KCRag Forum

FangKC wrote:I must admit I'm surprised that it passed by such a larger majority. I was worried it would fail, and nothing would happen for another 20 years.

I was surprised as well. All the unofficial polling I'd seen showed a split decision. So I was expecting something like 52 to 48 or 48 to 52 as a result.

I wonder if we will start seeing an uptick in flights before the New Terminal starts, or if we will have to wait for 4 years before we see any.

I was impressed that it passed by similar percentages in Clay & Platte, too. Apparently this was one issue that the river doesn't divide us on.

shinatoo wrote:So who are the 500 people that voted yes on 2 and no on 3? And are there just 11,000 that vote no on everything, no matter what?

Had I been able to vote in the KCMO election, that's how I would have voted. 2 was relinquishing responsibility for land that, if I understood the parcel correctly, is essentially an oversized median. But 3 is a big block of developable land and there was no information given as to who would get control of it and what they planned to do with it.

ldai_phs wrote:I wonder if we will start seeing an uptick in flights before the New Terminal starts, or if we will have to wait for 4 years before we see any.

I wouldn't expect SW adding additional flights until the new terminal opens - they're effectively maxed out with their current gate allocation.

Alaska, United and the ULCCs could easily add additional flights if they see a market for them, however.

swid wrote:

ldai_phs wrote:I wonder if we will start seeing an uptick in flights before the New Terminal starts, or if we will have to wait for 4 years before we see any.

I wouldn't expect SW adding additional flights until the new terminal opens - they're effectively maxed out with their current gate allocation.

Alaska, United and the ULCCs could easily add additional flights if they see a market for them, however.

Hard to predict the aviation landscape in 4 years. A lot can happen that will influence airlines and flights. Let's all be proud of the new facility and any new flights we get will be icing on the cake (but if we have no icing, we can still be happy too!)

Biz Journal article (paywall). Didn't expect Jackson County to be higher than Northland...

The winning margins by county were 77.4 percent south of the river in Jackson County, 73.9 percent in Platte County and 70.5 percent in Clay County.

2021 opening sounds way too optimistic. Would expect 8-10 years even though it's not a new airport from scratch.

Mike Burke, a Kansas City attorney who has led the effort to develop a new $320 million downtown convention headquarters hotel, has been working on that project for about the same length of time. Now, the hotel is scheduled to open in 2020, and the new airport, which will boost the hotel’s bookings, is scheduled to be completed before the end of 2021.

https://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/ ... ctory.html

scooterj wrote:I was impressed that it passed by similar percentages in Clay & Platte, too. Apparently this was one issue that the river doesn't divide us on.

shinatoo wrote:So who are the 500 people that voted yes on 2 and no on 3? And are there just 11,000 that vote no on everything, no matter what?

Had I been able to vote in the KCMO election, that's how I would have voted. 2 was relinquishing responsibility for land that, if I understood the parcel correctly, is essentially an oversized median. But 3 is a big block of developable land and there was no information given as to who would get control of it and what they planned to do with it.

If I understand correctly, Parks and Rec can not negotiate the sale of a property they deem unusable until such time as the public approves the sale of such a property. I looked at the request for a disposition vote as opening the door for Stone Lion to pursue a purchase.

loftguy wrote:

scooterj wrote:I was impressed that it passed by similar percentages in Clay & Platte, too. Apparently this was one issue that the river doesn't divide us on.

shinatoo wrote:So who are the 500 people that voted yes on 2 and no on 3? And are there just 11,000 that vote no on everything, no matter what?

Had I been able to vote in the KCMO election, that's how I would have voted. 2 was relinquishing responsibility for land that, if I understood the parcel correctly, is essentially an oversized median. But 3 is a big block of developable land and there was no information given as to who would get control of it and what they planned to do with it.

If I understand correctly, Parks and Rec can not negotiate the sale of a property they deem unusable until such time as the public approves the sale of such a property. I looked at the request for a disposition vote as opening the door for Stone Lion to pursue a purchase.

The Freedom, Inc. ballot described Question 3 as 'an opportunity to redevelop Western Bible College' or something along those lines. The rumor I have heard is that this will be a residential project, but that's just a rumor. Stone Lion is actively and urgently looking for new space, according to their Facebook page.

So, now we have ‘approval’ for the airport and start negotiating design and cost with Edgemoor. If those negotiations go south, is there a chance to open the development to other parties that would provide a superior product or better price?

Polling is dead. Pleasant surprise is alive and well.

Yes apparently if edgemore fails to deliver it will go to the second choice is what I've heard

Riverite wrote:Yes apparently if edgemore fails to deliver it will go to the second choice is what I've heard

AECOM

Now that design is the next focus, I am more concerned about allowing for expansion of more gates. Gate management is more efficient in the age of computers but 40-something gates may not be enough long term if KC can build up as a hub. I think the design should allow for up to 60 gate expansion and/or a plan to easily tie tougher another new terminal in future for a 60-90 gate expansion (total) in say 20+ years.

KC needs to think big about becoming a next generation international hub, pitching as International Hub 2.0 or something like that. At least have a 20+ year strategy.

Agreed! I think making the ballot language intentionally vague, will give Kansas City some cards to play as far as long term plan goes

earthling wrote:Now that design is the next focus, I am more concerned about allowing for expansion of more gates.

I think I care more about gate depth than number of gates. You can add gates to the end, but it’s more difficult to deepen gate for more amenities or seating or walkways. It’s similar to Kauffman and Arrowhead. The teams want to add more food options or sales carts or amenities and the concourse becomes very crowded. That’s difficult to update due to infrastructure. Don’t skimp on space, it’s what will make this terminal successful in the long term.

fyi; edgemoor is working with som architects and here's a link with a few of their past work at other airports.

http://www.som.com/projects#markets=aviation&

Design-wise, the appearance needs some work. The renderings were pretty underwhelming outside of the neat fountain gimmick and the roof design.

I have a hard time believing this airport redesign will cost under 1 billion. If you look at past history of recent airports they are all going way over budget. The redesign in SLC has gone over a billion from its original estimate. The brand new airport in Berlin I believe has gone overbudget by like 4 billion

earthling wrote:Now that design is the next focus, I am more concerned about allowing for expansion of more gates. Gate management is more efficient in the age of computers but 40-something gates may not be enough long term if KC can build up as a hub. I think the design should allow for up to 60 gate expansion and/or a plan to easily tie tougher another new terminal in future for a 60-90 gate expansion (total) in say 20+ years.

KC needs to think big about becoming a next generation international hub, pitching as International Hub 2.0 or something like that. At least have a 20+ year strategy.

We can dream. One step at a time though. Start by stealing flights from other Midwest hubs.

The new terminal will have about double the flight capacity of what we currently
use. The gates can be expanded from 35 to 42 which I believe would allow 60 ish more flights per day on top of that.

TheLastGentleman wrote:Design-wise, the appearance needs some work. The renderings were pretty underwhelming outside of the neat fountain gimmick and the roof design.

They are waiting for the community outreach meetings to get the details down. The idea if for the airport to reflect the history and neighborhoods of the city