KC's Big 5 needs for 2020s

KC topics that don't fit anywhere else.
User avatar
normalthings
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:52 pm

Re: KC's Big 5 needs for 2020s

Post by normalthings »

beautyfromashes wrote:
Fri Jan 03, 2020 3:49 pm
shinatoo wrote:
Fri Jan 03, 2020 12:55 pm
And two, and increase in homelessness as the current residents are pushed out. Makes the need for subsidized affordable housing even more important now, before this starts happening in earnest.
I think you’ll see more movement to cheaper suburbs instead of homelessness ie. Grandview, Raytown, Lee’s Summit, Ruskin, etc.
Allowing for tiny homes and small lot infill will help ease this as well.

User avatar
WSPanic
Supporter
Posts: 3787
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: KC's Big 5 needs for 2020s

Post by WSPanic »

earthling wrote:
Thu Jan 02, 2020 9:18 am
Collison's new year review and potential things coming this decade...
https://cityscenekc.com/greater-downtow ... r-workers/
Developers are expected continue to pursue a possible City Target in 2020, and there is a solid rumor that Dollar General plans to open a DGX, its new city store concept, possibly in the Crossroads.
He brings up downtown baseball. Does anyone think it should be a top 5 priority for decade?
Baseball isn't a top 5 priority for the city, but it will be a "top 5 misses for KC in the 2020's" if we don't do it.

User avatar
beautyfromashes
Oak Tower
Oak Tower
Posts: 4974
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:04 am

Re: KC's Big 5 needs for 2020s

Post by beautyfromashes »

normalthings wrote:
Fri Jan 03, 2020 3:58 pm
Allowing for tiny homes and small lot infill will help ease this as well.
I think my preference would be a post-WWII style housing boom on the East Side with construction of 1000s of inexpensive prefab and scalable homes. Think the modern equivalent of Sears homes in mass scale. 3BR,2B that would be functional for any family structure and limited choice on style besides paint color in order to keep prices under $150k cost.

User avatar
TrolliKC
Supporter
Posts: 198
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2018 10:27 am

Re: KC's Big 5 needs for 2020s

Post by TrolliKC »

beautyfromashes wrote:
Fri Jan 03, 2020 4:20 pm
normalthings wrote:
Fri Jan 03, 2020 3:58 pm
Allowing for tiny homes and small lot infill will help ease this as well.
East Side with construction of 1000s of inexpensive prefab and scalable homes. Think the modern equivalent of Sears homes in mass scale. 3BR,2B that would be functional for any family structure and limited choice on style besides paint color in order to keep prices under $150k cost.
3D printed houses like https://newstorycharity.org/

KC could provide land and incentives

earthling
Oak Tower
Oak Tower
Posts: 5993
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:27 pm

Re: KC's Big 5 needs for 2020s

Post by earthling »

WSPanic wrote:
Fri Jan 03, 2020 4:09 pm
earthling wrote:
Thu Jan 02, 2020 9:18 am
Collison's new year review and potential things coming this decade...
https://cityscenekc.com/greater-downtow ... r-workers/
Developers are expected continue to pursue a possible City Target in 2020, and there is a solid rumor that Dollar General plans to open a DGX, its new city store concept, possibly in the Crossroads.
He brings up downtown baseball. Does anyone think it should be a top 5 priority for decade?
Baseball isn't a top 5 priority for the city, but it will be a "top 5 misses for KC in the 2020's" if we don't do it.
Interesting way to put it. I don't view it as a "need" for downtown/city at this point but would be icing on cake if funded right - no burden on KCMO tax payers.

On E Side, it needs significant focus this decade but KC needs to be careful not to create Section 8 style issues. Targeting to mix up demographics as much as possible typically helps. And mixing up market rate with affordable where possible. FangKC has often articulated this better than I can.

