Page 81 of 113

Re: Westport

Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2017 8:09 pm
by kboish
http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics ... 02471.html

they passed it out to full council. taylor was the lone dissenter.

Re: Westport

Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2017 11:37 pm
by JLowe2018
kboish wrote:http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics ... 02471.html

they passed it out to full council. taylor was the lone dissenter.
Should we write the council to ask them to reject this measure?

I disagree with this "moratorium" but it only applies for 6 months so is it even worth fighting? I can't imagine the pause on new development would do that much to stop development, except it would say "not open for business" which would have an impact MUCH longer than six months.

Further, the legislation would still allow buildings of up to 8,000 sqf to be demolished, so what in the end does this action do other than put up a sign saying "not open for business" in one of the hottest submarkets of the city?

Re: Westport

Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 7:45 am
by kboish
JLowe2018 wrote:
kboish wrote:http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics ... 02471.html

they passed it out to full council. taylor was the lone dissenter.
Should we write the council to ask them to reject this measure?

I disagree with this "moratorium" but it only applies for 6 months so is it even worth fighting? I can't imagine the pause on new development would do that much to stop development, except it would say "not open for business" which would have an impact MUCH longer than six months.

Further, the legislation would still allow buildings of up to 8,000 sqf to be demolished, so what in the end does this action do other than put up a sign saying "not open for business" in one of the hottest submarkets of the city?
I don't really understand the purpose of the ordinance either, but I think you are right, it pretty much just says "not open for business". At a minimum, let your representatives know you think it is bad for the city to pause development approvals in an area. A new study of the historical character isn't necessarily a bad thing on its own. What I don't really understand is why you need to pause the development process in order to undertake this review. Just like all other planning processes- development should remain open. And until you pass new standards, the old standards apply.

Even without this "study", they already have all the power they need to deny anything they believe does not fit in the character of the neighborhood. The required "pause" period seems like it is just a disincentive for future investment. Who would want to be the first to propose something after the pause? Uncertainty is a business killer.

Re: Westport

Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 8:07 am
by kcjak
I can't help feeling that Mary Jo Draper is involved - she pushed the initial moratorium after getting upset with the development on the BOA lot. The proper forum for this was the Westport Plaza Neighborhood Plan a few years ago - it's fine to tweak things now and then but to basically stop development in order to create a new neighborhood plan when things aren't going as you'd like is ridiculous.

If if people are worried about losing the character of Westport and feel a inventory of all buildings is needed, why are they still waiting? Is that something that MUST be done through the City?

Re: Westport

Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 9:20 pm
by chaglang
You’ll be excited to know that the committee in charge of implementing the Midtown Area Plan is exploring ways to extend the Plaza “bowl” concept north toward Westport. The most vocal people live in Rockhill and apparently have nothing better to do now that their feud with the Nelson has been settled. NIMBYs gonna NIMBY, I guess.

Re: Westport

Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 9:25 pm
by DaveKCMO
chaglang wrote:You’ll be excited to know that the committee in charge of implementing the Midtown Area Plan is exploring ways to extend the Plaza “bowl” concept north toward Westport. The most vocal people live in Rockhill and apparently have nothing better to do now that their feud with the Nelson has been settled. NIMBYs gonna NIMBY, I guess.
why not an entire KCMO bowl? all surface lots and two-story brick sheds between downtown and corporate woods?

Re: Westport

Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 9:48 pm
by missingkc
Do these people and groups have any power that the city doesn't allow them?

Re: Westport

Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 6:18 am
by chaglang
missingkc wrote:Do these people and groups have any power that the city doesn't allow them?
I don’t think so. Because area plans in KC are really just elaborate suggestions and carry no more weight than anyone’s ideas on this forum, it’s debatable if they have any power at all. However, the local preservationists played a big role in getting Shields elected and she has repeatedly sided with them no matter how misguided the idea. So the PMAP Implementation committee doing preservation type things would have her support and could theoretically get her to sponsor ordinances that would have some teeth. The Westport Building Ban is a good example of how that could work.

