Westport

[pash]

.

[brewcrew1000]

Why would any business want less people less in walking distance of there own business. More foot traffic would equal more money for these businesses, i cannot believe they would oppose this.

[FangKC]

Because most of the people frequenting Westport businesses come from outside the neighborhood. Adding residential near bars and restaurants increases the likelihood of noise complaints, and opposition every time a new bar opens.

I remember when that nightclub behind Video Mania was open. There was constant complaining from people living in houses nearby.

[mykn]

I have to agree. Residential in the core of Westport would be awful. Living a few blocks away from johns big deck was terrible enough until they got shut down. I can only imagine residents would be calling in noise complaints left and right if they lived in the core of Westport.

Offices could work well though.

[FangKC]

I recall a saying when I lived in NYC: Never live above a bar, a dry cleaners, or a "social club" in an Italian neighborhood.

[Demosthenes]

I have to agree. Residential in the core of Westport would be awful. Living a few blocks away from johns big deck was terrible enough until they got shut down. I can only imagine residents would be calling in noise complaints left and right if they lived in the core of Westport.

Offices could work well though.

I can't imagine the type of people to call in noise complaints would move into an apartment at that space. How do you move to a well known bar district and then expect the neighborhood to change to your schedule and expectations? The lofts above Port Fonda seem to work, so I don't see a problem. People live above bar districts in big cities everywhere.

All these complaints make me feel like we just don't live in a real city. It's sad, especially with all the momentum. It seems like everyone wants everything to stay the same just about everywhere in this city. They are absolutely frightened of change. What's funny is that once the change occurs, people usually open up to it pretty quickly. But getting it done... oh my. There is always a reason why people don't want things built- at all. They would rather all parking lots stay the way they are so they feel comfortable. Screw making the area better. Of all things this block could be, it should not be parking. So these people complaining about parking are just completely off their rocker. At the very least it should be turned into a little park or public square with a fountain in the middle. That could actually be pretty nice.

I too wish this could be a mixed use building with an underground garage, but this could still work. As long as it is designed well. It does indeed suck that such limited creativity is being used for such a crucial block. A common theme in Kansas City.

I just said the same thing about the 20th and Main hotel like an hour ago.

[FangKC]

The only reason new houses on raw land in the suburbs get built is because no one yet lives in the neighborhood when the developer builds them. Otherwise, there would be complaints about everything being done.

Ask any developer who has built a sub-division in stages instead of all at once. The new home buyers complain about the new houses being built on their block after their house: noise, dust, mud, water run-off, disruptions, etc.

Ask any homeowner doing major renovations on their house about their neighbors' reactions.

If most Americans had their way, they would live on a 10 acre lot in a 10,000 sq. foot house, and expect the City to provide all the services they expect, and they wouldn't have to pay any taxes for them.

There are people on Facebook complaining about new infill houses being built near Bancroft School by Brad Pitt's Make it Right Foundation. Some of them actually would rather have the vacant lots. Some people are genetically predisposed to be displeased.

There are neighborhoods that are pretty close in to downtown that have demanded, and gotten, their neighborhood zoning changed to single family houses only, so no new apartment buildings can be constructed. They have no idea that doing this is cutting their noses off to spite their faces, because continuing to insist that the City remain low density only means that their won't be retail in their neighborhoods (and they complain about that as well--lack of retail). They also don't realize that this model of density means the City will not have enough revenue to provide services, and maintain infrastructure. A City has to maintain a certain level of density just to survive.

Then they wonder why the City doesn't have money for parks, to maintain their streets and sewers, hire cops, remove trash from dumping, etc.

I was just reading a statistic that 34.7 percent of KCMO households are occupied by 1 person. That is one out of three households in the City. That is about 67,000 households. There are 109,000 households occupied by families. A married couple is considered a family. There are only about 21,000 households with four people living in them.

Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find any stats on how many single people are occupying single family homes vs. multi-family dwellings.

The majority of households in KCMO are either single people living alone, or two-person households.

