Status and future of the River Market area??

[kboish]

It definitely looks like an instagram spot. And i guarantee people will be lined up to take their picture there on market days

[normalthings]

It definitely looks like an instagram spot. And i guarantee people will be lined up to take their picture there on market days

We need more of these around KC IMHO. For sure, any highway cap park must have one of these. Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, etc photos sell an area to visitors (local and otherwise).

[Rabble]

The pocket park on the SW corner of 3rd and Main is well used but I think the City Market would be better served by having solid development around its perimeter. Maybe an apartment building at 4th & Main tall enough to have balconies that could view the market activity. Dibs on the top floor east side.

I'd be okay with the City Market Park, which is taking up space on the streetcar route, getting replaced by development, but only if a good replacement is planned somewhere else nearby. Seeing a collection of fairly tall buildings overlooking the farmers market would be very dramatic, and would be especially warranted if Main gets brought back as a real street

The River Market Park should have a view of the Missouri River, and a location for that is only two blocks away.

[WoodDraw]

It definitely looks like an instagram spot. And i guarantee people will be lined up to take their picture there on market days

We need more of these around KC IMHO. For sure, any highway cap park must have one of these. Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, etc photos sell an area to visitors (local and otherwise).

I agree. Sprint center could use an art upgrade that is a little more inviting and warm and photogenic.

[Riverite]

It definitely looks like an instagram spot. And i guarantee people will be lined up to take their picture there on market days

We need more of these around KC IMHO. For sure, any highway cap park must have one of these. Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, etc photos sell an area to visitors (local and otherwise).

I agree. Sprint center could use an art upgrade that is a little more inviting and warm and photogenic.

Honestly if it was the same style as the river market sign and it said “Kansas City” or “I <3 KC” people would eat that up.

[normalthings]

We need more of these around KC IMHO. For sure, any highway cap park must have one of these. Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, etc photos sell an area to visitors (local and otherwise).

I agree. Sprint center could use an art upgrade that is a little more inviting and warm and photogenic.

Honestly if it was the same style as the river market sign and it said “Kansas City” or “I <3 KC” people would eat that up.

Make it Purple and White and get T-Mobile to pay for it

[normalthings]

Ashland at City Market is moving forward. New building permit fees paid today

[Riverite]

That corner will look so different once this one and the one across the street are done

[normalthings]

That corner will look so different once this one and the one across the street are done

just need to do something on the CM parking lot and City Diner

[DaveKCMO]

That corner will look so different once this one and the one across the street are done

just need to do something on the CM parking lot and City Diner

The parking lot will be handled.

As for City Diner, tear it down and put them and the Hung Vuong Market in the ground floor of a new mixed use building (and reopen 4th Street!).

[TheLastGentleman]

just need to do something on the CM parking lot and City Diner

Demolishing the City Diner is pretty low priority compared to filling the neighborhood's plentiful surface lots

[DaveKCMO]

just need to do something on the CM parking lot and City Diner

Demolishing the City Diner is pretty low priority compared to filling the neighborhood's plentiful surface lots

There are attached surface lots on both sides of these two buildings. Don't expect those to go away without the buildings they're accessory to.

[TheLastGentleman]

There are attached surface lots on both sides of these two buildings. Don't expect those to go away without the buildings they're accessory to.

I meant "neighborhood" as the River Market more broadly, which has loads of larger surface lots in more prominent locations.

[flyingember]

There are attached surface lots on both sides of these two buildings. Don't expect those to go away without the buildings they're accessory to.

I meant "neighborhood" as the River Market more broadly, which has loads of larger surface lots in more prominent locations.

There's no more than ten parking lots not associated with a building in the river market. I would argue there's six of any real size. Three are city owned, one is KCATA owned.

So there may be lots of parking lots in in prominent locations, but that's going to be seen as a good thing for their owner, not a reason to build on.

[Rabble]

There are attached surface lots on both sides of these two buildings. Don't expect those to go away without the buildings they're accessory to.

I meant "neighborhood" as the River Market more broadly, which has loads of larger surface lots in more prominent locations.

There's no more than ten parking lots not associated with a building in the river market. I would argue there's six of any real size. Three are city owned, one is KCATA owned.

