it takes for this to happen is the continuation of a consumer-oriented society (consume and throw-away), urban sprawl, automobile-based culture, mass spending on highway construction, and inability to deal with crime and substance abuse.

Unfortunately, many people have the tendency to run away from problems instead of trying to solve them.

I dont know, when I was 18 someone shot a gun through my windshield in an attempt to carjack me. If it had struck 2 inches to the left, I would have been shot. That didn't scare me enough to make me leave KCK. Talk all you want FangKC, but having lived in some pretty rough neighborhoods, its hard to blame anyone for not wanting to live there.

FangKC · Post by **FangKC** » Tue Dec 30, 2003 12:53 pm

And what is the solution? Can any large city afford to continue growing outward ad-infinitum all while the inner core turns into a wasteland? European cities don't do this. They have not seen their inner cities rot in the last 50 years. They have remained vibrant and stable neighborhoods.

It doesn't make economic sense to continue building new infastructure and abandoning that which already exists to blight and neglect.

The point is that even nice neighborhoods can turn bad when the mindset is to continue to "move on" once problems arise. If cities made it more expensive (through property taxes) to live on the fringes in newly-developed housing that requires new infastructure to be constructed, then many of the problems of sprawl and inner city decline would be remedied.

Crime can be solved when the will is there. New York City had the reputation of being a cesspool and dangerous, crime-infested city. That all changed in the 1990s. Crime dropped to the lowest levels since the early 1960s. People actually started moving back into the city, and reclaimed once dangerous neighborhoods on the Lower East Side, Hell's Kitchen, Washington Heights, and Harlem.

When I first moved to the East Village in 1992, I was warned not to go into Alphabet City (east of Avenue A). Within 10 years, Alphabet City was being gentrified and people were fighting for renovated apartments there.

How was this accomplished? Good and effective policing. Clinton's policy of putting thousands of new police on the streets helped; Guiliani's policy of making cops walk a beat, instead of riding in cars helped; Giving incentives for police officers to live in the neighborhoods or cities where they work (instead of suburbs) helped; Use of computer tracking to identify where crime actually occurred, so that police could be strategically placed to prevent crime helped; Targeted task forces to eliminate street drug sales and to identify and arrest drug dealers helped. Longer jail sentences for large-scale dealers helped. Having the City offer a bounty for all guns turned into the police helped. No tolerance laws against graffiti, loitering on corners, loud music, littering, squeegee car window washers on streets, panhandling in the subways, and illegal squatting helped. Removal of homeless camps and finding low-income housing for formerly homeless people helped.

Instead of building mass public housing projects, the city housing authority began renovating individual abandoned buildings all over the city--especially in bad neighborhoods. As it turned out, the city fixing one of two buildings on a block resulted in private owners fixing up their own buildings, or buying delapidated structures for renovation.

No one policy or effort individually solved the problems in New York, but attacking them all simultaneously produced dramatic results.

Because of these efforts, the population of New York City actually began increasing again after decades of population losses. Business stopped leaving the city in droves. Suburbanites with children began moving back into the city. Tourism shot up so much that new hotels were needed, and hotel occupancy rates reached 95 percent. New York is no longer among the 25 most dangerous cities--even though it's our largest city.

I lived in a bad neighborhood, and I saw it completely turn around. I didn't believe it was possible, but it was.

This can happen anywhere if there is the will to accomplish it.

kcmajik · Post by **kcmajik** » Sat Jan 03, 2004 2:49 am

i visited a friend tonight in old hyde park....really COOL housing! had no idea those buildings were that old and articulate. my friend's house is newly renovated and all the surrounding neighbors had done the same thing. it's a pretty classy area right near broadway and armour.

FangKC · Post by **FangKC** » Sat Jan 03, 2004 11:42 am

I love all the big houses made out of native stone in Hyde Park west of Main St. and south of Armour.

rxlexi · Post by **rxlexi** » Sat Jan 03, 2004 2:53 pm

kind of getting off topic here, but I too love hyde park and feel compelled to share this latest experience : a friend of mine recently bought a house on the edge of hyde park at about 45th and Gillham, right across the street from Gillham Park and the Southmoreland neighborhood. I've been helping with moving, painting, cleaning etc, and it's been fun, great house. It's amazing that such a wonderful, old, 3 story home (pretty large in fact) within 15 minutes walking distance to that Plaza, 5-10 to the Nelson can be bought for $130K. Yes, people, Troost is a block away. But so what? Troost is hardly the deep dark ghetto. I feel safe walking to the Osco and True Value hardware 5 minutes away on Troost. I love my friend's home and I adore the area; as long as perceptions stay the same about Troost I'll be able to get my own wonderful old house here

, with neighbors largely free of such stereotypes, as I've experienced here.

tat2kc · Post by **tat2kc** » Sat Jan 03, 2004 6:51 pm

Troost is not a bad street at all. Parts of it are a bit run down, but otherwise not too shabby. I think its more a perception issue rather than anything else.

