Westport

Discuss items in the urban core outside of Downtown as described above. Everything in the core including the east side (18th & Vine area), Plaza, Westport, Brookside, Valentine, Waldo, 39th street, & the entire midtown area.
earthling
Oak Tower
Oak Tower
Posts: 5468
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:27 pm

Re: Westport

Post by earthling » Thu Jun 27, 2019 5:16 pm

Ideally someday Boring Co builds a tunnel under SW Trfway between Plaza/I35 downtown. A bigger problem though is lack of urban pedestrian scale mindset of most Midtowners. The result has been parts of Midtown turning into car focused suburbia.

User avatar
beautyfromashes
Oak Tower
Oak Tower
Posts: 4810
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:04 am

Re: Westport

Post by beautyfromashes » Thu Jun 27, 2019 6:07 pm

It seems the battle between Westport Rd and SW Trafficway will never be resolved by limiting the latter even though that would be the ideal. What would happen traffic-wise if we closed Westport Rd altogether to the mess of that interchange. Do you think that west side part of Westport Rd would come more into pedestrian scale. Would Blue Stem and Pot Pie add sidewalk style seating?

brewcrew1000
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2598
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 10:10 am
Location: Broadway/Gilham according to google maps

Re: Westport

Post by brewcrew1000 » Thu Jun 27, 2019 6:20 pm

earthling wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 5:16 pm
Ideally someday Boring Co builds a tunnel under SW Trfway between Plaza/I35 downtown. A bigger problem though is lack of urban pedestrian scale mindset of most Midtowners. The result has been parts of Midtown turning into car focused suburbia.
This ^
I have mentioned on other sites that SW trafficway is basically a pass thru freeway for people in Kansas and points south to get home faster. It serves no purpose to the neighborhood since u cannot really turn left or right. I was basically laughed at for saying that because they said traffic would be a nightmare but midtown has 8 major N/S routes from Rainbow to Paseo but virtually no traffic calming. Also traffic is only bad for a few hours a day. The city needs to make people use rainbow or 71 from downtown not thru the heart of the city. Could u imagine if Brookside had a SW trafficway type road go thru the center of that neighborhood? All the citizens would be upset and it would get a ton of press

kucer
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1135
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 4:35 pm
Location: PVKS

Re: Westport

Post by kucer » Fri Jun 28, 2019 7:49 am

brewcrew1000 wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 6:20 pm

Could u imagine if Brookside had a SW trafficway type road go thru the center of that neighborhood? All the citizens would be upset and it would get a ton of press
It's called Brookside Blvd/Wornall. :D

shinatoo
One Park Place
One Park Place
Posts: 6361
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 3:20 pm

Re: Westport

Post by shinatoo » Fri Jun 28, 2019 8:14 am

kucer wrote:
Fri Jun 28, 2019 7:49 am
brewcrew1000 wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 6:20 pm

Could u imagine if Brookside had a SW trafficway type road go thru the center of that neighborhood? All the citizens would be upset and it would get a ton of press
It's called Brookside Blvd/Wornall. :D
But with two lanes each way, landscapes buffers and dramatically less traffic. I have no problem crossing Brookside about any time of day on foot, crosswalk or not. Can't say the same for SWTFY most of the day.
Quocunque Jeceris Stabit

User avatar
WSPanic
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3715
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: Westport

Post by WSPanic » Fri Jun 28, 2019 9:31 am

earthling wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 5:16 pm
Ideally someday Boring Co builds a tunnel under SW Trfway between Plaza/I35 downtown. A bigger problem though is lack of urban pedestrian scale mindset of most Midtowners. The result has been parts of Midtown turning into car focused suburbia.
Midtown is a suburb. The "mindset of midtowners" isn't a problem.