This is one different approach...
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/ar ... ng/396650/

User avatar
FangKC
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 14704
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound

Re: KC's Big 5 needs for 2020s

Post by FangKC »

There needs to be a federal "income source" law that prevents discrimination of any renter getting assistance. It needs to be federal to prevent states and cities from passing laws banning it--like Texas has done. As they are administered now, Section 8 programs are a modern form of red-lining IMO.

However, we should just get rid of housing assistance programs completely, and move to a basic income program. It would solve a lot of problems associated with Section 8 and other assistance programs like food stamps. It will also give people a lot more freedom to live where they want. We should live in a society where no one knows if someone is getting housing assistance or food stamps except for the recipients and the government administering it.

It's going to be difficult to truly integrate the East Side until this is done.

In addition, the KCPD needs to get crime under control -- especially the murder rate. We also need to end state control of the police department.

User avatar
beautyfromashes
Oak Tower
Oak Tower
Posts: 4974
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:04 am

Re: KC's Big 5 needs for 2020s

Post by beautyfromashes »

FangKC wrote:
Sat Jan 04, 2020 9:42 am
However, we should just get rid of housing assistance programs completely, and move to a basic income program....
It's going to be difficult to truly integrate the East Side until this is done.
I’ve heard a lot of people suggest this. I just don’t think we would like what the results would be. You would have a wholesale emptying of the East Side of the African American population to the suburbs. And, maybe that’s fine because suburbs need much more diversity, but there would also be legitimate complaints of reverse white flight and that’s definitely not the goal either.

shinatoo
Ambassador
Posts: 6452
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 3:20 pm

Re: KC's Big 5 needs for 2020s

Post by shinatoo »

beautyfromashes wrote:
Fri Jan 03, 2020 3:49 pm
shinatoo wrote:
Fri Jan 03, 2020 12:55 pm
And two, and increase in homelessness as the current residents are pushed out. Makes the need for subsidized affordable housing even more important now, before this starts happening in earnest.
I think you’ll see more movement to cheaper suburbs instead of homelessness ie. Grandview, Raytown, Lee’s Summit, Ruskin, etc.
If you are priced out of 57th and Woodland how the hell you going to afford a house in Raytown. We are talking about people being priced out of the poorest parts of the city, because the people buying their homes are priced out of the suburbs. They aren't moving to Raytown and sure as hell not moving to Lees Summit. Lees Summit already has a significant homeless population.

Additionally these are the people that need public transportation the most.

The root issue is it's almost impossible to build a new single family home for less than $250,000 anymore. That is $1300 ish a month for a 30 year mortgage with a 3% down payment. Unreachable for a lower middle class family.

64110 currently has 20 houses for sale below $200k, and 12 of those are below $150k. Most people in that price range aren't going to get a mortgage but a landlord would have to, and he would have to charge at least as much as the monthly mortgage, likely more.

The tiny house village for vets is a prime example of a symptom of this problem.
Quocunque Jeceris Stabit

User avatar
FangKC
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 14704
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound

Re: KC's Big 5 needs for 2020s

Post by FangKC »

beautyfromashes wrote:
Sat Jan 04, 2020 10:13 am
FangKC wrote:
Sat Jan 04, 2020 9:42 am
However, we should just get rid of housing assistance programs completely, and move to a basic income program....
It's going to be difficult to truly integrate the East Side until this is done.
I’ve heard a lot of people suggest this. I just don’t think we would like what the results would be. You would have a wholesale emptying of the East Side of the African American population to the suburbs. And, maybe that’s fine because suburbs need much more diversity, but there would also be legitimate complaints of reverse white flight and that’s definitely not the goal either.
Why are you assuming that Section 8 recipients are African American? And why would they flee to the suburbs and not the Latino, Asian, and Caucasian residents?

Would you prefer African Americans be trapped in one specific area of the Metro with the inability to leave it?

Not everyone on the East Side is on Section 8. Not everyone who receives an income subsidy would necessarily move from the East Side. They might just move from a Section 8 apartment building/house to another building/house in the same neighborhood.