Re: Westport

Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:29 am
by taxi
DaveKCMO wrote:
chaglang wrote:You’ll be excited to know that the committee in charge of implementing the Midtown Area Plan is exploring ways to extend the Plaza “bowl” concept north toward Westport. The most vocal people live in Rockhill and apparently have nothing better to do now that their feud with the Nelson has been settled. NIMBYs gonna NIMBY, I guess.
why not an entire KCMO bowl? all surface lots and two-story brick sheds between downtown and corporate woods?
NIMBYs oughta smoke a bowl.

Re: Westport

Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2017 3:28 pm
by voltopt
A signature piece of the 'Plaza Bowl' concept is that the low density, historic center is in a valley. Extending it up the steep hill to the north and into a separate topography is insulting. I can't think of any reason to use this logic, at least from an aesthetic or geographic perspective. Westport is probably about 20% 'historic' buildings; and the rest is City Place Apartments, Sun Fresh, and a million surface parking spaces.

Re: Westport

Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2017 8:20 pm
by flyingember
voltopt wrote:A signature piece of the 'Plaza Bowl' concept is that the low density, historic center is in a valley. Extending it up the steep hill to the north and into a separate topography is insulting. I can't think of any reason to use this logic, at least from an aesthetic or geographic perspective. Westport is probably about 20% 'historic' buildings; and the rest is City Place Apartments, Sun Fresh, and a million surface parking spaces.
This isn't about the age of the buildings or the aesthetics or the geography, it's about the size.
They want to maintain the single family homes in the neighborhoods and not have someone buy 2-3 lots, get them rezoned and build a six unit building.

The plaza bowl is the perfect example of that idea, that you can have areas that don't need to be higher density and put density into controlled areas and leave others as they are.

Ignore the idea of extending the plaza bowl and imagine a new one.

It fits perfectly into things people on this site agree with. Density directly along transit lines, letting area plans actually have teeth, focusing on reducing parking and empty lots not replace homes instead because it's easier and not giving every developer an exception to the rules.

Re: Westport

Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:31 am
by chaglang
It’s all about aesthetics. If it focused density in transit lines, HKC would have embraced the Opus development and protested the 9 story tower on Pennsylvania. The opposite happened. If this was about reducing parking, Katheryn Shields would not be trying to force extra parking into development proposals. If this was about giving area plans teeth, they would be doing that and not creating a standalone overlay. Don’t kid yourself. This would lock a significant swath of midtown into low density for the sake of aesthetics.

Re: Westport

Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 8:49 am
by flyingember
Have you read the midtown area plan? That's what it wants to do.

Re: Westport

Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 10:29 am
by kcjak
The midtown area plan was developed (at least in part) by area residents - if people wanted their voices heard, they should have been involved or more vocal in the meetings, rather than forcing development guidelines through when people don't like what the plan recommended. I went to the meetings for the area I live in and I'd be pissed if someone from an adjacent neighborhood tries to overturn the work that was put in by those of us who are directly affected.

Re: Westport

Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 11:48 am
by chaglang
Right. The stated purpose for doing this is because of perceived shortcomings in the PMAP.

Re: Westport

Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 4:05 pm
by kboish
Westport is closed for business.

Re: Westport

Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 7:03 pm
by beautyfromashes
kboish wrote:Westport is closed for business.
Disappointed Jolie Justus went along with the moratorium ordinance. Good for Taylor standing up against it. Might get my vote for mayor because of it.

Re: Westport

Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 8:26 pm
by kboish
Justus and James were absent

Re: Westport

Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:48 pm
by chaglang
Justus got the right-of-way vacations added to the moratorium.

Re: Westport

Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:35 pm
by KCPowercat
beautyfromashes wrote:
kboish wrote:Westport is closed for business.
Disappointed Jolie Justus went along with the moratorium ordinance. Good for Taylor standing up against it. Might get my vote for mayor because of it.
6 months is pretty meh so the neighborhood can get an idea of what they want to be...and she got street vacations added according to chag...

she def has my vote for mayor at this point....she is the closest we've had to an urbanite mayor in my lifetime....not that Sly isn't, it just isn't his passion like it is for JJ