KCRag Forum

Having lived in the View for a few years a while back, yes, this area does need retail. and dining. Right now just about anything is at least a 10-15 minute brisk walk away. Cannot be called a Village without it.

I am ambivalent about the need for more speculative retail.

DColeKC wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 10:38 am We have plenty of retail downtown

No

plenty of retail capacity.

Yes but that doesn't mean if you build 5-10k spots there isn't room for some neighborhood retail. it's obviously too far to walk to P&L retail space from here.

We can’t keep making several small, self serving pockets that discourage residents from getting out of their own hood.

Never been to NYC I guess. I know we'll never be NYC but having retail part of the neighborhood is key to thriving neighborhoods.

Anthony_Hugo98 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 12:52 pm

DColeKC wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 12:35 pm

Anthony_Hugo98 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 11:12 am
That’s not how you build neighborhoods…

I’m not saying zero retail but the idea of making it so convenient that there’s no reason to leave is problematic. Of course some smaller retail bays makes sense here and there but downtown has laid the foundation here.

Apologies, but when you say skip the retail, the assumption is that you’re advocating for zero retail. Just working off what you had said

No apology needed, I see how you got to where you did. I’d just like to see more super heavy residential opposed to everything street level being retail with residential on top.

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 2:58 pm

DColeKC wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 10:38 am We have plenty of retail downtown

No

plenty of retail capacity.

Yes but that doesn't mean if you build 5-10k spots there isn't room for some neighborhood retail. it's obviously too far to walk to P&L retail space from here.

We can’t keep making several small, self serving pockets that discourage residents from getting out of their own hood.

Never been to NYC I guess. I know we'll never be NYC but having retail part of the neighborhood is key to thriving neighborhoods.

We do have plenty of retail space downtown. Of course we need more and we are mostly needing the larger things like an urban target.

East Village is a stretch when you’re along people to walk before and after something they specifically bought a ticket for. Entertainment. It’s not a long walk when you’re talking about going to grab a bag of groceries. It could be about the max walking distance to do that without a dolly of some sort.

As for NYC. Not going to compare one of our nations oldest and most populated cities to KC.

Totally agree we have enough space, even in our busiest areas there is plenty of space. We def do not have enough actual retail.

This is getting laughable. You now think people will walk less for a baseball game? JFC anything to fill your narrative I guess but people complain to go to Target when they have to park in the back and willingly are parking at Kauffman 1/2 mile away walk. as one who does walk with bag of groceries, I'd much rather that be closer than going to TMo for an event. Just stop.

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 10:04 am Totally agree we have enough space, even in our busiest areas there is plenty of space. We def do not have enough actual retail.

This is getting laughable. You now think people will walk less for a baseball game? JFC anything to fill your narrative I guess but people complain to go to Target when they have to park in the back and willingly are parking at Kauffman 1/2 mile away walk. as one who does walk with bag of groceries, I'd much rather that be closer than going to TMo for an event. Just stop.

Listen I have an education, career and my own firm that has led me to working dozens and dozens of projects involving urban development.

We are not talking about the same thing. A downtown resident is indeed much more likely to walk longer distances as part of everyday life as walkability is a highly ranked factor in their decision to live in urban neighborhoods.

Suburban visitors are of a different mindset. These are the people I’ve always referenced as the group who would consider the walk from EV to PNL as too long. A baseball stadium is going to draw 80% of its crowd from the burbs so its distance to other things matter.

Much like your NYC to KC comparison (and yes, I’ve been several times), your Target comparison is just off. We are talking about downtown residents here.

Btw it’s not a narrative. I keep saying things that risk my anonymity but I’m involved in these types of discussions at work every single day.

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 10:04 am Totally agree we have enough space, even in our busiest areas there is plenty of space. We def do not have enough actual retail.

This is getting laughable. You now think people will walk less for a baseball game? JFC anything to fill your narrative I guess but people complain to go to Target when they have to park in the back and willingly are parking at Kauffman 1/2 mile away walk. as one who does walk with bag of groceries, I'd much rather that be closer than going to TMo for an event. Just stop.