User avatar
beautyfromashes
Oak Tower
Oak Tower
Posts: 4974
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:04 am

Re: KC's Big 5 needs for 2020s

Post by beautyfromashes »

shinatoo wrote:
Sat Jan 04, 2020 10:29 am
If you are priced out of 57th and Woodland how the hell you going to afford a house in Raytown?
Because Raytown home prices will continue to plummet and 57th and Woodland will significantly increase in desirability in the next decade. Depressed suburbs will be the new East Side and houses will be cheaper there than the cost of the new build tiny house you propose.

User avatar
FangKC
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 14704
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound

Re: KC's Big 5 needs for 2020s

Post by FangKC »

shinatoo wrote:
Sat Jan 04, 2020 10:29 am
beautyfromashes wrote:
Fri Jan 03, 2020 3:49 pm
shinatoo wrote:
Fri Jan 03, 2020 12:55 pm
And two, and increase in homelessness as the current residents are pushed out. Makes the need for subsidized affordable housing even more important now, before this starts happening in earnest.
I think you’ll see more movement to cheaper suburbs instead of homelessness ie. Grandview, Raytown, Lee’s Summit, Ruskin, etc.
The root issue is it's almost impossible to build a new single family home for less than $250,000 anymore. That is $1300 ish a month for a 30 year mortgage with a 3% down payment. Unreachable for a lower middle class family.

64110 currently has 20 houses for sale below $200k, and 12 of those are below $150k. Most people in that price range aren't going to get a mortgage but a landlord would have to, and he would have to charge at least as much as the monthly mortgage, likely more.
One of the primary reasons it costs so much to build an affordable new house is that stick-built on-site construction is very expensive -- especially when you are building a one-off infill house.

One of the ways to lower new home construction costs is to build standardized models of "basic" houses in factories and deliver them to the site in sections and assemble them in days instead of months. This would be putting roofs over peoples' heads and not supplying them with their fantasy dream house. At the same time, the goal should be to produce affordable homes that meet passive design standards for emissions, and keep utilities low. If you want to help low income people, and the planet, keep utility costs low.

User avatar
beautyfromashes
Oak Tower
Oak Tower
Posts: 4974
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:04 am

Re: KC's Big 5 needs for 2020s

Post by beautyfromashes »

FangKC wrote:
Sat Jan 04, 2020 10:49 am
Would you prefer African Americans be trapped in one specific area of the Metro with the inability to leave it?
Your whole post was a pretty gross mischaracterization of what I said. What I don’t want is to see a migration of African Americans out of the urban core to slum suburbs in the name of “progress”. Redeveloping the East Side but making it impossibly expensive for current residents is a huge fail.

User avatar
FangKC
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 14704
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound

Re: KC's Big 5 needs for 2020s

Post by FangKC »

Why are you assuming that African Americans will migrate to a slum?

earthling
Oak Tower
Oak Tower
Posts: 5993
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:27 pm

Re: KC's Big 5 needs for 2020s

Post by earthling »

The E Side is huge and won't be overly gentrified. However it needs more mixed market rate and mixed demographics to improve quality of life for all... attract groceries, basic services, etc. Need to find ways to integrate affordable with market rate but KC hardly has a true affordability problem compared to many large markets. Those struggling in those markets would roll their eyes at KC thinking it has an affordability problem. Gentrification barely exists here. Troost, Paseo and NE Side are showing signs of hitting towards some level of mix and over time could spill into other areas of E Side, which we should target this decade.

And E/S Side proponents should not be discouraging the downtown investments. Though they should insist on investments to enhancing downtown for all if involving any incentives. And downtown needs to create more community places that attract all demographics, as the library and River Market do, promoting free bus to bring in everyone. I don't live downtown but we spend more time there (library and RM included) than Midtown/Plaza, taking bus to what I view as my community center.

