A Roeland Park committee has recommended a plan to redevelop key sites in the city — including a suggestion to build a new City Hall at the intersection of Roe Avenue and Johnson Drive.
After nearly nine months of public committee meetings and deliberation, consultants hired by the city to lead the process presented their plan to the City Council this week.
Before Roeland Park moves forward with any of the recommendations, the document must be published and approved by the Planning Commission and council. That process will include public hearings.
In addition to a new City Hall, suggestions include building condominium towers at the intersections of Roe Avenue and Johnson Drive, and 18th Street Expressway and West 48th Street. The committee also recommended demolishing the old Roeland Park Elementary School at 56th and Juniper streets and converting the five-acre site into a park.
the current RP city hall shares a ratty old shack with some other businesses on 51st street just east of roe. the official plan can be found here.
too bad they already squandered a great opportunity when they redid the price chopper complex.
I know the headline is being cute, but Roeland Park is not experiencing an Extreme Makeover. It is getting a facelift, but its still fairly autocentric and the suburban atmosphere it always was. Bella Roe Plaza could have been a great pedestrian area, but instead its layout is substantially similar to what it was before - large big box retailers with strip mall stores. They even made it worse by having the strip mall facing AWAY from the main street - Johnson Drive - and instead facing the sprawling parking lot. Its an abomination in contrast with Mission.
I live right by this proposed City Hall/condos and these two open fields need to be developed. I do have some concerns about building condos right by our house. Our neighborhood is undoubtedly about to face major changes, and while that's exciting, it also makes me worry we may be forced to leave.
KCMax wrote:
Bella Roe Plaza could have been a great pedestrian area
That's what the city and developer originally wanted. But I don't remember why that plan was scrapped. I vaguely recall reading something around 2002 that the country's economic funk had prompted a lot of national retailers -- potential tenants -- to put off new projects. So maybe that made the developer and city more reluctant to play hardball with the two big anchors.
yes, i was being cute. but it is true that the two main "gateways" to roeland park will experience significant changes (unless you count 55th and nall as a gateway). did you go to any of the public meetings? i'm curious if other homeowners near you were vocal about these concerns.
Does anyone remember the old heart of Roeland Park? They tore it down to built the Walmart (It was built as a Pace Wholesale Club). As a kid, my family shopped here often. The Skaggs/Katz, Thriftway and other stores that were in a pleasant atmosphere. I know it was mostly vacant by the time they torn it all down, but I remember it as "my" neighborhood center. Are they better off with the Walmart they now have? At least it pays out in retail sales tax to help the city's bottom line, but it seems like most of the shoppers are not from the immediate neighborhood. I felt that Roeland Park lost it's identity when they torn that old shopping center down.
Does anyone remember the old Roeland Park center as fondly as I do? Did it have an official name? Anyone have photos or an aerial of it? Who developed it? And in what year (I would guess late '40's)?
kbradford wrote:
Why do these tiny land locked cities feel like they suddenly need a new City Hall? First it was Fairway, now Roeland Park.
my opinion is that it's a trend and city planners love trends. if inner ring suburbs across the country were building city halls underneath walmart stores, then i'm sure fairway and RP would be proposing the same.
but seriously, they probably intend to create "a sense of place". right now, RP has no such thing.
kbradford wrote:
Why do these tiny land locked cities feel like they suddenly need a new City Hall? First it was Fairway, now Roeland Park.
Fairway has a variety of reasons. The main one is lack of space. For example, the police station shares city hall. When someone is arrested, they're literally handcuffed to a bench because there's no holding cell. The bench isn't bolted to the floor because it has to be moved so a ladder can be used to get into the attic, where municipal records are stored.
That said, I voted against the new city hall because it was overkill. The city needs to come up with a happy medium.
Right on KC0KEK. I agree that they could use something better, but what they wanted to build, and originally WHERE they wanted to build was what I had problems with. By the way, I'm pretty sure you live on my block. I see a license plate with your name everyday.
Of course condos make sense. Roeland Park is caught up in a dick measuring contest with Mission and Fairway, and presently, their mansions are better than Roeland Park's mid-century homes.
Mission is WINNAR. So...it's time for the condos to go up. There goes the neighborhood.
I just love the smell of skyscrapers in the morning... http://okmet.org / OkMet forums Keep Tulsa Lame.
I didn't realize Mission had mansions or even many significant houses. I thought it was about the same as Roeland Park. Fairway, on the other hand, is pretty awesome, at least along SM PKWY.
Kinda cool that Roeland Park and Mission are growing so much in notoriety that people in Oklahoma City are standing up and taking notice.
Fairway has some really great houses, but I wouldn't call them or any houses in Mission mansions. Most of the houses in this area are pretty small because they were built about fifty years old, when people didn't feel the need to have 3,000 square feet.
And I really don't think Mission and RP are in a dick measuring contest. Mission is a much larger city (RP is a blip) and they have cooperated well on the East Gateway project. But thanks for the observation.