User avatar
Steve52
Colonnade
Colonnade
Posts: 918
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 7:26 pm

Re: Westport

Post by Steve52 » Fri Jun 28, 2019 9:32 am

Your living in a fantasy world if you think that Mega Quiktrip and the new Mega Mike's is going to help create a pedestrian friendly nirvana in that Westport Rd and SW Trafficway area. Lost cause. So you may as well focus your energy and time on Westport Rd east of SW Trafficway. Remember in the 80's up until the 90's there were no traffic lights on the Plaza. Every one in KCMO understood and honored and respected the pedestrians first etiquette and it was one of the nicest and most pleasant pedestrian friendly areas in the city. Maybe shoot for that?

earthling
Oak Tower
Oak Tower
Posts: 5468
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:27 pm

Re: Westport

Post by earthling » Fri Jun 28, 2019 9:35 am

Midtown has single family homes but traditionally all commercial developments along main drags were built up to the street with pedestrians as higher priority and parking in the rear. Most neighborhoods also had a corner grocery. The mindset now is cars as a higher priority in too many cases. Other large cities have been reclaiming their declining semi-urban Midtown-like areas toward pedestrian/bike friendly neighborhoods - demanding developers support that. Midtown is making some progress (Armour) but still battling the car mindset and developers get away with creating more car culture.

KC has very few true urban neighborhoods and Midtown could be if it really focused on it, but has to fight car cultured development to make it happen. Maybe when streetcar runs through attitudes will start to change. Or more likely, more carless minded people will move to Midtown when free streetcar runs through.

There are ways to accommodate cars even though 3rd priority (behind pedestrians and bikes/scooters), starting with parking in the rear and entrances at sidewalks.

brewcrew1000
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2598
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 10:10 am
Location: Broadway/Gilham according to google maps

Re: Westport

Post by brewcrew1000 » Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:50 am

We did have true urban neighborhoods, it's just that they were destroyed by white flight and urban decay.

earthling
Oak Tower
Oak Tower
Posts: 5468
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:27 pm

Re: Westport

Post by earthling » Fri Jun 28, 2019 11:15 am

Some major Midtown mistakes over the last 20 years... mega QT, mega car wash at Linwood/Main, retail strip with Lemars and Verizon (parking in front rather than rear), JimmyJohns at 39th/Bway not built up to street, Costco and Home Depot are OK considering lack of urban retail but the suburban style pad sites around it are a big nono, should be streetfront retail using lots to the rear. The pad site fast food chains along Main have lots much larger than needed, ideally these would be moved/redeveloped to streetfront locations with parking in rear. The new Gomers tried but still mainly catered to cars - should have been built along Bway with lot to rear. The Uptown Shoppes redevelopment is almost right but the corner building should be built along Bway and restrict car access to Valentine, allowing a contiguous pedestrian stretch along Bway. Things even that small need to be nitpicked or developers will get away with it.

User avatar
WSPanic
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3715
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: Westport

Post by WSPanic » Fri Jun 28, 2019 11:46 am

And "get away with it' assumes you are right and everyone else is wrong. I don't accept that. Midtown is a suburb - not an urban pedestrian whatever.

earthling
Oak Tower
Oak Tower
Posts: 5468
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:27 pm

Re: Westport

Post by earthling » Fri Jun 28, 2019 11:48 am

^Midtown is developing more suburban mindset than it used to have and you are accepting that. KC has very little pedestrian scale living and has an opportunity to expand it, you don't seem interested and actually seem to discourage it. Got it. My point is that others in Midtown have your sentiment and from perspective of those with pedestrian mindset, that's a problem for expanding KC's urbanity. It's not a right or wrong thing... I'm promoting the urban leaning direction for Midtown, especially given KC has very little of it and Midtown is one of best opportunities to expand yet making mistakes for that to happen.

nickyrosstheboss
Pad site
Pad site
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016 4:22 pm

Re: Westport

Post by nickyrosstheboss » Fri Jun 28, 2019 12:24 pm

brewcrew1000 wrote:
Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:50 am
We did have true urban neighborhoods, it's just that they were destroyed by white flight and urban decay.
Too Real!

User avatar
WSPanic
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3715
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: Westport

Post by WSPanic » Fri Jun 28, 2019 1:08 pm

I'm not the one actively discouraging development and progress. I just choose not to define progress so narrowly that I'd have to oppose every single piece of progress that doesn't fit a very narrow set of guidelines.

earthling
Oak Tower
Oak Tower
Posts: 5468
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:27 pm

Re: Westport

Post by earthling » Fri Jun 28, 2019 1:18 pm

Yup, promoting ideals for pedestrian scale living in Midtown. Just as most here would fight adding drivethroughs and more surface lots downtown. Midtown can cater to cars moreso than downtown, but ideally still as 3rd priority. Lots to the rear of buildings and access along sidewalks is the guideline I'd pursue for Midtown.

That's not unrealistically narrow as Midtown essentially used to follow those guidelines.