I made the walk several times from East Village back to P&L when looking at both sites this Spring. It's not a long walk. It's probably no longer than getting to Kaufman late and having to park in an outlying lot and walk to the stadium.

I don't think that matters. It's the concept of walking to something that you cannot see visually, past shuttered government buildings in an unprotected environment at night that will be an issue to most people. If the route between East Village and P&L was like 16th street mall in Denver, most wouldn't have an issue but my own thoughts were that most non downtowners were going to have an issue with the nature of the walk. Throw into that equation that Paseo West which is adjacent to East Village has several homeless shelters/missions and the potential for panhandlers would make the location a little dicey for most suburban families. I for downtown baseball whether it's east village or east crossroads but even before east crossroads became the choice, I had some misgivings about the relatively isolated location of East Village relative to the more vibrant parts of downtown, the crappy transportation issues on the east loop and the proximity to a pretty dicey neighborhood immediately to the east.

These are pretty standard urban design and behavioral truths I'm referencing here. This doesn't make sense

"East Village is a stretch when you’re along people to walk before and after something they specifically bought a ticket for. Entertainment. It’s not a long walk when you’re talking about going to grab a bag of groceries."


Back to what I was trying to ask, what do we want here. Do we want a neighborhood or just proposition some other government agency to fill up the rest of the EV and make it a true government district and be done with it? We can't keep going with these bombed out surface lots, even walking through empty government buildings on a weekend would be a positive to what the EV is now.

Highlander wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 11:16 am

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 10:04 am Totally agree we have enough space, even in our busiest areas there is plenty of space. We def do not have enough actual retail.

This is getting laughable. You now think people will walk less for a baseball game? JFC anything to fill your narrative I guess but people complain to go to Target when they have to park in the back and willingly are parking at Kauffman 1/2 mile away walk. as one who does walk with bag of groceries, I'd much rather that be closer than going to TMo for an event. Just stop.

I made the walk several times from East Village back to P&L when looking at both sites this Spring. It's not a long walk. It's probably no longer than getting to Kaufman late and having to park in an outlying lot and walk to the stadium.

I don't think that matters. It's the concept of walking to something that you cannot see visually, past shuttered government buildings in an unprotected environment at night that will be an issue to most people. If the route between East Village and P&L was like 16th street mall in Denver, most wouldn't have an issue but my own thoughts were that most non downtowners were going to have an issue with the nature of the walk. Throw into that equation that Paseo West which is adjacent to East Village has several homeless shelters/missions and the potential for panhandlers would make the location a little dicey for most suburban families. I for downtown baseball whether it's east village or east crossroads but even before east crossroads became the choice, I had some misgivings about the relatively isolated location of East Village relative to the more vibrant parts of downtown, the crappy transportation issues on the east loop and the proximity to a pretty dicey neighborhood immediately to the east.

that would and still should be a key to whatever we want to do in EV, we need to beautify the stretch between the financial district/P&L activity districts to the EV. Right now it definitely is not welcoming.

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 11:24 am These are pretty standard urban design and behavioral truths I'm referencing here. This doesn't make sense

"East Village is a stretch when you’re along people to walk before and after something they specifically bought a ticket for. Entertainment. It’s not a long walk when you’re talking about going to grab a bag of groceries."


Back to what I was trying to ask, what do we want here. Do we want a neighborhood or just proposition some other government agency to fill up the rest of the EV and make it a true government district and be done with it? We can't keep going with these bombed out surface lots, even walking through empty government buildings on a weekend would be a positive to what the EV is now.

It makes total sense. We are talking about two completely different types of people with two completely different types of patterns, values and perspectives on convenience.

Suburban folks that come downtown for a baseball game think completely differently from those who live downtown. “Visitors” want the shortest distance and max convenience because they feel like they’re already inconvenienced by driving and parking. I’m not saying I agree with this, simply pointing out what the data says.

