Urbanism, architecture, transit, strawmen, etc.

[slimwhitman]

The City does a poor job replacing street trees, and the ones they do often die very quickly. It's probably because they don't install the tree properly, and have a watering source for it. Trees need a lot of water after planting to get started. The other issue is that they often don't have enough room to root.

They often also select the wrong species. Here is a list of the right species to plant in KC. The second page is specific to Street Trees:
http://www.ground-workshop.com/etcetera

Also, The Missouri Dept of Conservation and MARC are working to develop a complete iTree program to encourage landowners and municipalities to plant more trees. See thier efforts here:
http://marc.org/environment/itree.htm

How much soil volume is required to grow a large tree:
http://www.deeproot.com/silvapdfs/resou ... g_Tree.pdf

I have always argued that our street engineers are blowing it (in too many ways to count), but in particular thier total hatred of street trees. Sidewalks should be at least 6' from the curb. 8' is better. Even in new areas, the standard is 4' or maybe 5'. What is the point in having a green strip at all if you can't properly plant a tree in it?

4' is too narrow (I took all these photos last week)



7' wide is pretty nice


Why bother with sidewalks at all? This is hardscape misery!

[chingon]

Maybe the city should just admit that trees aren't really the best planting for parkings/treelawns and adopt the more ecologically and economically sound approach of planting native grasses and not replacing failed street trees. I can't think of a more wasteful expenditure than battling nature.

[pash]

.

[slimwhitman]

Maybe the city should just admit that trees aren't really the best planting for parkings/treelawns and adopt the more ecologically and economically sound approach of planting native grasses and not replacing failed street trees. I can't think of a more wasteful expenditure than battling nature.

Trees are a key component to livable cities. Street trees are by-far the most important of those trees. It is true that street trees are in a constant battle with the challenges of urbanity, but the fight is worthy. Trees provide shade, define space, capture rainwater and pollutants, lower heat island effect, slow traffic and generally make a pedestrian realm more tolerable. A native grass planting is nice, but only provides a fraction of those benefits.

I bet your favorite streets to walk, bike or drive on are streets with mature trees on them. Streets need to be designed to accomodate trees. It's the trees that make the street (public realm) a place worth caring about.

[FangKC]

Trees make a huge difference along streets. I noticed in NYC that streets that had trees were always more pleasant to walk down than ones that didn't. It is also amazing how much they cut down on noise in the summer months.

There are a lot of neighborhoods in Kansas City that have nice street canopies along them, and they really are neat neighborhoods.

I remember when my older brother got transferred to Kansas City. When his wife asked him what he wanted in a house, the only thing he said was that he wanted to live on a street that had mature trees. They had been living in a newer subdivision near Omaha that didn't have hardly any trees yet, and he hated it.

The thing that is maddening about my house is that they brought the utilities into the house in two separate locations, instead of bundling them all together on one side of the house. This significantly affects the amount of room in my front median for a street tree because I have to account for root spread. As a result, most of the houses along our block don't have any street trees, except for a couple of houses built on double lots. And this is a pretty old neighborhood in the city (Old Northeast). Most of the houses on my block were built from 1900 to 1925. My house and my neighbor's being the exceptions (1954). I think our houses sat on the site of an older house on a double lot that probably burned down at some point.

My block



My block showing utilities.



My block showing street tree root spread into utility pipes.



House down the street on double lot.

[FangKC]

Does anyone know City policy on planting shrubs, flowers, and ground covers on the median between the sidewalk and the street curb? I don't think I've ever seen anyone do it around town.

[aknowledgeableperson]

Mostly that area is part of your property and the city would have an easement to have the sidewalk you are responsible for. If it is along a blvd where the city cuts the grass then you do have your limits. Otherwise you should be free to plant whatever. Most wouldn't plant scrubs since that would limit the curb on parking. And, of course same for flowers since people would walk on them.

[grovester]

Yeah, mostly at your own risk. If anyone has to do utility work your plants are toast.

[slimwhitman]

Does anyone know City policy on planting shrubs, flowers, and ground covers on the median between the sidewalk and the street curb? I don't think I've ever seen anyone do it around town.

Each city has a little different policy on plantings in the ROW along the street, but they generally follow this format:

The 11' (or so, for most residential streets) is owned by the city and is referred to as "right-of-way". They technically own whatever you plant there, but they state that you are responsible for its maintenance. They are not responsible for mowing it or trimming the trees in it. Most cities do the trimming of these trees to allow traffic to pass and will remove dead trees.

Some U.S. cities are pro-active about planting trees in the ROW, but few in the KC metro care to fund that activity. Most KC cities are planned by old-skool traffic engineering types that see little value in them, despite all the proof otherwise. One great example is Overland Park. OP prohibits trees in the ROW for all arterials (but allows them on minor & collector streets). But if you look at the thorough Vision Metcalf study, it shows all road sections with street trees and states that they shall be planted with street trees. The Vision Metcalf plan was developed by an out-of-town planning expert at the cost of $1M, so they should know what they are doing. The plan is pretty good. The OP staff has ignored the Vision Metcalf tree requirement because it does not match thier old-skool ways.

