Capping the Loop

Issues concerning Downtown as described by the Downtown Council. River to 31st Street, I-35 to Bruce R. Watkins.
flyingember
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9862
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: Capping the Loop

Post by flyingember »

chaglang wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 1:44 pm
Thanks for the copypasta. Mentioned the pond, mentioned the playground, mentioned the path. Car charging and statues are laughable as amenities. The garden center is for holding garden club meetings.

Almost every park has pavilions and tennis courts. Spray parks are becoming more common. Gillham Park has one.

Point being: it's popular because of the location between the Plaza and Brookside, not because of what's necessarily there. Because what is there is found in almost every park in KC, including PVP. There's way more stuff in Swope Park.

We've wandered pretty far from the topic, so we'll have to agree to disagree.
Those amenities certainly aren't citywide.

23 parks out of 221 have Tennis. That's not remotely arguable as "almost every"
most parks don't have a covered shelter. the city says only 7 do. (I know this number is wrong, but they're clearly not in all parks.)
there's 17 spray grounds, they're less common than Tennis
Most parks don't have a pond/lake. Only 19 do
most parks don't have Civil War History. (duh)
There isn't a garden center in most parks. most don't even have a building

car charging stations will be why someone chooses to visit a park or not. because they need to recharge their car
because you don't own an electric car doesn't make their inclusion laughable

people visit to go to statues. there's literally a fire fighter memorial. I don't need to ask to know that it's important for fire fighters.
look at how many people go to visit the statues on the Plaza. it's part of the reason to go is to see the art.
because you don't care about art doesn't make their inclusion laughable

You're failing big on selection bias.
User avatar
FangKC
City Hall
City Hall
Posts: 18142
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound

Re: Capping the Loop

Post by FangKC »

A lot of the problems with parks have nothing to do with amenities/activities. It's simply that they aren't beautiful spaces to go. Some people just go to parks to sit in the shade and talk, or take short walks in shade with lots of nice landscaping, flowers, and a water feature: a pond with ducks, or a gurgling fountain within earshot.

When I worked in NYC, one of my favorite parks to go on my lunch hour, when I was stressed out, was one down the block with a playground and the mom/nanny contingent. Sitting on a bench reading a book, with laughing children as your background noise, is very calming. There was also a dog park near my office and I would go there just to watch dogs playing, and I didn't have a dog. One doesn't need every park to be Central Park.

When I worked in Phoenix, the City built a new downtown park near my job that filled an entire city block. There was no shade --in Phoenix, where six months of the year it's over 90 degrees during the day. No trees. No awning structures. It was blazing hellscape. Thus, I didn't go to that park much. Only a few years later, they completely demolished that park, and rebuilt it with buildings around the edge and a small plaza in the middle.

The best park in Phoenix imo is Encanto Park where you can sit in some shade and watch ducks on the pond. The Desert Botanical Garden is great too, but there is an admission there every time unless you area park member.
User avatar
chaglang
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 4132
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:44 pm

Re: Capping the Loop

Post by chaglang »

Post Office Square Park in Boston sounds similar to the park in NYC you mention. Tiny, (1.7 acres) but surrounded by dense city, impeccably landscaped, and packed with people. It's a draw for office workers and a respite for tourists roaming between Faneuil Hall and the Common. The park maintenance is funded by a (get this) pay parking garage below. That's a model for a well-scaled, self-sustaining urban park.
User avatar
DColeKC
Ambassador
Posts: 3729
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Capping the Loop

Post by DColeKC »

Parks that are surrounded by urban residents would likely see more activity as people don't have other close options to get outside. A downtown park over 670 would essentially become a few thousand people's backyard. Large parks in more remote areas are usually surrounded by nothing or residential homes where people have backyards to do their outdoor activities. Who wants to pack up the car with the dogs, kids and supplies for a day at the park when you can just walk out your back door.
herrfrank
Western Auto Lofts
Western Auto Lofts
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 2:12 pm

Re: Capping the Loop

Post by herrfrank »

I posted elsewhere about the historic importance of Penn Valley Park -- suffice it to say that with some moderate re-design, in particular the removal of Broadway and some other roads, it would be an excellent "large" park for the downtown area. Loose Park is clearly successful as a "mid-size" park for its neighborhood. One place without a lot of parks is NE JOCO -- the park at Somerset and Roe is really the first decent park as you travel southwest from Brookside, and it's miles away (this should probably go in another thread).