Downtown residents will often go out of their way to avoid needing to drive. They’re willing to walk further and have a higher inconvenience tolerance. I’m not suggesting we make things less than ideal for downtown residents. I’m saying planning for something that caters to downtown residents more than downtown visitors is a completely different beast.

As for the future of EV. I don’t seem to think it’s such a major high priority as others but I do believe we need more new build residential that’s not high rise, luxury type housing. I love the idea of a mixture of apartments and condos. This once again isn’t because I don’t want competition for Cordish. This is just because this area allows for different strategies. Cordish is working with small plots and must go vertical. It’s expensive to go vertical so Luxury makes sense. We don’t need to do that with ample space in EV.

I'm not really interested in getting into the stadium thing, because although EV was the right place for it, that ship has sailed, so whatever, hopefully they do a good job with it in the Crossroads, but the idea that downtown residents should be intentionally inconvenienced because they're supposedly more willing to put up with it is ridiculous. "Planning for something that caters to downtown residents" should mean putting things closer together, not farther apart. A functional urban neighborhood should have all the basic amenities easily accessible, not "well, you can walk it if you're not from Olathe." If you build a bunch of homes half a mile away from the supermarket, most of the people in those homes are just going to drive to the supermarket most of the time. Cities are supposed to work well for the people who live there and make their lives easier. Living in the city is not supposed to be a badge of honor that you're more willing to pointlessly suffer than you imagine suburbanites are.

I do believe we need more new build residential that’s not high rise, luxury type housing

This, though, I am with you 100%. A lot of people on this board seem obsessed with high rises, but making the skyline look more impressive from a mile away doesn't necessarily do shit for the on-the-ground urban environment at the foot of those buildings. KC doesn't need high-rises. If somebody wants to build one, fine, but KC ought to focus on filling up with higher-density low- and mid-rise human-scale development. We've already invoked NYC in this thread, so to take another couple extreme examples, be Paris, not Dubai.

phuqueue wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 9:51 am

I do believe we need more new build residential that’s not high rise, luxury type housing

This, though, I am with you 100%. A lot of people on this board seem obsessed with high rises, but making the skyline look more impressive from a mile away doesn't necessarily do shit for the on-the-ground urban environment at the foot of those buildings. KC doesn't need high-rises. If somebody wants to build one, fine, but KC ought to focus on filling up with higher-density low- and mid-rise human-scale development. We've already invoked NYC in this thread, so to take another couple extreme examples, be Paris, not Dubai.

To that point, when I show friends KC, nobody says anything negative about the current skyline. Most are actually impressed by it!

The negative feedback I do hear is always some version of "why does it feel so dead downtown", "where is everybody", or "are the streets always this empty"?

phuqueue wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 9:51 am I'm not really interested in getting into the stadium thing, because although EV was the right place for it, that ship has sailed, so whatever, hopefully they do a good job with it in the Crossroads, but the idea that downtown residents should be intentionally inconvenienced because they're supposedly more willing to put up with it is ridiculous. "Planning for something that caters to downtown residents" should mean putting things closer together, not farther apart. A functional urban neighborhood should have all the basic amenities easily accessible, not "well, you can walk it if you're not from Olathe." If you build a bunch of homes half a mile away from the supermarket, most of the people in those homes are just going to drive to the supermarket most of the time. Cities are supposed to work well for the people who live there and make their lives easier. Living in the city is not supposed to be a badge of honor that you're more willing to pointlessly suffer than you imagine suburbanites are.

I do believe we need more new build residential that’s not high rise, luxury type housing

This, though, I am with you 100%. A lot of people on this board seem obsessed with high rises, but making the skyline look more impressive from a mile away doesn't necessarily do shit for the on-the-ground urban environment at the foot of those buildings. KC doesn't need high-rises. If somebody wants to build one, fine, but KC ought to focus on filling up with higher-density low- and mid-rise human-scale development. We've already invoked NYC in this thread, so to take another couple extreme examples, be Paris, not Dubai.

I must be doing a terrible job trying to explain this.

