Xroads surface lots: The Asphalt Garden

trailerkid · Post by **trailerkid** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 2:37 pm

Very interesting read in the Pitch this week about surface lots in the Xroads acting like something of a gathering place for many businesses, art, and city gardens.

Ours is not a dense city. We could compare ourselves to New York City and lament every bit of unbuilt land downtown, or we could consider it our good fortune. In New York, youâ€™d have to go to a rooftop to get the kind of city garden that exists at Smith and Burstert â€” and could exist in every one of these surface lots...

Suddenly, this isnâ€™t just a city block. It expands to include everything that touches it, by lot or by alley. Thatâ€™s what the Crossroads, one of downtownâ€™s most vibrant neighborhoods, really is. Who can tell me that a parking lot isnâ€™t an efficient use of space?

http://www.pitch.com/issues/2004-06-17/art.html

KCDevin · Post by **KCDevin** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 2:42 pm

parking lots suck, end of story. lol... We need to be dense, if you don't want our city to be dense, then you should move out... Hint Hint to anyone who supports them.

Post by **chrizow** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 2:44 pm

parking lots DO suck, but as that guy points out, KC's buildings arent full.

parking lots may suck, but 1/2-vacant buildings suck even more.

KCDevin · Post by **KCDevin** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 2:49 pm

well, office structures aren't full, but residential buildings definitely are.
That's why it's good that they are converting buildings to residential. It solves the vacancy problem for some buildings. I don't like it when people cry about a problem that is being fixed or will be fixed in the future.

paisstat · Post by **paisstat** » Sat Jun 19, 2004 2:46 am

Surface lots are indeed everywhere in this city, which makes our city less and less dense. The crossroads in particular could use major improvements in the realm of infil without destryoing the historic nauture or the scale of the neighborhood. Huge projectcs such as arenas or stadiums will bring no major changes unless the small-scale developments follow or coexist, this is something that has been proven time and time again.

tat2kc · Post by **tat2kc** » Sat Jun 19, 2004 8:44 am

I think the surface lots will begin to disappear, but only when the occupancy rates in the existing buildings reach a level that justify building new.

The use of the parking lots as a gathering space does present some interesting challenges though. I've seen people chatting and just hanging out in some lots. I've also seen bands play during first fridays and such. While parking lots may not be the best places for these things, it has happened. As the lots begin to change to structures, there needs to be an effort to create spaces that serve the same functions as gathering places. There are some spaces like that within the loop, around broadway and 9th, and 8th street west of broadway. Creating inviting seating areas, with fountians, maybe some artwork, would create some really great spaces to hang out. The good thing is that the crossroads district has a blank canvas as far as this aspect goes. We could create a very cool set of public spaces that increases the street level pedestrian traffic, and still gets rid of some of the surface lots. There will always be surface lots in the city, but we need to make sure that they are truly needed where they are, and make sure that they are attracively designed and maintained, adding to the vibrancy, not detracting from it.

trailerkid · Post by **trailerkid** » Sat Jun 19, 2004 11:39 pm

I think the point is to start to look at some of the things we deem as unwanted (surface lots) and instead try to see them in a different light. Many view anything in the city that is not dense as flawed, wrong and unbelonging. But we can also see these open spaces as opportunities to redefine the boundaries and expectations of urbanity. Kansas City has long been unconventional when compared to East Coast peers...let's keep it that way and create our own path rather than following aimlessly.

LyRiCaL GanGsTa · Post by **LyRiCaL GanGsTa** » Sun Jun 20, 2004 12:18 am

uhhh... what the ---- does that mean tk?

That is some cliche-sounding crap. The surface parking lots are there because this city is bent on sprawl & driving... no need to whitewash it. The surface lots are there because there isn't a MARKET for anything else. The buildings were torn down from neglect or tragedy and the neighbor bought the lot and asphalted it so he/she could park. Since KC residents have to drive everywhere parking is a neccesity. These tracts should be worth more and the area should have enough value to build on...but it's not, or else someone would build a new structure there. Instead, the land is not worth anything except a parking lot. Hopefully the area will have enough PEOPLE & COMMERCE that the surface lot owners will need to build because more space for people (not CARS) is needed. Until then we are stuck with the most and ugliest surface parking lots in America. No other city even comes close to ugly surface parking lot issue we have here. I'm glad this guy and others are trying to help.

KCDevin · Post by **KCDevin** » Sun Jun 20, 2004 12:25 am

why don't we replace the parking lots with green areas and parking garages? that way it looks more attractive as a city and more attractive to developers.

trailerkid · Post by **trailerkid** » Sun Jun 20, 2004 2:06 am

LyRiCaL GanGsTa wrote: The surface parking lots are there because this city is bent on sprawl & driving... no need to whitewash it. The surface lots are there because there isn't a MARKET for anything else. The buildings were torn down from neglect or tragedy and the neighbor bought the lot and asphalted it so he/she could park. Since KC residents have to drive everywhere parking is a neccesity. These tracts should be worth more and the area should have enough value to build on...but it's not, or else someone would build a new structure there. Instead, the land is not worth anything except a parking lot. Hopefully the area will have enough PEOPLE & COMMERCE that the surface lot owners will need to build because more space for people (not CARS) is needed. Until then we are stuck with the most and ugliest surface parking lots in America. No other city even comes close to ugly surface parking lot issue we have here. I'm glad this guy and others are trying to help.

Yes...the surface lots are there and many will remain for decades. And it is how we deal with them and our own perception that makes all the difference.

KCDevin · Post by **KCDevin** » Sun Jun 20, 2004 12:22 pm

not decades, maybe 2010 and 2020, but they definitely won't be there in 2030.

Post by **staubio** » Sun Jun 20, 2004 1:55 pm

LyRiCaL GanGsTa wrote:No other city even comes close to ugly surface parking lot issue we have here. I'm glad this guy and others are trying to help.

What metrics are you using to make that claim? I think surface lots are a problem in most cities. We have some bad areas, but all but the most dense cities are the same way. I just got back from St. Louis and there were plenty of surface lots there as well.

I agree that surface lots don't have to be a bad thing. It is all about perception. Yeah, it is cheesy, but I say it all the time: "choose your attitude"

tat2kc · Post by **tat2kc** » Sun Jun 20, 2004 3:51 pm

Most big cities have a least some surface lots, even in the core. They can be made to look nice, with short brick/stone walls, plantings, seating, etc. We simply don't have the commercial/business activity level to turn all the lots into garages. Plus, people seem to want ground level retail for every garage, which requires even more density in terms of business and residential. Until we do reach a level that justifies building parking structures, we do need to make sure that the surface lots present an attractive face to the street. It can be done, we just need to think of creative ways to do that.

GRID · Post by **GRID** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 1:02 am

It's all about placement and aesthetics of them and KC fails on both.

Denver has a ton of surface lots, as does StL, but most are on the outside of the pedestrian environment of those cities. There are no surface lots or very few turned into the financial center, they ring the towers on the back sides of the busy streets.