Would like see entire city/metro to think of downtown as its community center with free access via bus from any part of metro - while also improving distressed areas with enough mixed demographics/investments to draw basic services and improve daily quality of life.

shinatoo
Ambassador
Posts: 6452
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 3:20 pm

Re: KC's Big 5 needs for 2020s

Post by shinatoo »

If you can't build new supplies of affordable housing then the current supply will be priced out of the low income market. You have three options, subsidize, provide better opportunity for income (which is a feedback loop that makes real estate pricing spiral up, see California) or nothing, which will increase homelessness.

It's not just the east side where affordable will disappear, it will dry up in all those suburbs. Plus the disadvantage of Raytown, et all, is the lack of public transportation.
Quocunque Jeceris Stabit

User avatar
beautyfromashes
Oak Tower
Oak Tower
Posts: 4974
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:04 am

Re: KC's Big 5 needs for 2020s

Post by beautyfromashes »

shinatoo wrote:
Sat Jan 04, 2020 4:25 pm
It's not just the east side where affordable will disappear, it will dry up in all those suburbs. Plus the disadvantage of Raytown, et all, is the lack of public transportation.
I think it depends on the suburbs. Many will decrease in price precisely because they are further disconnected from transportation, but mostly because of a demographic shift relating to what is valuable. The split level houses our parents lived in and the tiny ranches in Ruskin Heights thrown up after WWII will continue to depress. Your traditionally high demand suburbs (OP, Lenexa, LS?) will likely hold on but Grandview, Raytown, Olathe, etc will be the cities new cheapest housing.

User avatar
Highlander
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9230
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 1:40 pm
Location: Houston

Re: KC's Big 5 needs for 2020s

Post by Highlander »

A lot of good ideas here

For me, the #1 thing KC needs to concentrate on in the near term is to get the Street Car extension from Downtown to UMKC started and finished. That is what will distinguish KC from the burbs and act as a driver for density in the midtown area and making the primary city in the metro the place to be again.

I agree that KC needs a top notch research institution but KC isn't really that far off in that arena. UMKC is a fairly good sized school already and one that has already gone beyond its one time lowly commuter status and has really improved itself regionally as a viable university. It has a ways to go still but it's much more an asset to the city than it was formerly. I'd love to see UMKC 1. become Kansas City University again and 2. get a major endowment from an alumni that would launch it into the next level KC is also home to two major medical schools and a dental school and University of Kansas which is a pretty good university on the national scene is only 40 miles west of downtown.

I think KC needs a greater corporate presence. It lacks the philanthropy that comes along with having numerous large HQ operations within the area. This would help the university situation as well. I noticed that many of our major companies have leaders that contribute to alma maters outside of the area (e.g., Garmin's founder contributes $$$ to the University of Tennessee).

As stated elsewhere, I think KC needs large scale gentrification to bring the middle and upper middle class population of the city back into the core. The city needs to break down the Troost divide as well.

While I agree that the murder rate is a major problem in KC, the high per capita rate is a function of so much of the poverty of the metro area being concentrated in KCMO. With so much of the middle/upper class in the KC Metro area living outside of KC's city limits, the city's middle and upper class areas are not large enough to alter the per capita stats. If one looks at the KC metro, we are not even close to the higher echelon in per capita murder (Springfield MO metro is considerably higher than KC metro).

Progressive thinking by the populace. I am not speaking of political progressive ideas but rather a civic understanding that things like public transportation, density, bicycle lanes, usable parks are inherently good and desirable. Much of KC's population of all ages seems to be mired in a 70's suburban mindset that the car is king and density is bad. A lot of poor decisions still being made on this basis in KC and considerable opposition to anything challenging the status quo. But that seems to be finally changing too. Even some of my Trump loving relatives now think the streetcar to UMKC is a wonderful idea.

