OFFICIAL: Port Authority Riverfront Project

[normalthings]

Here's the anticipated funding sources:

It is anticipated the local share associated with the extension would come from revenue capture related to new and existing Riverfront development, state/federal programs, multi-modal grants, and other existing funding streams.

http://kcstreetcar.org/wp-content/uploa ... _final.pdf

It is my understanding that the sale of land will also go to fund the extension.

[earthling]

I wasn't aware of the sale of land going towards streetcar. So will go with 'uninformed' on that aspect.

The type of pedestrian unfriendly development happening is not conducive to supporting the streetcar. The direction this is heading does not deserve the streetcar. The streetcar planners could send a message what they are doing is not streetcar/pedestrian friendly development and may not justify extension through there, especially if this sets a precedence for other developers - and perhaps lead to padsite retail/restaurants surrounded by surface lots.

Seems they are focused on the Interstate Exit type of 'cars first priority' development, not the streetcar tie into downtown.

The uninformed approach happening here is with the Port Authority and the suburban minded padsite/warehouse developers they are giving these contracts to.

There needs to be a strong response to this from influencers who 'get it' (with more eloquence than I have) as what's happening is a wasted opportunity for expanding downtown.

[flyingember]

Ignorance can also mean to ignore what you've been informed with and I wasn't aware of the sale of land going towards streetcar. So will go with uninformed on that aspect.

The type of pedestrian unfriendly development happening is not conducive to supporting the streetcar. The direction this is heading does not deserve the streetcar. The streetcar planners could send a message what they are doing is not streetcar/pedestrian friendly development and may not justify extension through there, especially if this sets the precedence for other developers - and perhaps lead to padsite retail/restaurants surrounded by surface lots.

Seems they are focused on the Interstate Exit type of 'cars first priority' development, not the streetcar tie into downtown.

The ignorance (or uninformed approach?) happening here is with the Port Authority and the suburban minded padsite/warehouse developers they are giving these contracts to.

There needs to be a strong response to this from influencers who 'get it' (with more eloquence than I have, just a retired GenXr from IT world, not from development world) as what's happening is a wasted opportunity for expanding downtown.

It's especially funny to call it pedestrian unfriendly when no development there will be pedestrian friendly if we don't build the streetcar and parallel bridge. You're saying if you don't get what you want make them use cars. That's like saying all bike riders must ride in the street because bike lanes take away space from cars.

the sale of land isn't with certainly going towards the steetcar, nothing we've seen shows this to be the case. That sentence I quoted is the only thing we know about financing.

You also have to consider the built environment. The Bond Bridge was assessed by the FAA to make sure it wouldn't impact airport operations (think helicopters too) and this area could have height limits and if they go over them they need to be assessed.
This site is built on fill. To built taller could require millions in deeper footings and they can't put in affordable units at that point. Do you want more housing but it all costs "$2000" per month?
It's unlikely on this spot, but don't underestimate how a project could be placed to not impact an archaeological site. the town of ks bridge goes right over one, for example

I think they could remove parking and build denser, but given the multiple easements maybe they could add parking here and remove it from at the park itself, using this as general shared parking.

You're saying they need to hire a planner when there's nothing about this that shows us they didn't already and they have information way beyond what you are considering. It's another place where posting reactionary without bothering to inform yourself looks bad.


On the bigger picture, you're thinking much too small as well for why this is acceptable. Don't look at this in terms of what's at the stop, look at it in terms of putting the project on this spot or putting it at 108th and Platte Purchase Rd and 500 people drive to Johnson County. Look at it in terms of building the hardest part of a train into the east bottoms and now it's much cheaper to expand east into an industrial area for jobs access

There's one train stop in Houston next to a car dealer filling two entire blocks and they still put it in there. The closest apartments at the time all were 2-3 stories with large parking structues or lots. It didn't stop people from riding or from someone coming in later and building denser with later projects.

[earthling]

Fair points but they can still do better with such constraints than borderline pad site type development inspired by the Interstate Exit type development than towards an expansion of downtown streetcar, especially when working with a blank slate rather than a retro fit. Doesn't need to be hirises, can also include say 3 floor row houses or anything streetfront/sidewalk oriented with parking in the rear. And in future the rear parking can perhaps become garages with taller development on top if cost justified. Makes more sense to react without all the details than say nothing and allow pad site crap come next.

