Turn the North Loop into a bigger living/working district?

[AlkaliAxel]

The City spends a lot of its' resources going into City parks and relocating homeless camps, and having to then do park "blitzes" (their word) cleaning up associated trash and debris from the camp.

Having parks that go under the bridges would provide another perfect situation for the homeless to take up residence under the bridge. This is already happening all central KCMO. One bridge recently came close to being physically compromised because of a large fire caused by a homeless camp.

I have no objection to placing a park one of the blocks, but a linear park is a bad, bad idea. Once it becomes parkland, it will take a city-wide vote to decommission it if it becomes failed, and also another drain on City finances.

I'm not confident about creating more parks downtown. Ilus Davis Park is barely used. We are already creating a new downtown linear deck park over I-670. That should be enough.

Every new park that is created stretches the parks and public works budgets. It means less money for long-time parks in poor neighborhoods, which already get the short-end of the stick financially.

No one seems to be willing to say this, but the fact of the matter is that KCMO has too much parkland for its' population and financial health.

Don't forget we still have Penn Valley Park just sitting right there too

[FangKC]

And Richard Berkley Riverfront Park.

[kas1]

Rule #1 in designing a lifeless place is to separate it from the life of the city. It really must be raised to street level.

We're talking about something that slopes down about 10 feet from the adjacent streets, just enough to provide clearance beneath the bridges. It's not gonna be cut off from anything.

Albert is correct. It all needs to be at grade and filled in. I just really don't see any appeal in walking under those bridges. The best parks are the ones with views and that are spread out to do rec activities. Just let the people walk and see the city, not a tunnel or grass slopes.

Also you'd prob find needles under those bridge tunnels within 2 weeks

The trench is 300 feet wide. Nothing that's built there is going to be spread out. And the middle of downtown is not the right place for sports stuff. That takes up a lot of space and only accommodates a few people at a time.

If you build a linear park at grade level then people aren't going to use it to "walk and see the city". Your only options for walking throughout it are to walk along the very edge of it so that you can use the crosswalks to properly cross all of the intersecting streets, or you can walk through the actual park and then try to cross those streets mid-block. The first option isn't even making use of the park at all and the second option is also not great. If I'm using a park I don't want to spend the entire time thinking about cars and how to avoid them. If you want to get any benefit from having a bunch of park space all next to each other then the space needs to be physically tied together. And you can tie the space together by spending less money because the solution is already there.

Central Park wouldn't be Central Park if people had to cross a street every time they moved 300 feet.

If you flatten out that whole thing and run streets through it then you're not getting the National Mall. You're getting Ilus W Davis Park on steroids.

[AlkaliAxel]

Ilus W Davis Park on steroids.

My guess is that they'll leave on block open for a park with some stuff. The rest will be developed.

The downtown park will be the 670 Deck with those giant steps & the amphitheater they're rumored to use it for.

I think the real battle for the north loop is gonna making sure they don't build bland or suburban style development on the new parcels, whether that be office or mixed-use.

[grovester]

-Capping or filling the north loop will be expensive.

If the linear park concept is pursued (which I'm not endorsing) then hopefully they wouldn't actually fill in 100% of the land. imo it would be better to leave it at least partially below grade so that people can walk underneath the intersecting streets to get from one park section to another. In the short-term all of the existing bridges could be left in place. When they reach the end of their service life then they can be rebuilt in a way that's better optimized for the current land use (eg make the bridge segments shorter and therefore cheaper to maintain, reduce noise caused by vibration, improve aesthetics). Filling in all of the land and then using it as disjointed park space seems really uninspired. A sunken park is more unique and makes better use of what's already there. To be clear, I'm not saying not to do any fill at all. Just something less than 100%.

Rule #1 in designing a lifeless place is to separate it from the life of the city. It really must be raised to street level. The streets next to and crossing it need to be calmed for safe crossing. This is no different than a town square in many county seats in Missouri. Have you been to the square in downtown Bentonville? It is perfectly safe at city-life level and is VERY alive. City Garden in STL is somewhat successful as a more modern example. Our excellent grid downtown helps us by spreading out the traffic volumes, allowing every cross street to handle a calmed section at this park.

Perhaps some sections of this park use the grade for underground parking.

Every bit of that trench should be public parking. Eliminate that fake necessity once and for all.

[Karambit25]

I hope they don’t chop it up. All that space could go to one developer or company making it very attractive. Of course any agreement would require an ironclad contract with everything going the city’s way. Could we trust someone at the city competent and honest enough to make that deal?

I would hate to see that trench chopped up. And park space is not a good idea unless the developer does it privately. The city does not need more public space. Not here, not now.

[FangKC]

It's a bad idea for one developer to control that much land. The City should put out RFPs to develop one block at a time, or even half the block depending on how big it is.

[chaglang]

This was fully hashed out in the other North Loop thread.

Some cons to doing this:
1-There is a lot of developable land in DT but this land happens to be directly adjacent to RM, and on/near the streetcar route, which makes it among the most valuable.
2-Other developable parcels are owned by a variety of people, who may not be inclined to develop the parcels. Developing the Loop land could be done by RFP from a single entity. Redevelopment could happen comparatively quickly.
3-Capping or filling the north loop will be expensive. Buildings generate tax money. Parks don't. So there are no future dollars to offset the cost of the highway removal.
4-There's no evidence that a park would spur any adjacent redevelopment at all.
5-The park would add a huge amount of land to the Parks Department, who are already underfunded. Which means we would be building infrastructure we can't afford. I am told that's a no-no.
6- From a planning standpoint, it replaces a scar with another scar. And it's out of scale with the rest of the area, especially the RM.
7-There's no evidence that a park this size is needed at all. It would be far easier to eventually buy single parcels and make them pocket parks.