I'm not at all suggesting you make things intentionally inconvenient for downtown residents. What I'm saying is the downtown lifestyle vs the suburban lifestyle is dramatically different and the planning follows. In the burbs, all the shopping tends to be packed tightly together because everyone is driving there anyway. Walking more than a few hundred feet is downright hell to these people. Needing to get your car out, if you even have one, is the bane of existence for many who live downtown.

I'm not saying because of this you place things even further apart because downtown folks will simply walk further. What I'm suggesting is our neighborhoods are already close to each other considering the preferred lifestyle we as downtown residents have chosen. We don't think walking a half mile to the grocery store is all that crazy but a suburban person would just go hungry before making that journey.

So let me start all over and say that what I hope goes in EV is mostly low to maybe mid-rise residential. Various options in styles, nothing cookie cutter, nothing "luxury" and some options for people to purchase opposed to rent. Some small format retail that can survive off of that neighborhoods residents alone would be great. Coffee, sandwich shops and what not. Although these days it wouldn't be uncommon for these types of amenities to be built into each residential section. What I'd like to see this area void of though is more adult focused options. No weed shops or bars. Once again, not to protect Cordish or other downtown bars, but to make it more family friendly. Trust me, living next to so many bars isn't always a good thing.

It would be cool to see more things like the Briarcliff Apartments built downtown.

DColeKC wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 11:17 am
So let me start all over and say that what I hope goes in EV is mostly low to maybe mid-rise residential. Various options in styles, nothing cookie cutter, nothing "luxury" and some options for people to purchase opposed to rent. Some small format retail that can survive off of that neighborhoods residents alone would be great. Coffee, sandwich shops and what not. Although these days it wouldn't be uncommon for these types of amenities to be built into each residential section. What I'd like to see this area void of though is more adult focused options. No weed shops or bars. Once again, not to protect Cordish or other downtown bars, but to make it more family friendly. Trust me, living next to so many bars isn't always a good thing.

It would be cool to see more things like the Briarcliff Apartments built downtown.

So would Quality Hill be a good comparison or any other neighborhood you can think of in KC or other cities you've been? Not been to Briarcliff, I've seen them going to the airport, it doesn't seem very urban friendly though?

Sincerely hope this isn't what DCole is suggesting go in EV?

https://www.liveatbriarcliffcityapts.com/

smh wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 12:04 pm Sincerely hope this isn't what DCole is suggesting go in EV?

https://www.liveatbriarcliffcityapts.com/

Not exactly, but larger floor plan mid-rise units that people could purchase would be great. I was more thinking about how nice those apartments feel. I mentioned avoiding cookie cutter developments.

Something more like what's planned in Salt Lake City - https://buildingsaltlake.com/woodbury-m ... -downtown/

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 11:21 am

DColeKC wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 11:17 am
So let me start all over and say that what I hope goes in EV is mostly low to maybe mid-rise residential. Various options in styles, nothing cookie cutter, nothing "luxury" and some options for people to purchase opposed to rent. Some small format retail that can survive off of that neighborhoods residents alone would be great. Coffee, sandwich shops and what not. Although these days it wouldn't be uncommon for these types of amenities to be built into each residential section. What I'd like to see this area void of though is more adult focused options. No weed shops or bars. Once again, not to protect Cordish or other downtown bars, but to make it more family friendly. Trust me, living next to so many bars isn't always a good thing.

It would be cool to see more things like the Briarcliff Apartments built downtown.

So would Quality Hill be a good comparison or any other neighborhood you can think of in KC or other cities you've been? Not been to Briarcliff, I've seen them going to the airport, it doesn't seem very urban friendly though?

I mentioned Briarcliff more for how they feel spacious and nice on the interior but are not priced like luxury units. They're not urban or urban friendly at all.