That has huge implications to population density required to maintain retail, and fund the city.

https://data.kcmo.org/Census/1940-2010- ... /5kpi-bku2

[pash]

.

[mykn]

I have to agree. Residential in the core of Westport would be awful. Living a few blocks away from johns big deck was terrible enough until they got shut down. I can only imagine residents would be calling in noise complaints left and right if they lived in the core of Westport.

Offices could work well though.

I can't imagine the type of people to call in noise complaints would move into an apartment at that space. How do you move to a well known bar district and then expect the neighborhood to change to your schedule and expectations? The lofts above Port Fonda seem to work, so I don't see a problem. People live above bar districts in big cities everywhere.

I never called in a complaint, however I lived 2 blocks away and every night could hear the idiot with the acoustic guitar play the same "Staind" and other 90s radio rock favorites. I've heard if you lived in the building next to JBD, you have to sign a waver about the noise, not sure if that's right though.

[aknowledgeableperson]

That has huge implications to population density required to maintain retail, and fund the city.

If you want greater density then why not also demand smaller living spaces be built. Afterall, does a single person need 700 or 800 sq ft of living space, even 600? Wouldn't 400 to 500 sq ft do? How many additional living spaces would One Light have if each apartment was reduced 150 sq ft? Wonder if there would still be a demand if the living spaces were smaller. Just saying this because aren't the urban living spaces smaller in cities like NY, Chic, SF and many other denser cities?

[FangKC]

Yes, one could say that. However, a city can rebuilt density in other ways that don't require people living in a studio apartment.

Build more multi-story apartment and condo buildings.
Allow new apartment buildings to be built on lots that had them originally. In some neighborhoods, this is no longer allowed.
Allow residential lots to have a mother-in-law building on the parcel. Many single family house lots are large enough to have one.
Allow vacant residential lots to have an infill duplex on it (side-by-side, or two-story).
Change former retail and industrial zoning overlays to residential. There are many lots along major arteries that are retail or industrial. The City doesn't require as many retail and industrial parcels as we have in the past. In many cases, those businesses have left those areas, and the parcels are vacant.
Reduce assessed value, and property taxes, on properties that include structured or underground parking instead of large surface parking lots.

22 percent of households in KCMO are occupied by people over age 55. The aging population is growing.

Create more senior-specific housing that allows single and married seniors to move out of larger homes, but stay in their current neighborhood. Place them along transit routes. In some of the urban neighborhoods that have gotten their zoning changed to single family houses only, this essentially prevents new senior-specific apartment buildings. Many seniors won't downsize if they have to leave their current neighborhood. In addition, there are also many neighborhoods in KCMO that lack enough smaller single family houses where seniors could move. This also would free up larger houses for more families with children. Also, the City should encourage creation of small row houses with shared walls, on one level, and no yard to maintain. This would appeal to many seniors who want to continue to own their home, but don't want to do yard work as they age. Senior-specific housing groupings also provide an opportunity to seniors to help each other live alone. My grandmother lived in one of these situations until she died at 103, and it allowed her to never have to go to a nursing home. A lot of seniors are forced into nursing home situations because they simply have no other options. Their children don't want them living alone. My grandmother was able to do so because the other seniors in her senior apartment complex checked on her regularly--as she had done for others when she was younger.

Medicare and Medicaid often end up paying for seniors living in nursing homes who don't have enough income to pay for nursing home care themselves. They are often still ambulatory and capable, but cannot live without some help. This would save society money if they could be in shared living situations like my grandmother, since even low-income housing subsidies for seniors are cheaper than a nursing home, or assisted living.

Impose tighter restrictions on new developments in the City limits to encourage smaller house lots, traditional street grids, and less unused land in the sub-division. The City needs to stop allowing meandering streets that end in cul-de-sacs. These types of developments have too few dwellings per sq. acre, and too much land is lost to allowing areas to remain natural, or spacing between sub-divisions. The density levels of these new neighborhoods will be a huge financial drain on the City as they age. It also has implications for public safety. Police and fire vehicles cannot travel to addresses inside these neighborhoods using a traditional grid of connecting streets. Often one has to wind around unnecessarily because there are not connecting streets between parallel streets following ridge-tops. In some cases, people drive places they could walk because there is no way to cross over to the next block. A City has to right to impose a requirement on traditional street grids and parcel sizes on developers--especially since these new developments become the City's responsibility to maintain and service in the future.



