dnweava wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2024 5:24 pm
I just snapped this pic. This is 1 hour before rush hour, constant stream of cars going both directions on oak. This is why I won't shut up about
not sure if the photo of an empty 6 lane road is supposed to be serious or ironic
Yeah, that's like a mile of roadway in the middle of a city during a weekday close to peak hour with like 35 "moving" cars on it total in both directions. And yet it has the width of a six lane street. Not sure this pic does many favors. The streets in Downtown KC are not busy.
I'm not saying they should close Oak, but there really is a lot of available capacity on downtown streets.
Context...
That's 35 driving by the site in 30 seconds outside of rush hour and not during an event. Yea, it's not Metcalf but it's a constant flow of cars all day long. Close Walnut and Baltimore for the cap, close grand for events, now put 4 streets worth of traffic on main Street and watch the streetcar never be in time again making the 100s of millions in investments be completely worthless.
not sure if the photo of an empty 6 lane road is supposed to be serious or ironic
Yeah, that's like a mile of roadway in the middle of a city during a weekday close to peak hour with like 35 "moving" cars on it total in both directions. And yet it has the width of a six lane street. Not sure this pic does many favors. The streets in Downtown KC are not busy.
I'm not saying they should close Oak, but there really is a lot of available capacity on downtown streets.
Context...
That's 35 driving by the site in 30 seconds outside of rush hour and not during an event. Yea, it's not Metcalf but it's a constant flow of cars all day long. Close Walnut and Baltimore for the cap, close grand for events, now put 4 streets worth of traffic on main Street and watch the streetcar never be in time again making the 100s of millions in investments be completely worthless.
Most of the cars in this image are parked....There are 12,000 cars per hour capacity of pavement width but only 30-40 moving vehicles on this 1 mile stretch. So about 8% capacity I think that works out to? If you used a more reasonable lane size, you could up the capacity further.
I dont think that Baltimore AND Walnut are proposed to close for the cap? I agree we should keep Baltimore and Walnut open.
I DO think that regardless of what happens rail in downtown needs to seek a dedicated ROW (dedicated lanes on Grands, elevated line, tunneling, etc). Streetcar route on main won't work out long term on its current path but active traffic management will help.
Why in the world would anybody be arguing on this site for closing Oak? It's counterintuitive to any city planning or good urban practices to make these superblocks.
Let's push the Royals for good design not just take what they want and hide under "we're good neighbors, this is a neighborhood park". Who cares "how dead Oak feels"?
Usage of Oak, Grand, or any other street downtown TODAY isn't the issue, we are trying to plan for our city's future and undo the mistakes of the past. If we plan on our downtown being vibrant and urban in 20 years we need to make sure we aren't permanently closing major streets through downtown. Ironic that something like this has to be said on a development forum.
shinatoo wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2024 10:44 am
Usage of Oak, Grand, or any other street downtown TODAY isn't the issue, we are trying to plan for our city's future and undo the mistakes of the past. If we plan on our downtown being vibrant and urban in 20 years we need to make sure we aren't permanently closing major streets through downtown. Ironic that something like this has to be said on a development forum.
And that future will be less vibrant without the stadium. Find a way to get both done. Seems like a minor compromise on the part of the Royals to alleviate a lot of opposition.
I seriously doubt few if any will be open to the public unless you are handicapped. Would imagine the rest are for players and employees plus a few VIPs.
shinatoo wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2024 10:44 am
Usage of Oak, Grand, or any other street downtown TODAY isn't the issue, we are trying to plan for our city's future and undo the mistakes of the past. If we plan on our downtown being vibrant and urban in 20 years we need to make sure we aren't permanently closing major streets through downtown. Ironic that something like this has to be said on a development forum.
I find it ironic that many things need to be said on a development forum.
I'm wondering who all were involved in the recent poll the Crossroads Community Association did? I've talked to three business owners tonight, all three boarder the stadium site and they say they were not asked to participate in the poll. Was the poll for business owners only? Business owners and residents?
I would like to see a poll of business owners only because I have a feeling the results would be drastically different. These three business owners are all in support of the stadium.
I support downtown stadium 100%. Was in the crossroads tonight, East Crossroads, after dinner. It was buzzing with activity. As I drove through the area and around the proposed site I gathered some more perspective.
Crossroads will thrive without the stadium. But stadium could really help jump start infill development outside of the footprint of the stadium.
Really wish the stadium could fit in the area of Grand to Oak West to East & Truman Rd to 17th street North South. That would be ideal. But I don’t think it could happen.
Would love to see the existing parking lots around the EV site get built up, vertically, into garage structures to help quell the parking hand wringing. I would think as a property owner of those lots developing them into garages would be a financial windfall. Not only for the ballpark parking but monthly fees for workers & residents once EV get developed. I’d think trying to maximize your existing lots, assuming you don’t sell them, into parking structures would be a smart investment
dukuboy1 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2024 12:31 am
I support downtown stadium 100%.
Same here. I'm not very 'online' so not seeing all the negativity described here. Between mine and a sibling's household, we're four yes votes and think the EC site tied in with the loop cap park and many other cultural institutions is a grand slam, pardon the pun.
I do know many downtown residents are 100% behind a downtown park and have serious questions about this location and it's impact on the crossroads neighborhood. They are coming around but at first they were definitely thinking of voting no.
I've been told we will be seeing and hearing from the Chiefs this week after delaying due to the parade shooting. Royals will start up their activity soon as well and while it's very common for CBA's to not be finalized before a vote, they're trying to get it done.
KCPowercat wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2024 2:47 pm
The airport CBA was finalized before the council would even approve the matter to go on the ballot if memory serves.
While it doesn't have to be final final they would really help their vote to have agreement on major items before people vote.
The CBA for the airport was not finalized before the vote. It wasn't approved until 15 months after the vote, before the city council signed off on the final agreement with the builder.
I agree they need to at least nail down the big items.
DColeKC wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2024 11:12 pm
I'm wondering who all were involved in the recent poll the Crossroads Community Association did? I've talked to three business owners tonight, all three boarder the stadium site and they say they were not asked to participate in the poll. Was the poll for business owners only? Business owners and residents?
I would like to see a poll of business owners only because I have a feeling the results would be drastically different. These three business owners are all in support of the stadium.
The survey was sent to all CCA members. Towards the end, the link started getting circulated to non-members. The comments suggested this was a campaign from the “no” camp.
My very unscientific and anecdotal neighborhood poll puts it at about 55/45 no, but that was 60/40 a couple weeks ago. People seem to be coming around as questions get answered. I still think this is extremely close, and probably put the smart money on no.
Hopefully the campaigns from both teams go a long way to answer a lot of serious questions still floating around.
It just seems rushed with alot of questions. As someone else pointed out a month away from the vote and we haven't gotten a rendering from the Chiefs?
I don't understand why they couldn't have waited til the fall or even next spring to get this on the ballot and hammer out all the details.
Perfect opportunity to vote now and send them back to the drawing board. This should absolutely not be rushed since the tax and leases don't expire for SEVEN YEARS.
We are literally not even comparable to STL. They have been in that location since the white flight urban renewal era when they also bulldozed like 100 square blocks for the arch.
Plus their previous stadium had a 60,000 seat capacity when all that parking was built compared to our 34,000. Anyone making that comparison is straight up doing it in bad faith or ignorance.