So there may be lots of parking lots in in prominent locations, but that's going to be seen as a good thing for their owner, not a reason to build on.

Wow, I've only been reading this blog for a couple of years but I thought everyone on it was in favor of urban density.

[Riverite]

I meant "neighborhood" as the River Market more broadly, which has loads of larger surface lots in more prominent locations.

There's no more than ten parking lots not associated with a building in the river market. I would argue there's six of any real size. Three are city owned, one is KCATA owned.

So there may be lots of parking lots in in prominent locations, but that's going to be seen as a good thing for their owner, not a reason to build on.

Wow, I've only been reading this blog for a couple of years but I thought everyone on it was in favor of urban density.

I don’t think anyone here is against urban density, just seems like he is trying to be a realist. There are still places in the river market that need developments without getting rid of their buildings. In the future it is definitely possible, but only with a great design. Even in the most dense cities there are sometimes parking lots.

[Rabble]

There's no more than ten parking lots not associated with a building in the river market. I would argue there's six of any real size. Three are city owned, one is KCATA owned.

So there may be lots of parking lots in in prominent locations, but that's going to be seen as a good thing for their owner, not a reason to build on.

Wow, I've only been reading this blog for a couple of years but I thought everyone on it was in favor of urban density.

I don’t think anyone here is against urban density, just seems like he is trying to be a realist. There are still places in the river market that need developments without getting rid of their buildings. In the future it is definitely possible, but only with a great design. Even in the most dense cities there are sometimes parking lots.

But like Main Street in the Crossroads, developers should be encouraged to develop buildings on the surface lots that face the street car. That would still leave scads of surface parking, and hopefully the city will also be building City Market parking garages in good locations someday.

[Riverite]

Wow, I've only been reading this blog for a couple of years but I thought everyone on it was in favor of urban density.

I don’t think anyone here is against urban density, just seems like he is trying to be a realist. There are still places in the river market that need developments without getting rid of their buildings. In the future it is definitely possible, but only with a great design. Even in the most dense cities there are sometimes parking lots.

But like Main Street in the Crossroads, developers should be encouraged to develop buildings on the surface lots that face the street car. That would still leave scads of surface parking, and hopefully the city will also be building City Market parking garages in good locations someday.

Agreed, that would be amazing

[flyingember]

But like Main Street in the Crossroads, developers should be encouraged to develop buildings on the surface lots that face the street car. That would still leave scads of surface parking, and hopefully the city will also be building City Market parking garages in good locations someday.

What developers? We're talking about property owners who only want to lease out their space. And it often just shifts parking demands.

When one hotel went in at 16th and Main they kicked out the condo owners who needed to buy new spots as well as they went looking for spots to lease themselves. So one lot being built on tied up another lot under contract for parking.

What we need is for leasing rates to go up so much that land value increases to the point the status quo isn't returning a profit.
The carrying cost OR the net gain from building on needs to be greater than the value of selling parking as an amenity.

Given some parking lots are 100+ years old and there's tons of spaces, that could take a while.

[Rabble]

But like Main Street in the Crossroads, developers should be encouraged to develop buildings on the surface lots that face the street car. That would still leave scads of surface parking, and hopefully the city will also be building City Market parking garages in good locations someday.

What developers? We're talking about property owners who only want to lease out their space. And it often just shifts parking demands.

When one hotel went in at 16th and Main they kicked out the condo owners who needed to buy new spots as well as they went looking for spots to lease themselves. So one lot being built on tied up another lot under contract for parking.

What we need is for leasing rates to go up so much that land value increases to the point the status quo isn't returning a profit.
The carrying cost OR the net gain from building on needs to be greater than the value of selling parking as an amenity.

Given some parking lots are 100+ years old and there's tons of spaces, that could take a while.

I hope this doesn't sound too simple but what happened to the condo owners would seem like a good thing for downtown. A decrease in parking spaces, should increase the price for the remaining spaces. If people continue to pay more for the decreasing number of spaces some private developer would be tempted to build a multistory parking garage. Or everyone downtown says the hell with my car, rides the streetcar and buses instead, and the value of the surface parking lots plummet.