Has anyone else noticed the great new homes being built along the Paseo? Since I got here in 1992, that street has really undergone a pretty dramatic change. Its nice to see the infill homes built in a way to complement the neighorhood. Its really a very nice drive.

trailerkid · Post by **trailerkid** » Sat Jan 03, 2004 7:03 pm

Troost is more symbolic in this city. With its closeness to Rockhurst, it would be neat to see it emerge with offbeat boutiques, restaurants and bars.

There was is an awesome episode of Under the Clock where they discuss Troost Ave., what it means to the community, and how it may be coming back.
http://www.kcur.org/asx/?showname=UTC&s ... +Listening

rxlexi · Post by **rxlexi** » Sun Jan 04, 2004 4:34 am

hey I just wanted to add that I wasn't talking about you people or your perceptions per se, just many of the folks that I've run into lately and discussed the move with.
Anyway yeah it would be great to see Troost really come back a bit, I think it has quite a bit of potential. By the way, does anyone know what the solitary dome topped structure is that sits roughly at the corner of Brush Creek (I think) and Troost. It looks like it was a part of another building that has since been demolished, but I don't know what exactly was there or why they kept only the dome top (though I'm glad they did). I don't like seeing it just sit there by itself on that empty lot next to Walgreens; I think the spot might be nice for a small park of some sort or a fountain...just dreams anyway

scooterj · Post by **scooterj** » Sun Jan 04, 2004 11:58 am

I don't want to be a lone negative voice, and granted this was ten years ago, but I want to share my experience of living near Troost. I lived in the 4400 block of Harrison... Troost was literally my back yard. The neighborhood was very nice -- big beautiful homes that their owners had all put a lot of work into improving and maintaining. Everyone was very nice, it was the type of neighborhood where everyone said hello to each other.

During the short time (less than a year) I lived there my car was broken into several times. On a few occasions I even caught people in the act and the direction they always took off running to was towards Troost. I lived on the ground floor of my place and the second floor was a separate unit where a young woman lived. Her place was burglarized one evening while I was home and I never heard a thing. She had planted a small garden in our back yard. It got destroyed on another night when someone stole a car from a parking lot on Troost behind us and escaped by driving through our fence and yard and bushes. A few houses on my block suffered home-invasion robberies where the front door would get kicked in while the residents were asleep. I eventually became so terrified living there that I nailed my back door and windows shut, I would go out of my way to try to ensure I got home before dark, and on several occasions spent the night elsewhere soley due to fear.

It was very frustrating, because everyone living there was trying so hard to make it a really nice neighborhood... and about 3/4 of the time it was. It was outsiders spilling in from Troost during the night that were screwing it up for everyone.

Not all of Troost is so bad. Just a couple blocks to the south, 47th and Troost has a lot of potential. Even more potential perhaps is the part from about 50th to 55th, between UMKC and Rockhurst. I've never felt unsafe walking that area at any time of day. (Though my car was broken into several times there as well.)

tat2kc · Post by **tat2kc** » Sun Jan 04, 2004 12:54 pm

Scooterj, you're right of course. 10 years ago, even 5, Troost was not the street it is today. I think with the added investments that Rockhurst and UMKC have put in, along with the Stowers institute, it is changing. More people are investing in the area, and more and more people are looking out for each other. Its got a long way to go, but the improvement is there.

rxlexi · Post by **rxlexi** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 1:35 am

Scooter, thanks for sharing your experience. I wouldn't say you're off course, as crime does I'm sure occur in the area, probably at a higher rate than some other areas. However I agree with tat2kc that Troost, in fact that whole area is quite a bit different than it was ten years ago. I know it's still probably not the safest neighborhood in the city, but those same people that you speak of fighting to reclaim it are finally starting to see some progress in regards to the safety and cleanliness of the area.
It's always unfortunate when a neighborhood is crippled by those that don't share the same ideas regarding it's well being, whether they live nearby or not.

Also Scooter where exactly where you located there, my friend's house is at about 45th and Harrison, right in front of the Gillham/Harrison street sign on the light pole?

TheDude · Post by **TheDude** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 6:01 pm

boy, talk about getting off subject.
underrated = most are underrated, depending on who is doing the rating.
overrated = there are none, at least in the urban core depending on your definition.
hows that for dodging the question

KCRag Forum