Tl;dr: I don't see how the city can afford for the loop land be revenue negative.

I disagree with everything in your post.
1. As you can see in this plan, there are a ton of way underused properties within a couple blocks of this site. There is also a lot of good density very close to this site. Parks are most valuable when placed most conveniently to where people are or where they pass by. A park like this would be the center of life of the city. It needs all these adjacent daily users to be successful. I can think of no better place in KC for a heavily used park.
2. If the value of their land is increased by this park, they are far more likely to sell/develop it sooner than later. If we add all this new acreage for development it will lower the value of their land making it unlikely to develop for decades and decades.
3. This would likely be filled, not capped. It was hauled off and can be hauled in. Sure, parks themselves are not profitable, but if done right, they will far offset their cost by making the land for blocks in all directions more valuable....and generating revenue.
4. ...that you know of. Other cities have capitalized on quality urban park space. Check Klyde Warren Park in Dallas. Balboa Park, Washington Square in SF, High line, Piedmont Park in Atlanta, Forest Park in STL, Grant/Millennium Park. Does Central Park in NYC make that part of Manhattan more valuable? If the park is marginally designed or maintained like Penn Valley Park, then sure. If done right and designed by the best national urban park designers, this could generate as much development excitement as the streetcar.
5. There are many other ways to fund parks. City Garden in STL is one example. 'Friends of' partnerships and non-profit foundations are common.
6. Jesus!...someone really hates dog parks, children's playgrounds, gardens, amphitheaters and fountains. For all these urban dwellers with no yard, this becomes their yard, their garden, their playground.
7. Pocket parks are good, no doubt, but well done large urban parks are what sets a community apart and will likely draw additional destinations nearby. Dream big to become a destination for out-of-towners or dream small and create small parklets.

Lastly, one way to create a place not worth caring about is to open a giant swath for national developers to build large, modern buildings that serve themselves more than serving the life of the city. Boring. This space could be the new heart of downtown, really all of KC, or it can become more forgettable development.

So the park is revenue positive if all the surrounding property is developed, and the land values increase to cover the unknown maintenance costs, and it's at least partly funded by a private entity? How long before that happens, before it breaks even? And the interim shortfall is made up how? You could start to change my mind if there was some kind of pro forma that came along with this proposal. Has anyone done that legwork?

Honestly, the design and amenities offered aren't all that exciting. If we're going to lose money on it, let's have a bigger, more original vision for the space and make it an national destination. This is kind of a stretched out Loose Park or shrunken down Swope Park, which are a nice enough parks, but probably aren't drawing many people from out of town specifically to visit them.

I don't hate parks, please don't gaslight. We simply see the potential of this space differently.

There's nothing wrong with large, modern buildings or national developers. You probably don't want most local developers handling this.

[kas1]

I'm in Krakow right now. There's a linear park that loops around the historic center which at some points is as wide as the north loop trench, and it follows the same design principles that I laid out in this thread: it consists primarily of trees, paths, and benches, there are only a few intersecting streets, and there's a pedestrian tunnel beneath a busy intersection which connects the park to a plaza in front of the train station. There are plenty of people in the park itself, but the tunnel is absolutely packed. It has at least a dozen micro retail spaces and it connects seamlessly with the environment at all three of its exit points, and it's probably the most crowded space I've found so far in the city. Constant streams of people going back and forth. And it's not even difficult to cross the streets here on foot. But there's no reason to do it at all when the option is right there to just not do it.

I really don't get the current American obsession of "programming" 47 different uses into every public space. All people need is pleasant open space. People already mastered this hundreds of years ago.

And again, I don't think that a park is the best use for this land, and financing is dubious even if it is. But if someone does find the money for it then for the love of God don't spend all of it just to make the terrain worse than it started. Plant trees, plant grass, pave a trail, and you're 90% done.

StreetView from the tunnel entrance

[moderne]

If European cities tore down city defensive walls and turned them into parks US cities can do the same with freways.

[smh]

I really don't get the current American obsession of "programming" 47 different uses into every public space. All people need is pleasant open space. People already mastered this hundreds of years ago.

Preach. This is what I keep saying as re: South Loop Cap. Program it a bit, but resist the urge to try to do it all.

[daGOAT]

Keep it simple, most people just want a place to sit, run, enjoy a meal in nature instead of on concrete. Movie screenings and group yoga would probly be popular. A jungle gym would be smart if the city wants families to keep moving downtown. I think there should be at least something iconic that screams Kansas City since it will be heavily used by tourists and transplants, and likely be showcased as another example of United States reclaiming space from the interstate system.

[daGOAT]

My mistake thought we were talking about south loop lol North Loop shouldn’t be a park but maybe a classic Parisian style Independence boulevard would appease some.

[SHPNeighbor]

My idea for the north loop has been to fill it in back up to grade and put in underground parking. Then turn Independence boulevard back into what it should rightfully be and reconnect the river market/columbus park/pendleton heights/etc. with this beautiful boulevard. The capped/filled in North loop would be a park and then develop all the parking lots on the south side into apartments/offices/retail/etc. the new Independence boulevard would be a perfect candidate for another east/west streetcar line.