FangKC wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 9:32 pm
I agree that KC has too much grass called parks and not much to lure people to those places. It's not just lack of bike trails. Many bigger parks don't have enough park shelters, BBQ grill setups and benches, so more people can have gatherings at the same time. Many parks don't even have good tree coverage and some basic landscaping. Some of the newer parks haven't even planted starter trees so there will be shade some day. This discourages residents from having picnics and family gatherings in the summer because who wants to sit out in the blazing sun with no shelter. Many large expanses of grass have no sidewalks through them. Some parks don't even have multiple access points to neighborhoods, and you have to walk a great distance just to reach an entrance.
People will use good neighborhood parks. Concourse Park in the Historic Northeast is very busy in the evenings.
Swope Park does have nice wooded areas, and trails, but Parks and Rec cannot even make this garden attractive. There should be more scrubs and flowers there.
I forget about Tower Grove Park. That's a nice park. Forest is one of the best big center city parks there is.
^This is way off topic, but do know that Tower Grove Park is owned by the City of St. Louis, but maintained by private groups. That may play a role in it's upkeep.
Tower Grove Park is the only city park in the City of St. Louis to be managed by an independent board and staff. It is not a private park; the City of St. Louis owns the park land and structures. However, per Henry Shaw’s estate, Park operations are overseen by a Board of Commissioners and managed by an independent staff.
Tower Grove Park is a city park, but it does not receive maintenance services from the City of St. Louis Department of Parks, Recreation, and Forestry.
It's not a priority here. I have thrown out why that are obviously wrong so let's just say it's not a KC resident priority or something we en masse want to spend money on. I think it would be awesome but not something I've been versed enough to promote. I do fine with what we have.
Grid come back and be our parks and rec matter planet guy, you've got great ideas for KC that sound awesome. We have nobody right now with that passion or vision. You are right we spend money on outdoor crap but nothing like you are talking.
Or just send am open letter out with the plan for all to read maybe it pushes us to make it a priority!
KCPowercat wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 7:07 am
It's not a priority here. I have thrown out why that are obviously wrong so let's just say it's not a KC resident priority or something we en masse want to spend money on. I think it would be awesome but not something I've been versed enough to promote. I do fine with what we have.
Grid come back and be our parks and rec matter planet guy, you've got great ideas for KC that sound awesome. We have nobody right now with that passion or vision. You are right we spend money on outdoor crap but nothing like you are talking.
Or just send am open letter out with the plan for all to read maybe it pushes us to make it a priority!
All I'm saying is when you do have a great opportunity to improve a bad situation and people still make all kinds of reasons as to why it can't or doesn't need to be done, then that's frustrating. This Broadway Bridge project is a disaster that will leave future generations asking WTF.
Agreed. I like the idea of preserving the Broadway bridge, but it is more important to remove the N loop than trying to save more maintenance heavy assets like a bridge. Just use the walking/bike path on the new bridge.
TheLastGentleman wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 3:33 pm
I don’t see why we can’t save the old bridge, build the new one, and remove the north loop. Wouldn’t loop removal be a MODOT project anyways?
I would say MODOT, Feds, City , plus need approval from KCK. There will need to be a creation of a new Independance Avenue and cross streets, I don't think this can happen with some city involvement. Seems like it would even be a good GO bond project tbh.
I imagine whatever cost the city takes on for north loop removal would be a fraction of the overall project. Now, I don’t know the city’s finances, but I have a hard time believing that maintaining one old bridge as a pedestrian crossing and rebuilding a few blocks of roads would be catastrophic
TheLastGentleman wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 3:33 pm
I don’t see why we can’t save the old bridge, build the new one, and remove the north loop. Wouldn’t loop removal be a MODOT project anyways?
Yeah saving the current bridge could also happen the question is the cost
TheLastGentleman wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 3:33 pm
I don’t see why we can’t save the old bridge, build the new one, and remove the north loop. Wouldn’t loop removal be a MODOT project anyways?
If MODOT isn't willing to fund the replacement of their own bridge, I do not think they will be paying for a northloop removal.
normalthings wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 7:27 pmIf MODOT isn't willing to fund the replacement of their own bridge, I do not think they will be paying for a northloop removal.
normalthings wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 7:27 pmIf MODOT isn't willing to fund the replacement of their own bridge, I do not think they will be paying for a northloop removal.
But it's their freeway
?exactly? Its their bridge and they aren't even willing to pay mission critical cap-ex on it
normalthings wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 9:20 pm?exactly? Its their bridge and they aren't even willing to pay mission critical cap-ex on it
I understand the city is paying for part of it, but I didn't realize MODOT wasn't funding any of it. So it can just force someone else to pay for its own projects? If the city is fully funding this thing I hope they're giving them hell about the design
That’s not true. MODOT is partially funding the new bridge. They were going to just pay to resurface and repair existing, but KCMO and MARC stepped in to pony up additional cost for the new direct connect to 35 bridge.
TheLastGentleman wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 3:33 pm
I don’t see why we can’t save the old bridge, build the new one, and remove the north loop. Wouldn’t loop removal be a MODOT project anyways?
If MODOT isn't willing to fund the replacement of their own bridge, I do not think they will be paying for a northloop removal.
Sure they will. Sell the land and get the maintenance off their books forever?
