OFFICIAL - Buck O'Neil Bridge

[KCPowercat]

MKC is a huge downtown asset.

[AlkaliAxel]

Get rid of the DT airport and turn it into a park. Since the river itself is useless for recreation have most of the airport runway footprint be a huge lagoon. Have canoeing, pedal boats, etc, a passenger barge, walkways, bikeways, picnic shelters.

Been wanting something like this for years, although I disagree the River is useless for rec. They just don’t know how to capitalize (yet).

[TheLastGentleman]

KRAG: “Wow this city is so far behind, can’t make any big plans”

City: *makes a big plan*

KCRAG: “why are we wasting money on this”

[alejandro46]

KRAG: “Wow this city is so far behind, can’t make any big plans”

City: *makes a big plan*

KCRAG: “why are we wasting money on this”

"Big Plan" =/= "Pretty renderings and no funding."

[grovester]

KRAG: “Wow this city is so far behind, can’t make any big plans”

City: *makes a big plan*

KCRAG: “why are we wasting money on this”

"Big Plan" =/= "Pretty renderings and no funding."

Lots of opportunities for funding, BBB, portKC, branding/marketing/leasing rights.

Very KC to dismiss out of hand without investigating costs and whether they are one time or ongoing.

My bigger concern is competing with the West Bottoms project, bit of an overlap and don't think we're at the place where we could support both, though they would be on different timelines.

[alejandro46]

KRAG: “Wow this city is so far behind, can’t make any big plans”

City: *makes a big plan*

KCRAG: “why are we wasting money on this”

"Big Plan" =/= "Pretty renderings and no funding."

Lots of opportunities for funding, BBB, portKC, branding/marketing/leasing rights.

Very KC to dismiss out of hand without investigating costs and whether they are one time or ongoing.

My bigger concern is competing with the West Bottoms project, bit of an overlap and don't think we're at the place where we could support both, though they would be on different timelines.

All of those funding sources (except sponsorships) would be taking away funding and or limited time to apply for grants for other things that in my humble opionion may be more important and impactful. Ex. north loop removal, s. loop cap. As I said, I like the idea and remain open minded, but I think it's going to be hard to come up with $50M to get this up and going. Not counting ongoing maintenance expenses with a 50+ year old bridge.

I would say to the City, go and create a comprehensive development plan for affordable mix used in Harlem, reinforce levys if needed, and then either save old bridge or add a better connected path from the new bridge.

[KCPowercat]

KRAG: “Wow this city is so far behind, can’t make any big plans”

City: *makes a big plan*

KCRAG: “why are we wasting money on this”

what is the big plan?

[rxlexi]

My bigger concern is competing with the West Bottoms project, bit of an overlap and don't think we're at the place where we could support both, though they would be on different timelines.

In theory, this could be a part of what makes a larger project really interesting - two bridge-to-park destinations downtown, connected by what should already be an active levee trail, within easy biking distance of each other. Every downtown levee, including around MKC (despite the onerous regs, I'm sure), should have an accessible trail, a la the MO Riverfront Trail on L-385 in Riverside to Parkville.

You could also have folks boating/kayaking down the Kaw to a destination dock at the foot of the BoB park. IIRC boat ramp or a launch dock for rowing are a part of the long-term plan for the Rock Island Bridge.

Agree that there are some major challenges re: connectivity on the north side, and on-going costs. Possible that those are realistically insurmountable. But two awesome bridge/parks over our major natural rec feature, connected by land and water, would pretty much be the definition of an "iconic" destination for a river city. Love it, in theory.

[grovester]

My bigger concern is competing with the West Bottoms project, bit of an overlap and don't think we're at the place where we could support both, though they would be on different timelines.

In theory, this could be a part of what makes a larger project really interesting - two bridge-to-park destinations downtown, connected by what should already be an active levee trail, within easy biking distance of each other. Every downtown levee, including around MKC (despite the onerous regs, I'm sure), should have an accessible trail, a la the MO Riverfront Trail on L-385 in Riverside to Parkville.

You could also have folks boating/kayaking down the Kaw to a destination dock at the foot of the BoB park. IIRC boat ramp or a launch dock for rowing are a part of the long-term plan for the Rock Island Bridge.

Agree that there are some major challenges re: connectivity on the north side, and on-going costs. Possible that those are realistically insurmountable. But two awesome bridge/parks over our major natural rec feature, connected by land and water, would pretty much be the definition of an "iconic" destination for a river city. Love it, in theory.

Great points, hadn't thought about it from that angle.

[dukuboy1]

https://cityscenekc.com/converting-onei ... officials/

From the article:
The presentation made last Thursday indicated it would require at least $50 million to convert the 65 year-old span into a linear park, according to a preliminary budget prepared by the city.

No estimate was provided for the ongoing maintenance and operational costs of the bridge and park, or its potential ownership and management structure.

....

MoDOT has set aside $300,000 to fund a feasibility study for reusing the existing bridge, but has expressed no interest in owning and operating it after the replacement bridge is completed.

I'll reiterate what I said the other day- give me the south loop cap over this any day

So it turns out it actually is a choice between one or the other (after one individual lambasted me for suggesting this)...if we have $50 mil, put it towards the south loop deck, and have this project get in line behind all the others.