User avatar
normalthings
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:52 pm

Re: KC's Big 5 needs for 2020s

Post by normalthings »

Highlander wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 5:06 pm

I agree that KC needs a top notch research institution but KC isn't really that far off in that arena. UMKC is a fairly good sized school already and one that has already gone beyond its one time lowly commuter status and has really improved itself regionally as a viable university. It has a ways to go still but it's much more an asset to the city than it was formerly. I'd love to see UMKC 1. become Kansas City University again and 2. get a major endowment from an alumni that would launch it into the next level KC is also home to two major medical schools and a dental school and University of Kansas which is a pretty good university on the national scene is only 40 miles west of downtown.

I think KC needs a greater corporate presence. It lacks the philanthropy that comes along with having numerous large HQ operations within the area. This would help the university situation as well. I noticed that many of our major companies have leaders that contribute to alma maters outside of the area (e.g., Garmin's founder contributes $$$ to the University of Tennessee).
Kansas City is very far off from gaining a top-notch university. UMKC is getting better but let's not kid ourselves (it's ranked 263rd overall in the US). Even KU is only a ~60th ranked public university and 130th overall. Compare this to STL (overall rankings: WashU - 19th, SLU - 97th, UMSL - 283); Nashville (Vanderbilt - 15, Belmont - 166); even Omaha (Creighton - 104th) and Des Moines have better (Drake - 130 tied, ISU-121st).

KU Medical School is ranked 67th for research and 41st for primary care. UMKC isn't ranked - its effectively a local/regional program. Again, our medical schools are okay at best, more realistically they are lacking, when compared to peer cities.

UMKC was very much a commuter school when I took some classes there in the 2010's. The on-campus housing was of poor quality and there was no sense of residential community. Most students (almost all) in my classes commuted from home. The campus has a few nodes of activity but otherwise feels pretty spread out.

1. Housing: UMKC needs to get their on-campus housing options figured out (an entire dorm complex is abandoned) as well as build a residential life tradition. Quality housing and residential tradition attract quality students from outside the region. Their current "on-campus" living options are very much disconnected from the main campus and are a farther walk than many "off-campus" options are to the main quad.

2. Location: IMHO The campus is located in the best place for a college in KC. UMKC is placed in a much better location than STL's Washington University (residential, not walkable) and SLU (sketchy area, not walkable). Close proximity to the Plaza job center should be capitalized off of for internship and co-op opportunities. A streetcar connection to nightlife in Westport, Plaza, and Power and Light will be a great sell for on-campus living in the future. If the 2 large dorms along CCROW ends up coming down(currently abandoned due to sewage-filled walls), I hope they are replaced with a sort of innovation center. Classrooms, startups, and established businesses would be housed in the same buildings. Businesses leasing office space would help to offset the cost to construct the new classroom spaces.

3. Programs: A renewed focus on programs in fields the city/region has identified as priorities for job growth (STEM, Medicine, and Finance). I was a big supporter of a downtown arts campus but it wouldn't have brought us the high paying jobs we are targeting. Speaking of the arts conservatory... I toured the current facility during the bid process - its cramped, old, and needs to be replaced along with many of UMKC's other buildings. The school is going to have to go on a cap-ex campaign before it can hope to attract very highly ranked students and faculty.

4. Brand/Name: I agree that a name change and rebrand could be beneficial if trying to shift the school from a local school to a premier research institution. Kansas City University is already taken so I would propose the University of Kansas City instead (ala University of Chicago).

User avatar
Highlander
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9230
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 1:40 pm
Location: Houston

Re: KC's Big 5 needs for 2020s

Post by Highlander »

normalthings wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 5:43 pm
Highlander wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 5:06 pm

I agree that KC needs a top notch research institution but KC isn't really that far off in that arena. UMKC is a fairly good sized school already and one that has already gone beyond its one time lowly commuter status and has really improved itself regionally as a viable university. It has a ways to go still but it's much more an asset to the city than it was formerly. I'd love to see UMKC 1. become Kansas City University again and 2. get a major endowment from an alumni that would launch it into the next level KC is also home to two major medical schools and a dental school and University of Kansas which is a pretty good university on the national scene is only 40 miles west of downtown.