And Houston is not a good example to aspire to become.

Another problem we have with too many downtown developers is that many are used to creating isolated islands (most suburban type development), not integrating seamlessly into what is next door, creating a contiguous pedestrian flow for the entire district, or at least a main corridor. Seems many just think about their own project, not the bigger picture of their tie into the neighborhood/district flow.

[flyingember]

Fair points but they can still do better with such constraints than borderline pad site type development inspired by the Interstate Exit type development than towards an expansion of downtown streetcar, especially when working with a blank slate rather than a retro fit. Doesn't need to be hirises, can also include say 3 floor row houses or anything streetfront/sidewalk oriented with parking in the rear. And in future the rear parking can perhaps become garages with taller development on top if cost justified.

Another problem we have with too many downtown developers is that many are used to creating isolated islands (not integrating seamlessly into what is next door, creating a contiguous pedestrian flow for the entire district, or at least a main corridor. Seems many just think about their own project, not the bigger picture of their tie into the neighborhood/district flow.

Again, educate yourself before posting. Many of your answers are in this thread.

It absolutely is an island. Did you account for:
The south parking planned on top of a sewer easement and can never be built on?
The west parking planned on top of a sewer easement and can never be built on?
The *Existing* road to the Dog Bar they want to add parking along instead of adding a new road?
The hotel site to the north of the project?
The railroad row still in place just south of the project?
The biking trail along Front St that should limit?

The site was literally an island before they even thought about what would go on it.

[earthling]

You didn't understand the context of what I meant about island developments and others here are also critical of what this is turning into. They can do better than borderline pad site developments surrounded in parking. Will leave it at that.

[KCPowercat]

Great message boarding right here.

[earthling]

This disappointing project (to several here) will no doubt create more of these 'conversations' of varying degrees.

[KCPowercat]

I can't wait.

Btw I agree this is a very poorly designed plot of this development and we deserve better.

[flyingember]

I can't wait.

Btw I agree this is a very poorly designed plot of this development and we deserve better.

So I have a challenge.

If you believe we deserve better you need to start a campaign to change how zoning works. Because our zoning setup doesn't have size minimums today anywhere in the city.

[chaglang]

What if you created an overlay that was attached to the streetcar TDD that created the minimums? You could throw in anything else you want, like lot line standards, etc., etc. Would the city go for it? No idea!

[flyingember]

What if you created an overlay that was attached to the streetcar TDD that created the minimums? You could throw in anything else you want, like lot line standards, etc., etc. Would the city go for it? No idea!

The riverfront development isn't inside the TDD. This is the boundary what was voted on

http://kcstreetcar.org/wp-content/uploa ... ly-map.pdf

The owner of the land would need to go to the city and ask for them to implement a new type of zoning and apply it to their property.

[KCPowercat]

Jfc quit making excuses for bad design.

[chaglang]

aaaaand end scene

[flyingember]

Jfc quit making excuses for bad design.

This is how you build affordable housing, by making compromises. Or do we think every downtown project should be built for only market rate units?

Using easements for shared parking across multiple buildings is how we end up with affordable housing and hotels for more people.

[KCPowercat]

Jfc quit making excuses for bad design.

This is how you build affordable housing, by making compromises. Or do we think every downtown project should be built for only market rate units?

Using easements for shared parking across multiple buildings is how we end up with affordable housing and hotels for more people.

This does not excuse bad design.

[town cow]

Looks like the max height for that part of the PA riverfront property is between 145 and 154 ft, btw

[normalthings]

Looks like the max height for that part of the PA riverfront property is between 145 and 154 ft, btw

So maximum 17 floors with 9' residential ceilings

[chaglang]

How about we shift the basis of this discussion from good/bad to one about context? Everyone's comments are essentially complaints about how this project thoroughly ignores its urban context. Good/bad design discussions are cul-de-sacs and I hate cul-de-sacs. There's only one way out, and the people are kind of weird.

[FangKC]

Make a map showing all the easements.