The development pattern below cannot be allowed to continue. If raw land within the KCMO city limits is allowed to be developed this way, it will become a drain on the City budget as these neighborhoods age. These houses will not provide enough tax revenue to pay for their infrastructure and services. As the populations age and houses become occupied by one or two people, these neighborhoods will not be able to support retail nearby, and retail will leave. There won't be enough retail sales taxes to augment property taxes. As people retire, the City will lose their earnings taxes.

If the City ever loses the earnings tax in a regularly scheduled election, sales and property taxes will have to be raised on everyone because the fixed infrastructure costs will remain. Because these neighborhoods are less dense, they won't provide the same amount of revenue as older city neighborhoods per sq. mile.

Right now, Kansas City depends on the growth of sales and property taxes in newer neighborhoods to augment the budget. But if these neighborhoods are allowed to be less dense, when they become old and blighted, they will not longer provide that same revenue. Because there are fewer houses per sq. mile, eventually the infrastructure maintenance will become more costly than the neighborhoods can't provide.



City leaders need to begin educating residents about these fundamental problems. They need to explain that growth patterns aren't sustainable the way they are now. They need to teach people that one of the reasons why retail leaves their neighborhood, and won't return without City incentives, is because the population per sq. mile is too low. Residents also need to understand that businesses and companies won't locate, or stay, in low density neighborhoods. Retail provides a lot of neighborhood jobs. If there are no jobs near your house, one has to spend more of one's income to commute to work.

I have less concern about the square footage of a dwelling. You can have 1500 sq. foot houses as long as they are on smaller lots, and closer together. A lot of density in KCMO is simply lost to SFH lots are that too large. If one is willing to pay for a large lot, fine. But there should be a much higher tax on a larger SFH lot to make up for the loss of density. The loss of other houses that could be on that land, and occupants, that are paying property taxes on the structure's value, sales and earnings taxes. If you have a house lot that is big enough for three houses with small yards, and it only has one house on it, you are essentially deducting the City revenue from those two extra households. However, The property taxes on the extra sized lot certainly don't make up for those other revenue losses.

You can have 600-750 sq. foot one-bedroom apartments with one person living in them even, but they need to be in denser, multi-dwelling situations.

By the way, I lived in a 390 s.f. studio for 10 years when I lived in NYC. I personally had no problem doing it. It never bothered me at all. It had a kitchen, bathroom with tub, and two closets. At one point, I had a friend sleeping on my couch for four months, and we did fine--even in that small space. I worked days, and he worked nights. I'm not saying that everyone should, but many single people would be surprised that they could if they tried.

[JBmidtown]

Is there any neighborhoods in the urban core that have demanded low density residential or is this more in the outlying neighborhoods?

[FangKC]

It's mostly happening in the suburbs on raw land that is being developed.

However, there are neighborhoods that have gotten approved single family house-only zoning that prevents new apartment buildings from being constructed. Among those are Pendleton Heights, Scarritt-Renaissance, and the Westside.

Columbus Park asked for a reduction in density on their north end parcels that are to be developed. I don't think they asked for, or received, any official zoning restrictions, but just asked the developers to reduce the density at community input meetings, which was done.

I personally disagree with these new zoning designations, and think that the City should have rejected them. These are neighborhoods that have lost population density over time.

This short-sighted when one considers the overall financial future of the City. I constantly read complaints on Facebook and in the Northeast News about loss of, or lack of retail, serving these neighborhoods. Yet, people don't understand that retail won't return unless population increases. People are going to have to live with what they requested I guess.