I think KC needs a greater corporate presence. It lacks the philanthropy that comes along with having numerous large HQ operations within the area. This would help the university situation as well. I noticed that many of our major companies have leaders that contribute to alma maters outside of the area (e.g., Garmin's founder contributes $$$ to the University of Tennessee).
Kansas City is very far off from gaining a top-notch university. UMKC is getting better but let's not kid ourselves (it's ranked 263rd overall in the US). Even KU is only a ~60th ranked public university and 130th overall. Compare this to STL (overall rankings: WashU - 19th, SLU - 97th, UMSL - 283); Nashville (Vanderbilt - 15, Belmont - 166); even Omaha (Creighton - 104th) and Des Moines have better (Drake - 130 tied, ISU-121st).

KU Medical School is ranked 67th for research and 41st for primary care. UMKC isn't ranked - its effectively a local/regional program. Again, our medical schools are okay at best, more realistically they are lacking, when compared to peer cities.

UMKC was very much a commuter school when I took some classes there in the 2010's. The on-campus housing was of poor quality and there was no sense of residential community. Most students (almost all) in my classes commuted from home. The campus has a few nodes of activity but otherwise feels pretty spread out.

1. Housing: UMKC needs to get their on-campus housing options figured out (an entire dorm complex is abandoned) as well as build a residential life tradition. Quality housing and residential tradition attract quality students from outside the region. Their current "on-campus" living options are very much disconnected from the main campus and are a farther walk than many "off-campus" options are to the main quad.

2. Location: IMHO The campus is located in the best place for a college in KC. UMKC is placed in a much better location than STL's Washington University (residential, not walkable) and SLU (sketchy area, not walkable). Close proximity to the Plaza job center should be capitalized off of for internship and co-op opportunities. A streetcar connection to nightlife in Westport, Plaza, and Power and Light will be a great sell for on-campus living in the future. If the 2 large dorms along CCROW ends up coming down(currently abandoned due to sewage-filled walls), I hope they are replaced with a sort of innovation center. Classrooms, startups, and established businesses would be housed in the same buildings. Businesses leasing office space would help to offset the cost to construct the new classroom spaces.

3. Programs: A renewed focus on programs in fields the city/region has identified as priorities for job growth (STEM, Medicine, and Finance). I was a big supporter of a downtown arts campus but it wouldn't have brought us the high paying jobs we are targeting. Speaking of the arts conservatory... I toured the current facility during the bid process - its cramped, old, and needs to be replaced along with many of UMKC's other buildings. The school is going to have to go on a cap-ex campaign before it can hope to attract very highly ranked students and faculty.

4. Brand/Name: I agree that a name change and rebrand could be beneficial if trying to shift the school from a local school to a premier research institution. Kansas City University is already taken so I would propose the University of Kansas City instead (ala University of Chicago).
I'm not suggesting UMKC is top notch university but it has improved substantially compared to when I attended back in the late 70's and early 80's. At that time, there was a single small and nasty dorm on the western side of campus and enrollment was about 8000. Enrollment has doubled since and there are substantially more non commuters and residential options now. Frankly, I think schools like UMKC will eventually become the dominant universities in the country (at least in terms of enrollment) as flagship state programs far from major metros like UM Columbia continue become more and more un-affordable to most people.

User avatar
TheLastGentleman
Valencia Place
Valencia Place
Posts: 1531
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:27 pm

Re: KC's Big 5 needs for 2020s

Post by TheLastGentleman »

I think the streetcar making it to UMKC will be a massive boon to the university. Approaching this from a design perspective, however, a big issue UMKC has is that it lacks a "face" on Brookside Blvd, where the streetcar will pass by. Some sort of iconic building, perhaps at 51st, would give the campus some synergy with the streetcar route.

Post Reply