And again, I don't think this bridge will be effective until the north loop is removed.

yes, 100% do cap the South Loop for sure. That project has had a lot more momentum, research done, and renderings. That project is more important than this. The Buck O'Neil bridge/park is a great idea but it is just an idea with a basic rendering drawn up for a powerpoint. That project has a way to go. I understand why they are going for it. Take advantage of the money when the money is there to do something unique like this. If you can secure the funds for it it awesome. But if there is an "and/or" decision with the South Lopp, the Loop deck is where to go. That one is closer to shovel ready and the impact it can make to connect cross roads to downtown is a no brainer,

[dukuboy1]

Couple of posts make reference to the river being useless for recreation, which it is. Currents to swift and changing, hard to navigate and dangerous to ppl on it. However with Rock Island Bridge project and the recreation the plan there. I saw the idea of being able to Kayak, row, etc. to the BoB park proposed. Could they create some kind of calmer more protected canal of sorts from where the KAW meets the MO tot he park? In Essence take into the existing river bank and provide some barrier to the MO that will not interfere with whatever leeway you need for the minimal barge traffic the river gets and have this canal ppl could use between the 2 parks for a safer experience? Again just total brainstorm, pie in the sky idea. But I wonder if you could do that to create this area that would induce some more recreation along the trails and waterway

[Cratedigger]

Couple of posts make reference to the river being useless for recreation, which it is. Currents to swift and changing, hard to navigate and dangerous to ppl on it. However with Rock Island Bridge project and the recreation the plan there. I saw the idea of being able to Kayak, row, etc. to the BoB park proposed. Could they create some kind of calmer more protected canal of sorts from where the KAW meets the MO tot he park? In Essence take into the existing river bank and provide some barrier to the MO that will not interfere with whatever leeway you need for the minimal barge traffic the river gets and have this canal ppl could use between the 2 parks for a safer experience? Again just total brainstorm, pie in the sky idea. But I wonder if you could do that to create this area that would induce some more recreation along the trails and waterway

Maybe like Tulsa's Gathering Place area?

[beautyfromashes]

How about a zip line from the bridge to Berkeley?

[GRID]

My bigger concern is competing with the West Bottoms project, bit of an overlap and don't think we're at the place where we could support both, though they would be on different timelines.

In theory, this could be a part of what makes a larger project really interesting - two bridge-to-park destinations downtown, connected by what should already be an active levee trail, within easy biking distance of each other. Every downtown levee, including around MKC (despite the onerous regs, I'm sure), should have an accessible trail, a la the MO Riverfront Trail on L-385 in Riverside to Parkville.

You could also have folks boating/kayaking down the Kaw to a destination dock at the foot of the BoB park. IIRC boat ramp or a launch dock for rowing are a part of the long-term plan for the Rock Island Bridge.

Agree that there are some major challenges re: connectivity on the north side, and on-going costs. Possible that those are realistically insurmountable. But two awesome bridge/parks over our major natural rec feature, connected by land and water, would pretty much be the definition of an "iconic" destination for a river city. Love it, in theory.

Exactly. Nice to see you can see some of this recreation/entertainment vision I have always said that KC lacks. Just the fact that the kaw bridge seems to be proposed as an island unconnected to much else is just weird IMO. You have to figure out a way to connect this stuff together and make the entire thing a destination.

There doesn't have to be a massive development on the north side of the bridge for example. Maybe that will come later. But there at least has to be a park, a levee trail a great place to see the skyline or watch planes takes off from MKC. And that same trail to connect to the bridges, parks and residential districts.

I think it's great that the city is taking a good look at the Broadway bridge, but I seriously doubt there is a big plan or even a idea of how to plan and implement anything further from just the bridge. But I guess that's okay. At least the bridge will be saved till the city can figure out the rest, but if it takes 25 years to do the rest, I really don't even see the point.

This is what could be built on the north side along with trails along the levees.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Louis ... 85.7584557

The Harlem area could develop into bunch of live music venues like what has happened in some cities since it's so far from residential areas and the loud music won't bother people.

KCMO, KCK, NKC and the Airport need to get together and brainstorm up some sort of a master plan and start getting something going.

[DaveKCMO]

There is a small but "in-the-right-place" group that is focused on connecting our dysfunctional network of "island" trails. Unfortunately, none of them are elected officials.

[TheLastGentleman]

“Momentum builds to preserve Buck O’Neil Bridge as a linear park“

https://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/ ... -park.html

[KCPowercat]

KRAG: “Wow this city is so far behind, can’t make any big plans”

City: *makes a big plan*

KCRAG: “why are we wasting money on this”

what is the big plan?

this was a legit question TLG. Do you find preserving this bridge a big plan? I feel this is just piecemeal (KC speciality) if it's just making this bridge into a park and not hooking it into a bigger plan.

[DaveKCMO]

A big plan would be to connect the "last mile" between Harlem and the Northland trail network.

[normalthings]

Can KC support two bridges? Rock Island has a better re-use and redevelopment opportunities. Broadway has a better location on day 1 but minimal development opportunity and strong smells

[TheLastGentleman]

this was a legit question TLG. Do you find preserving this bridge a big plan? I feel this is just piecemeal (KC speciality) if it's just making this bridge into a park and not hooking it into a bigger plan.

I’m guess I’m confused how this isn’t a big plan. Because of the bridge’s location, it will tie into the river market, giving it an attraction on that west end. If the bridge is instead demolished, there will be nothing over there, since modot is destroying everything west of Broadway besides two buildings. On the other side of the river, I’d have to imagine it would lead to some sort of development in Harlem, with an improved connection into NKC. There’s already bicycling routes around the airport, so the pedestrianized bridge could tie into that somehow.

I’m just not sure where KCRAG’s hostility comes from on this project. The bridge exists, the work won’t be cheap but it’ll add something cool to the cityscape, which seems in line with this forum’s ethos. I mean it seems constant that people on here are like “how can a backwater like Omaha get cool things and KC can’t???”