Poll: #1 development goal for urban KC

[beautyfromashes]

There seems to be a large diversity of opinions on what the major goal should be for developments in Kansas City’s urban core. I’m curious what is viewed as the most important, according to the forum.

[normalthings]

There seems to be a large diversity of opinions on what the major goal should be for developments in Kansas City’s urban core. I’m curious what is viewed as the most important, according to the forum.

IMHO, this all starts by boosting density.

Filling in all those empty lots and parking garages (increasing density) will make the city more walkable. More pedestrians will lead to more mixed uses which will lead to more lots being filled in and even more pedestrians. Once we start to reach a critical mass of development, we will begin to see more unique designs(as we are now). Adding jobs back into the core will reduce the transit burden on the city's poorest families.

[WoodDraw]

I'm not sure I accept the premise of the poll. They're all important, but you weight then based on the project being designed and location.

Government buildings aren't going to be mixed use for security reasons, but you want them to be visual and walkable.

High end residential won't be affordable, so we demand higher standards. And so on.

The key to an urban environment is mixed use, but that doesn't mean every building must be mixed use or the same. It's that you build in a planned way that's appropriate for the given space.

And know what hills to die on and which ones to slide down tbh.

[earthling]

Yeah agree they are all important and most should be factored in any project within city core depending on context.

I'd go with walkability as something too many KC developers don't have down right in many cases. That is not always integrating their own project into the surroundings, providing contiguous pedestrian flow/experience with the rest of the block, etc. and instead treating their project as their own isolated island.

So walkability is the one that is needing most improvement among many KC developers.

[kboish]

There seems to be a large diversity of opinions on what the major goal should be for developments in Kansas City’s urban core. I’m curious what is viewed as the most important, according to the forum.

IMHO, this all starts by boosting density.

Filling in all those empty lots and parking garages (increasing density) will make the city more walkable. More pedestrians will lead to more mixed uses which will lead to more lots being filled in and even more pedestrians. Once we start to reach a critical mass of development, we will begin to see more unique designs(as we are now). Adding jobs back into the core will reduce the transit burden on the city's poorest families.

I said walkability, but I think we are getting at the exact same thing. To me, walkability necessitates density, but not necessarily vice versa. Density is a top priority, but density doesn't necessarily mean it will be walkable- especially in KC. For that reason, I think walkability- which is to say the form of the development is paramount. Good design is the biggest hurdle in KC. That is 100% because of a lack of expertise in the area with that kind of design. Most developments in KC seem to be a developer/finance team simply taking an off the shelf design and implement it.
Thats fine, but we just need to make the design on the shelf walkable and transit focused.

[DaveKCMO]

Density without walkability is worthless.

[earthling]

^Nicely taglined.

[TheLastGentleman]

Can you even have density without walkability naturally increasing though? I don't think I could name a place that's dense yet unwalkable.

Even if the streetscape is total trash, you'll still have everything a shorter walking distance away.

[earthling]

^An example would be having blocks of dozens of 100 story buildings but no retail facing the street, all indoors and most not publicly accessible (island developments). Highly dense, no sidewalk interaction at pedestrian level. Sixth Ave in Midtown Manhattan was criticized for building a lot of office towers with no integration to the street in the 80s and 90s. They've been improving it the last 10+ years by adding street level accessible eats/retail, reconfiguring the lobbies.

Crown Center is a local example of a fair amount of density but lacks much sidewalk vibe, which has been improved a little bit by adding the Panera and JJs spaces. It's essentially a compressed suburban office park.

[DaveKCMO]

Can you even have density without walkability naturally increasing though? I don't think I could name a place that's dense yet unwalkable.

Atlanta. Los Angeles. Houston.

[kboish]

Can you even have density without walkability naturally increasing though? I don't think I could name a place that's dense yet unwalkable.

Even if the streetscape is total trash, you'll still have everything a shorter walking distance away.

You can definitely have density without walkability. Its not just about how long it takes to walk somewhere- its about WILL people walk there and whats that experience like (do they have to cross a highway, 6-lane road, etc)? Plus, if a building is designed to receive people who arrive by car, that is how most people will arrive there- less people will walk to it. You really only need to spend a few minutes thinking about it to imagine real or hypothetical places where bigger buildings (aka density) did not result in any improvement in the walkability of an area. Now think of an area that is integrated and walkable with its surroundings. Can you imagine a place that is not dense? No. They're all dense by necessity.

[kboish]

Can you even have density without walkability naturally increasing though? I don't think I could name a place that's dense yet unwalkable.

Even if the streetscape is total trash, you'll still have everything a shorter walking distance away.

You can definitely have density without walkability. Its not just about how long it takes to walk somewhere- its about WILL people walk there and whats that experience like (do they have to cross a highway, 6-lane road, etc)? Plus, if a building is designed to receive people who arrive by car, that is how most people will arrive there- less people will walk to it. You really only need to spend a few minutes thinking about it to imagine real or hypothetical places where bigger buildings (aka density) did not result in any improvement in the walkability of an area. Now think of an area that is integrated and walkable with its surroundings. Can you imagine a place that is not dense? No. They're all dense by necessity.

[TheLastGentleman]

Houston.

Houston's dense?

[wahoowa]

Can you even have density without walkability naturally increasing though? I don't think I could name a place that's dense yet unwalkable.

Even if the streetscape is total trash, you'll still have everything a shorter walking distance away.

you're right imo but i think this thread is using 3-5 different definitions of walkability

[kas1]

Can you even have density without walkability naturally increasing though? I don't think I could name a place that's dense yet unwalkable.

I can think of a number of dense neighborhoods where I routinely felt unsafe trying to cross a street or just generally felt like a schmuck for being the only idiot out on the sidewalk while everyone else was motoring directly from one parking garage to another.

[DaveKCMO]

Houston.

Houston's dense?

https://marketurbanismreport.com/blog/s ... of-density

[DaveKCMO]

Also: Having a sidewalk does not mean walkable. No one should be using that definition here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walkability

[flyingember]

Houston.

Houston's dense?

https://marketurbanismreport.com/blog/s ... of-density

I've spend time in downtown and midtown Houston. Parts of it remind me of the Chicago loop.

[kenrbnj]

Walk-ability will be contingent upon the perception of safety.

Density will bring the venues in.

[flyingember]

Density without walkability is worthless.

density and walkability without affordability you might as well not build dense or walkable.

There's also an entirely missing category, accessible (public spaces)