Capping the Loop

[WoodDraw]

I hate the idea of a cordish only area and won't support it.

I could get behind cordish offering it for free to their residents and the city charging a fee to everyone else.

I know it's semantics, but I think it's important.

[normalthings]

I hate the idea of a cordish only area and won't support it.

I could get behind cordish offering it for free to their residents and the city charging a fee to everyone else.

I know it's semantics, but I think it's important.

What's the issue?

[KCPowercat]

If Cordish wants to pay for it all then they can do what they wish with it but if city funds are also used they can't just do what they please with it. That's my stance.

[DColeKC]

If Cordish wants to pay for it all then they can do what they wish with it but if city funds are also used they can't just do what they please with it. That's my stance.

What's the difference if the city pays for it all and than sells 2 acres back to Cordish? If Cordish puts in 50+ million or is the largest shareholder in this project, it doesn't seem unreasonable to allow them a few acres or less utilize for a resident only dog park. Cordish has to maintain that dog park, so it makes no sense for it to be public.

From my understanding, this project will not happen without Cordish money.

[DColeKC]

If Cordish were to pay for it all, there would have to be some revenue generating aspects. Like a Bar-K type dog park open to everyone for a day/season pass. I don't think anyone wants to see a nice park built and it be occupied by 2 or 3 business.

[TheLastGentleman]

I'd think having a brand new park directly across from their properties would be valuable enough but what do I know

[KCPowercat]

If Cordish wants to pay for it all then they can do what they wish with it but if city funds are also used they can't just do what they please with it. That's my stance.

What's the difference if the city pays for it all and than sells 2 acres back to Cordish? If Cordish puts in 50+ million or is the largest shareholder in this project, it doesn't seem unreasonable to allow them a few acres or less utilize for a resident only dog park. Cordish has to maintain that dog park, so it makes no sense for it to be public.

From my understanding, this project will not happen without Cordish money.

I'm up for listening to proposals. I just think if city funds are going into it (my tax money) then it has to have a public availability aspect to it. Just like any other civic space it would be sometimes closed off for private events with permitting.

[normalthings]

If Cordish were to pay for it all, there would have to be some revenue generating aspects. Like a Bar-K type dog park open to everyone for a day/season pass. I don't think anyone wants to see a nice park built and it be occupied by 2 or 3 business.

Bar-K lacks a doggy day-care. Something like that could do extremely well here.

[normalthings]

If Cordish wants to pay for it all then they can do what they wish with it but if city funds are also used they can't just do what they please with it. That's my stance.

What's the difference if the city pays for it all and than sells 2 acres back to Cordish? If Cordish puts in 50+ million or is the largest shareholder in this project, it doesn't seem unreasonable to allow them a few acres or less utilize for a resident only dog park. Cordish has to maintain that dog park, so it makes no sense for it to be public.

From my understanding, this project will not happen without Cordish money.

I'm up for listening to proposals. I just think if city funds are going into it (my tax money) then it has to have a public availability aspect to it. Just like any other civic space it would be sometimes closed off for private events with permitting.

What I envisioned from DColeKC's remarks is Cordish will fund 1/3 of the project in exchange for a corner being dedicated to a private dog park. Don't they already have one on the MoDot ROW that would become part of the park? The vast majority of the space open to all with a small private section seems like an amazing deal when the alternative is no space for anyone.

[DColeKC]

I'd think having a brand new park directly across from their properties would be valuable enough but what do I know

I completely agree but how much value does that add? If they put in $50 million, what's the instant return? It's not like they need anymore incentives to get people to rent units. As a current Two Light resident, I'd be upset losing our private dog park. As a downtown resident, I'd rather not have dogs shitting all over the park. Cordish will insist on maintaining it to prevent it from neglect.

I like the concept of 95% of it being open to the public with the exception of special permitted events. I do think some events that take place on Grand can be moved there, like say Beer Fest but not all of them. Many of those festivals are designed to bring people down to spend money at the districts tenants. The park would be too disconnected to eliminate all events on Grand.