DColeKC wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 11:17 am

phuqueue wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 9:51 am I'm not really interested in getting into the stadium thing, because although EV was the right place for it, that ship has sailed, so whatever, hopefully they do a good job with it in the Crossroads, but the idea that downtown residents should be intentionally inconvenienced because they're supposedly more willing to put up with it is ridiculous. "Planning for something that caters to downtown residents" should mean putting things closer together, not farther apart. A functional urban neighborhood should have all the basic amenities easily accessible, not "well, you can walk it if you're not from Olathe." If you build a bunch of homes half a mile away from the supermarket, most of the people in those homes are just going to drive to the supermarket most of the time. Cities are supposed to work well for the people who live there and make their lives easier. Living in the city is not supposed to be a badge of honor that you're more willing to pointlessly suffer than you imagine suburbanites are.

I do believe we need more new build residential that’s not high rise, luxury type housing

This, though, I am with you 100%. A lot of people on this board seem obsessed with high rises, but making the skyline look more impressive from a mile away doesn't necessarily do shit for the on-the-ground urban environment at the foot of those buildings. KC doesn't need high-rises. If somebody wants to build one, fine, but KC ought to focus on filling up with higher-density low- and mid-rise human-scale development. We've already invoked NYC in this thread, so to take another couple extreme examples, be Paris, not Dubai.

I must be doing a terrible job trying to explain this.

I'm not at all suggesting you make things intentionally inconvenient for downtown residents. What I'm saying is the downtown lifestyle vs the suburban lifestyle is dramatically different and the planning follows. In the burbs, all the shopping tends to be packed tightly together because everyone is driving there anyway. Walking more than a few hundred feet is downright hell to these people. Needing to get your car out, if you even have one, is the bane of existence for many who live downtown.

I'm not saying because of this you place things even further apart because downtown folks will simply walk further. What I'm suggesting is our neighborhoods are already close to each other considering the preferred lifestyle we as downtown residents have chosen. We don't think walking a half mile to the grocery store is all that crazy but a suburban person would just go hungry before making that journey.

You are right that the planning for an urban vs. suburban area is different, but the planning for an urban area should be for a high volume of necessities and amenities to be distributed across the whole area so that your basic errands are always within quick and easy walking distance of any residence, not just "well this seems close enough to where we already put some stuff on Main." Walking half a mile to the grocery store isn't "crazy" insofar as half a mile isn't really very far, but I have a feeling that downtown residents are no more eager to walk a half mile laden with groceries than anybody else would be.

So let me start all over and say that what I hope goes in EV is mostly low to maybe mid-rise residential. Various options in styles, nothing cookie cutter, nothing "luxury" and some options for people to purchase opposed to rent. Some small format retail that can survive off of that neighborhoods residents alone would be great. Coffee, sandwich shops and what not. Although these days it wouldn't be uncommon for these types of amenities to be built into each residential section. What I'd like to see this area void of though is more adult focused options. No weed shops or bars. Once again, not to protect Cordish or other downtown bars, but to make it more family friendly. Trust me, living next to so many bars isn't always a good thing.

It would be cool to see more things like the Briarcliff Apartments built downtown.

I don't think EV needs to be an entertainment district that is full of bars, but I don't necessarily think it'd be the worst thing for there to be a bar or two in this hypothetical community. For obvious reasons, bars should ideally be located within walking distance of their patrons. But then again, so should everything else.

I think Quality Hill is a good model for East Village with the exception that there is almost no pre-existing built environment in East Village remaining and East Village is more assimilated into the downtown street grid than Quality Hill as Broadway provides a natural barrier. East Village is actually on the way to the east loop and will receive a lot more E-W and N-S traffic. And of course retail and at least restaurant and bars and even a grocery store should be part of it.

My bigger question would be what time frame and who is the target residential market?

There's practically nothing being built in the greater downtown/RM/Crossroads area presently (other than the freight house building and the stalled Lux Living project). There remains a ton of space to infill within the Crossroads and around the P&L District. So would East Village target a different market considering the competition it would have from elsewhere in the CBD (and urban core in general)? But since EV would be all new built so would those units demand a higher price over renovated space elsewhere. Just trying to look at the area with realistic concept of when it would be developed an what the residential market would be.