But I also see that people in the downtown loop may need a smaller park that doesn't require a streetcar ride (as mentioned upthread PO Square Park in Boston is a lovely -- and busy -- park, my office used to overlook it). Certainly some of the parking lots sitting underutilized in/ near the downtown KC loop could be exchanged for tax abatements and given the urban park makeover.
User avatar
AlkaliAxel
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2948
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2021 9:58 pm
Location: West Plaza

Re: Capping the Loop

Post by AlkaliAxel »

New gas tax just signed into law today will give $500 mil more annually for MoDot. Wonder if that can help get this south cap or eventually north loop removal better chances to get done now with more MoDot funding.
flyingember
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9862
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: Capping the Loop

Post by flyingember »

AlkaliAxel wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 2:09 pm New gas tax just signed into law today will give $500 mil more annually for MoDot. Wonder if that can help get this south cap or eventually north loop removal better chances to get done now with more MoDot funding.
Motor Fuel money use is controlled by the state constitution- IV Section 30(b)

It's a stretch to argue that a cap could be funded with that money. Anything I might make an argument on someone could equally argue it's not allowed. read the list and ask if a cap is required for I-670 to function under each item
to be used and expended by the highways and transportation commission for the following purposes, and no other:

First, to the payment of the principal and interest on any outstanding state road bonds. The term state road bonds in this section 30(b) means any bonds or refunding bonds issued by the highways and transportation commission to finance or refinance the construction or reconstruction of the state highway system.

Second, to maintain a balance in the state road fund in the amount deemed necessary to meet the payment of the principal and interest of any state road bonds for the next succeeding twelve months.

The remaining balance in the state road fund shall be used and expended in the sole discretion of and under the supervision and direction of the highways and transportation commission for the following state highway system uses and purposes and no other:

  (1) To complete and widen or otherwise improve and maintain the state highway system heretofore designated and laid out under existing laws;

  (2) To reimburse the various counties and other political subdivisions of the state, except incorporated cities and towns, for money expended by them in the construction or acquisition of roads and bridges now or hereafter taken over by the highways and transportation commission as permanent parts of the state highway system, to the extent of the value to the state of such roads and bridges at the time taken over, not exceeding in any case the amount expended by such counties and subdivisions in the construction or acquisition of such roads and bridges, except that the highways and transportation commission may, in its discretion, repay, or agree to repay, any cash advanced by a county or subdivision to expedite state road construction or improvement;

  (3) In the discretion of the commission to plan, locate, relocate, establish, acquire, construct and maintain the following:

  (a) interstate and primary highways within the state;

  (b) supplementary state highways and bridges in each county of the state;

  (c) state highways and bridges in, to and through state parks, public areas and reservations, and state institutions now or hereafter established to connect the same with the state highways, and also national, state or local parkways, travelways, tourways, with coordinated facilities;

  (d) any tunnel or interstate bridge or part thereof, where necessary to connect the state highways of this state with those of other states;

  (e) any highway within the state when necessary to comply with any federal law or requirement which is or shall become a condition to the receipt of federal funds;

  (f) any highway in any city or town which is found necessary as a continuation of any state or federal highway, or any connection therewith, into and through such city or town; and

  (g) additional state highways, bridges and tunnels, either in congested traffic areas of the state or where needed to facilitate and expedite the movement of through traffic.

  (4) To acquire materials, equipment and buildings and to employ such personnel as necessary for the purposes described in this subsection 1; and

  (5) For such other purposes and contingencies relating and appertaining to the construction and maintenance of such state highway system as the highways and transportation commission may deem necessary and proper.
User avatar
AlkaliAxel
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2948
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2021 9:58 pm
Location: West Plaza

Re: Capping the Loop

Post by AlkaliAxel »

Yeah but the gas tax can then free up more money to do projects like the cap
User avatar
DaveKCMO
Ambassador
Posts: 20042
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:22 pm
Location: Crossroads
Contact:

Re: Capping the Loop

Post by DaveKCMO »

AlkaliAxel wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 6:40 pm Yeah but the gas tax can then free up more money to do projects like the cap
Have you met the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission?

Image
herrfrank
Western Auto Lofts
Western Auto Lofts
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 2:12 pm

Re: Capping the Loop

Post by herrfrank »

^LOLOLOL

Somehow this topic reminds me that Irving Berlin song from Call Me Madam...