[JBmidtown]

Damnit, the Northeast has the greatest potential outside of downtown as a liveable, walkable, sustainable and dense neighborhood. Independence Ave is one of the few places outside of downtown that already feels like a part of a real city. It has the most cultural diversity in KC. I wonder if it's just suburbanites trying to move in on hip victorian (and other) houses while enforcing their crappy suburban culture on the surrounding area or if it's long term residents who are completely missing the benefit of density for their neighborhoods? Either way, what a loss

As for the westside...eh. Whatever. 17th and Summit is the only area that actually seems suitable for retail anyways. Unless the westside has more than that hill. I've never taken the time to explore the area even though I worked there for a year and a half. Nothing there that's really enticing, I'd rather spend time on the boulevard.

[FangKC]

It's both.

[aknowledgeableperson]

What you addressed is one issue of density but the other issue is the density being built in the downtown area and nearby. Yeah, some talk about the low height of buildings but fail to address the density of what is actually being built.
In most of the senior housing I have seen the sq ft has been 400 to 450 sq ft, and that's with a one bedroom not a studio. With some of that construction in the downtown area you might come close to increasing the units by 50% or more.
With regards to suburban areas wanting lower density most of the time the developers in the past have proposed more lots (thereby more sales) but the surrounding neighbors object.
Regarding unused land in new developments much of that land is set aside for park land which is usually along creek beds and used for walking trails and protect any floodplain. Just imagine if those current practices were used in the city core when developed. Brookside and the Plaza are just two that would have a different look.
If you want to change how the property tax is levied then I believe that is up to the state not the city.

[FangKC]

It comes down to education that needs to be done by City leaders. Residents need to be educated on long-term financial implications for the City by allowing such low density. It's irresponsible development--especially for future generations that will be left with vast parts of the City with not enough density and population to pay for things.

People can still have walking trails, and parkland, but they can't have it in the way that hurts the City and all the other residents living in it.

People already complain now about City services: not fixing their infrastructure, picking up trash that has been dumped in their neighborhood, overgrown lots, police not responding quickly enough, etc. etc. You think it's bad now. It will only get worse in the future.

There is a matrix for successful cities to exist. A mathematics where certain density levels have to be achieved and maintained to provide enough revenue to fund the City. Single family houses in the densest neighborhoods don't pay to run the City. There has to be density to attract retail, and jobs. It's a combination of property taxes, retail sales taxes, earnings taxes, and other surcharges and taxes that fund the budget. The matrix can change over time if not balanced correctly, and then you get situations like Detroit that now are at the point where they can't afford to fund even the basic city services. Then the city has to raise all taxes so high that residents and businesses flee--making the situation even worse.

At some point, City leaders have to be willing to say "no" to these residents who want such low density; who object to how many houses are in the next sub-division. They have to be willing to lose elections over this principle, and the people who win the next time have to understand the fundamentals as well, and also say no.

Being a leader means you sometimes have to tell people they can't have what they want. Or explain that if they get what they want, they are going to have to pay significantly higher taxes for the privilege.

If people want to live in such a low density environment, they need to move out into the country--outside of city limits--and commute.

Otherwise they are just creating a city that is destined for failure in the future. Again, one only need to look at Detroit to see what can happen without good stewardship.

Listen, if we were living in NYC, former mayor Giuliani would have told those people that they need to shut the #$% up, and if they didn't like living in a city, then they should get the hell out and go live in the country. He would have told them that what they were requesting was financially irresponsible, and would eventually ruin the city. And he wouldn't have cared less if he pissed them off. For that matter, former mayor Bloomberg would have told them the same thing, which he often did. Those mayors realized they had the WHOLE city to worry about, just not one neighborhood or sub-division.

[pash]

.

[kboish]

It's mostly happening in the suburbs on raw land that is being developed.

However, there are neighborhoods that have gotten approved single family house-only zoning that prevents new apartment buildings from being constructed. Among those are Pendleton Heights, Scarritt-Renaissance, and the Westside.

I believe parts of the Roanoke neigborhood have downsized their zoning as well.

[taxi]

I have said it before and I will say it again. FANG FOR MAYOR!