KC's premier developers always plant street trees because they understand that they add value to the development. All the JC Nichols developments like Prairie Village, Mission Hills, and Country Club are older examples. Newer developments like Hallbrook also place a high priority on street trees. They often plant them as soon as the street is built and before the lot is sold. The street trees help sell the lots for more and faster. And as they mature they add more and more value to the neighborhood. Even the mixed use Park Place in Leawood and Zona Rosa developments place a high priority on street trees.

When it comes to planting your own street tree.....just do it! Do not worry about all those utilities you mentioned (except overhead power lines). They will not be affected by your tree planting. Before you dig, contact One-Call to have utilities marked. Planting over a water or gas line is commonplace. When I design a commercial or residential landscape, I almost always add street trees.

[KCMax]

Are liberals defending conservative principles, and are conservatives defending liberal principles when it comes to land-use policies? That's what Matthew Yglesias argues in his new book "The Rent is Too Damn High". He argues liberals are betraying their liberal principles when they protest big developers, because those developers are creating more supply (office, retail, or housing) which will deflate prices for the common man. He argues conservatives betray their conservative principles when they protest urbanist de-zoning and repealing suburban subsidies, because this removes government interference from the free market.

I haven't bought the book yet, but I like his writings on market urbanism.

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/housin ... nism/1525/

[Volker Dad]

Are liberals defending conservative principles, and are conservatives defending liberal principles when it comes to land-use policies? That's what Matthew Yglesias argues in his new book "The Rent is Too Damn High". He argues liberals are betraying their liberal principles when they protest big developers, because those developers are creating more supply (office, retail, or housing) which will deflate prices for the common man. He argues conservatives betray their conservative principles when they protest urbanist de-zoning and repealing suburban subsidies, because this removes government interference from the free market.

I haven't bought the book yet, but I like his writings on market urbanism.

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/housin ... nism/1525/

I read this book. I consider myself a progressive and found it to be very good.

[KCMax]

The Curious Case of the 'Imposturbs'

We can imagine ourselves in a lot of disparate places. We see ourselves leaning against a classical column overlooking the Mediterranean Sea, or meandering through an archway out into the Tuscan twilight, or under the swaying shadow of a Southern California palm tree. We like these places, or, maybe more accurately, we like the idea of these places. And that's why we've made sure we can have them. Through the power of architectural borrowing and imitation, we can realistically recreate the styles and motifs of pretty much whatever we want, wherever we want. A far-off building type or lifestyle can be – and often is – transplanted to a new and unrelated locale, taking us to the Mediterranean not through travel but through architecture. The world we've built for ourselves can manifest these ambitions, can materialize the idea of a place, can make tangibly real what might otherwise only be make-believe.

Themed housing developments have both carved and filled this niche of consumer desire via homes that offer a loose interpretation of a foreign land and lifestyle, often greatly detached from any local relevance. Banking on notions of places either preconceived or media-enhanced, these imposturbs have been built all over the world – especially in Asia – for a sector of the marketplace of homebuyers whose decisions seem to be driven by a desire for some foreign standard of status.

Would the Plaza be an "imposturb"?

[pash]

.

[FangKC]

Does anyone know City policy on planting shrubs, flowers, and ground covers on the median between the sidewalk and the street curb? I don't think I've ever seen anyone do it around town.

When it comes to planting your own street tree.....just do it! Do not worry about all those utilities you mentioned (except overhead power lines). They will not be affected by your tree planting. Before you dig, contact One-Call to have utilities marked. Planting over a water or gas line is commonplace. When I design a commercial or residential landscape, I almost always add street trees.

Well, I doubt anyone in KCMO will want to plant a street tree after hearing this story.

KC Homeowner Gets $5K Bill For Fixing Sidewalk
City: Law In Place For Years, Applies Equally

May 2, 2012 (Channel 9 News-- ABC)

http://www.kmbc.com/news/30995567/detail.html

Another story from January, 2012, on the same issue (Channel 41 Action News -- NBC)

Kansas City resident outraged after city bills her for sidewalk

http://www.kshb.com/dpp/news/local_news ... r-sidewalk

Following photos not related to story, just for illustration about why people might not plant street trees now.

[aknowledgeableperson]

They need to move to Lees' Summit or Raymore. At least those cities take on the responsibility of sidewalk repairs, especially since the city is liable in case of injuries.

[FangKC]

I watched the streets and infastructure committee meeting this morning on the government channel, and they were discussing the possibility of doing away with the ordinance where the property owner is required to maintain the sidewalk, and coming up with a different method to pay for sidewalks.

It was decided to come up with options and discuss them in three months.

[smh]

I watched the streets and infastructure committee meeting this morning on the government channel, and they were discussing the possibility of doing away with the ordinance where the property owner is required to maintain the sidewalk, and coming up with a different method to pay for sidewalks.

It was decided to come up with options and discuss them in three months.

Hey, that's pretty good news. I'm not certain what the best structure is to pay for sidewalk replacement, but I don't know that having the homeowner pay the entire bill is the best way to ensure passable sidewalks.

[cknab1]

Back in 1978 when I lived at 9th and Van Brunt in the Northeast area, I had to pay $600 for my sidewalk repair. I didn’t, as they say, have a pot to piss in back then. It was really a hardship. I hope they do change it. It isn’t enforced very evenly to begin with. Some parts of Grand and Main streets between 18th down to Pershing have had terrible sidewalks for years.

[pash]

.

[pash]

.