I hear singing and there's no one there
I smell blossoms and the trees are bare
All day long I seem to walk on air
I wonder why, I wonder why

I keep tossing in my sleep at night
And what's more I've lost my appetite
Stars that used to twinkle in the skies
Are twinkling in my eyes, I wonder why
flyingember
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9862
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: Capping the Loop

Post by flyingember »

AlkaliAxel wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 6:40 pm Yeah but the gas tax can then free up more money to do projects like the cap
You must be new to the state of Missouri
User avatar
normalthings
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 8018
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:52 pm

Re: Capping the Loop

Post by normalthings »

flyingember wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 9:35 am
AlkaliAxel wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 6:40 pm Yeah but the gas tax can then free up more money to do projects like the cap
You must be new to the state of Missouri
If Cordish and Loews led the discussions with the state, I think the chances shoot up by 1,000.
User avatar
AlkaliAxel
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2948
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2021 9:58 pm
Location: West Plaza

Re: Capping the Loop

Post by AlkaliAxel »

normalthings wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 10:34 am
flyingember wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 9:35 am
AlkaliAxel wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 6:40 pm Yeah but the gas tax can then free up more money to do projects like the cap
You must be new to the state of Missouri
If Cordish and Loews led the discussions with the state, I think the chances shoot up by 1,000.
How so?
User avatar
Anthony_Hugo98
Valencia Place
Valencia Place
Posts: 1932
Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2019 10:50 pm
Location: Overland Park, KS

Re: Capping the Loop

Post by Anthony_Hugo98 »

AlkaliAxel wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 12:52 pm
normalthings wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 10:34 am
flyingember wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 9:35 am

You must be new to the state of Missouri
If Cordish and Loews led the discussions with the state, I think the chances shoot up by 1,000.
How so?
Imagine by implying that amenities that benefit them would allow the companies to propose and develop more projects in the state.
Sani
Strip mall
Strip mall
Posts: 273
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 5:22 pm
Location: Shawnee

Re: Capping the Loop

Post by Sani »

DaveKCMO wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 9:28 pm
AlkaliAxel wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 6:40 pm Yeah but the gas tax can then free up more money to do projects like the cap
Have you met the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission?
Probably enough Lipitor prescribed between all of them to keep a pharmaceutical factory humming.
User avatar
normalthings
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 8018
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:52 pm

Re: Capping the Loop

Post by normalthings »

$1 billion for reconnecting communities divided by highways. We would be trying to get $75-125 million from Fed?
dnweava
New York Life
New York Life
Posts: 401
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2013 7:03 pm

Re: Capping the Loop

Post by dnweava »

The south loop gap is a pretty small gap and developed on both sides so I don't see how this cap is needed.

The northloop might get removed and also bridged by the streetcar so also no need.

the only Cap I would support using tax payer money on is the East Loop. The area between Locust and Paseo has a ton of Potential for development but that highway gap is much worse and a less pedestrian friendly gap. We would get much more bang for the buck in trying to push development east
flyingember
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9862
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: Capping the Loop

Post by flyingember »

dnweava wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 2:11 pm The south loop gap is a pretty small gap and developed on both sides so I don't see how this cap is needed.

The northloop might get removed and also bridged by the streetcar so also no need.

the only Cap I would support using tax payer money on is the East Loop. The area between Locust and Paseo has a ton of Potential for development but that highway gap is much worse and a less pedestrian friendly gap. We would get much more bang for the buck in trying to push development east
It's not just about buildings on the south loop, it's also about noise.

the east loop would be difficult because of the grade difference from side to side and I agree it would have a big impact
User avatar
AlkaliAxel
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2948
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2021 9:58 pm
Location: West Plaza

Re: Capping the Loop

Post by AlkaliAxel »

normalthings wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 3:51 am $1 billion for reconnecting communities divided by highways. We would be trying to get $75-125 million from Fed?
They said in that report a couple years ago it was $119 mil for the whole thing right? So I'd say closer to $75 mil, perhaps? If you cap south loop, you can a truly *nice* big district downtown.

A couple takes
1.) We may have better shot than most at grabbing this cash because we're not asking for too much here, whereas the cities who want full highway removal are gonna need alot more money than we're asking for. Maybe that helps.

2.) This could be another situation for KC where if we can do south cap removal first, and prove that it's successful, then the state will let us move forward on north loop removal, or maybe east loop too at some point like he mentioned above^. It seemed like with the streetcar, doing just the small route first and successfully is paving the way for us to do alot more now.
User avatar
GRID
City Hall
City Hall
Posts: 17083
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 12:20 pm
Contact:

Re: Capping the Loop

Post by GRID »

dnweava wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 2:11 pm The south loop gap is a pretty small gap and developed on both sides so I don't see how this cap is needed.

The northloop might get removed and also bridged by the streetcar so also no need.

the only Cap I would support using tax payer money on is the East Loop. The area between Locust and Paseo has a ton of Potential for development but that highway gap is much worse and a less pedestrian friendly gap. We would get much more bang for the buck in trying to push development east
And I also think a total rebuild/decking of the east loop is the only way I think east village would work for a stadium.
Post Reply