User avatar
WSPanic
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3715
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: Westport

Post by WSPanic » Fri Jun 28, 2019 1:59 pm

I'm not trying to fight and I agree that most of what you want to do is fine. But, why does it make sense to have cars treated as a third priority in an area of town where 75% of the residents (if not more) consider automobiles their first-priority mode of transportation? Maybe I'm way off on that number, but it doesn't feel like it.

Walkability and density are great. I walk a ton in the neighborhood when it makes sense. However, Midtown hasn't developed to a point where I can live there easily without a car. And I think most midtown residents would agree.

earthling
Oak Tower
Oak Tower
Posts: 5468
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:27 pm

Re: Westport

Post by earthling » Fri Jun 28, 2019 2:33 pm

You can still accommodate cars without directly catering as highest priority, simply by putting the parking in the rear. It's not a major inconvenience.

We're talking in circles here but the gist of it seems be that you are thinking "in the now" state - will always be that way so don't bother trying. I'm thinking long term and Midtown is best chance to expand urbanity in KC and can get there easier than other areas because it once used to generally follow these guidelines. I run into many into Midtown with your thinking and point out that 99% of metro directly caters to car and jokingly tell them If you want to live in suburbia and car dependency then move to the freakin burbs (with a smile) rather than knock down a chance to expand the tiny amount of pedestrian scale living that KC has (and once had in Midtown).

I doubt the mindset will change until the free streetcar rolls through Midtown. Then many will be wondering why so many car catered developments were allowed in Midtown.

kcjak
Penntower
Penntower
Posts: 2161
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 3:02 pm

Re: Westport

Post by kcjak » Mon Jul 01, 2019 10:37 am

Maybe not considered Westport, but previous news on this development was on this page - the Motel 6 on Main between Armour and 36th is now the Quality Inn & Suites Downtown.

mean
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 10868
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 9:00 am
Location: Historic Northeast

Re: Westport

Post by mean » Mon Jul 01, 2019 3:02 pm

WSPanic wrote:
Fri Jun 28, 2019 1:59 pm
But, why does it make sense to have cars treated as a third priority in an area of town where 75% of the residents (if not more) consider automobiles their first-priority mode of transportation?
Because in 100 years when you're dead and all the buildings built today are still standing, individual automobile ownership will probably be a thing of the past. The entire concept of wasting massive swaths of land for personal automobile storage (not to mention the resources used to build storage facilities, and have them attached to your house, even!?)--and let's not forget burning huge amounts of fossil fuel propelling multiple thousand pounds of giant steel and rubber contraptions around so that one little person can get to work--will probably all be seen as the ridiculous, self-indulgent, and wasteful squandering of natural resources by self-absorbed hedonistic nihilists that it actually is. This shit is a blip on the radar of human existence, and I don't get why people can't understand that building our cities to preferentially accommodate cars, and particularly to accommodate individual automobile ownership and the presumption that people will be conveyed to particular places in a vehicle that they will then need to store there until they decide to leave, is a madness that will necessarily have to be undone at some point, and at unfathomable expense and effort.

So just don't do it that way in the first place!

I mean, not to be overly dramatic or anything, but car ownership is going away. It just is.

User avatar
Critical_Mass
Colonnade
Colonnade
Posts: 708
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Crossroads

Re: Westport

Post by Critical_Mass » Mon Jul 01, 2019 3:24 pm

mean wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 3:02 pm
Because in 100 years when you're dead and all the buildings built today are still standing, individual automobile ownership will probably be a thing of the past. The entire concept of wasting massive swaths of land for personal automobile storage (not to mention the resources used to build storage facilities, and have them attached to your house, even!?)--and let's not forget burning huge amounts of fossil fuel propelling multiple thousand pounds of giant steel and rubber contraptions around so that one little person can get to work--will probably all be seen as the ridiculous, self-indulgent, and wasteful squandering of natural resources by self-absorbed hedonistic nihilists that it actually is. This shit is a blip on the radar of human existence, and I don't get why people can't understand that building our cities to preferentially accommodate cars, and particularly to accommodate individual automobile ownership and the presumption that people will be conveyed to particular places in a vehicle that they will then need to store there until they decide to leave, is a madness that will necessarily have to be undone at some point, and at unfathomable expense and effort.

So just don't do it that way in the first place!

I mean, not to be overly dramatic or anything, but car ownership is going away. It just is.
=D> =D> =D>

Post Reply