[KCPowercat]

What's the difference if the city pays for it all and than sells 2 acres back to Cordish? If Cordish puts in 50+ million or is the largest shareholder in this project, it doesn't seem unreasonable to allow them a few acres or less utilize for a resident only dog park. Cordish has to maintain that dog park, so it makes no sense for it to be public.

From my understanding, this project will not happen without Cordish money.

I'm up for listening to proposals. I just think if city funds are going into it (my tax money) then it has to have a public availability aspect to it. Just like any other civic space it would be sometimes closed off for private events with permitting.

What I envisioned from DColeKC's remarks is Cordish will fund 1/3 of the project in exchange for a corner being dedicated to a private dog park. Don't they already have one on the MoDot ROW that would become part of the park? The vast majority of the space open to all with a small private section seems like an amazing deal when the alternative is no space for anyone.

Agreed. That sounds reasonable especially given the aspect of making space where there is none now like you stated.

Would be nice if it was big enough to allow for some public use of that dog park like bar-k is now with memberships given there really isn't much like that in this part of downtown but I don't own a dog so I don't have a dog in this fight

[TheLastGentleman]

If we're letting Cordish have private property here, I think there's probably a higher use than a dog park. How about a small restaurant, like the Bryant Park Grill in NYC?



Ideally, even if Cordish contributes to funding the park, there wouldn't be a private element. If there absolutely HAS to be a private element to pull this off, whatever. I can live with it. But if there's a way to make it all public, we absolutely need to pursue it.

[normalthings]

Ideally, even if Cordish contributes to funding the park, there wouldn't be a private element. If there absolutely HAS to be a private element to pull this off, whatever. I can live with it. But if there's a way to make it all public, we absolutely need to pursue it.

The current KCMO leadership will not pursue a 100% publically funded project.

Cordish is providing funding and giving up their existing dog park. I don't see the problem with it being replaced by a new one.

[WoodDraw]

I hate the idea of a cordish only area and won't support it.

I could get behind cordish offering it for free to their residents and the city charging a fee to everyone else.

I know it's semantics, but I think it's important.

What's the issue?

For me, it's just the principle of it. I don't think there should be a private area for only one light.

Offer it to the residents for free and charge everyone else and I'm fine with it. But I don't think there should be private amenities in that important of an area in our city.

[Eon Blue]

If we can get a concrete confirmation that the addition of this loop cap would reduce closures of Grand, I'd be more amenable to converting Walnut to a pedestrian and bike-only path through the park (and maybe farther).

[wahoowa]

i'm picturing florence's santarosa bistrot opposite two light: nice little airy place to grab a snack, a drink, or a meal that spills out onto a big green area with a dog run. potentially a convertible indoor/outdoor space so can play more like a walk up counter to enjoy around the park when it's nice out or for events, and then a canopy for shade/ enclosure for cold to permit year round use.

can't embed because google maps, but:

park in the background
indoor/outdoor
converted to pure outdoor

of all the places my wife has fainted—and there are many!!—this is my favorite one for the loop cap. please feel free to forward this great idea to the cordish people.

[DaveKCMO]

If we can get a concrete confirmation that the addition of this loop cap would reduce closures of Grand, I'd be more amenable to converting Walnut to a pedestrian and bike-only path through the park (and maybe farther).

I have not heard this and will not believe it until it is codified in ordinance.

[DColeKC]

If we can get a concrete confirmation that the addition of this loop cap would reduce closures of Grand, I'd be more amenable to converting Walnut to a pedestrian and bike-only path through the park (and maybe farther).

Even with a park, there will always be a need to close grand. Obviously for every T-Mobile Center event but also 3-5 times a year for events and festivals. It’s worth it for the minor inconvenience.

[KCPowercat]

Minor is a relative term

[DColeKC]

Minor is a relative term

Festivals on grand drive revenue (Tax dollars), bring people downtown and enhance urban living. I don’t feel sorry for motorists needing to spend 2 more minutes in their cars to get where they’re going. I don’t feel bad for few bus riders on saturdays either. I’m biased because I know all those people who put on the events on Grand and their intention is good.