KCRag Forum

kcjak wrote:

flyingember wrote:

NorthOak wrote:
Neither place is a place for a huge parking garage, especially when we have in excess of 100,000 parking spots downtown. We haven't even scratched the surface to need new parking.

And yet according to the Downtown Summit, companies looking to relocate don't think that's entirely true.

It's because about 1/3 is time limited on street and 7/12 is limited to a specific building and the last 1/12 likely isn't close enough

It's not numbers, it availability and access that's the big issue.

If more parking would go shared and people would walk three blocks to work then parking availability jumps a ton.
I bet every parking garage and lot downtown could support another 4-5000 workers within three blocks without adding any more spots

KCPowercat wrote:Actually the north loop going down would be required for Kauffman II and would still have I-35 access from the west and 69 access from the north and would build in parking needed in the current cavern.
I don't think it's the best spot for it but I wouldn't be against it.

I wasn't aware of that as quick highway access seemed to be one of the pluses they were touting for a new stadium.
Thanks, and good to know that the north loop would go away with a new stadium there.

flyingember wrote: We're not building for today's environment, we're building for 50 years from now.

I can't disagree more - that's total BS. If you don't like the idea of putting the garage at 7th & Walnut that's fine.
But you're just coming up with negatives that are senseless just to argue?
Your first comment was "there is no difference between 5th st and 7th street" for the garage.
I spoke to that and you came back with "we have to save this surface parking lot for another 50 yrs of what-might-happen?"
We're talking about 1 block. Out of???....10 empty blocks in the north loop?
Is long range a factor? Of course it should always be considered.
But acres of surface lots in the North loop have sat empty for 50 years with not even a plan in sight.
You build for today and near future while considering long-term goals.

kcjak wrote:

flyingember wrote:

NorthOak wrote:
Neither place is a place for a huge parking garage, especially when we have in excess of 100,000 parking spots downtown. We haven't even scratched the surface to need new parking.

And yet according to the Downtown Summit, companies looking to relocate don't think that's entirely true.

kcjak Can you please fix your quote, you did it wrong and attributed my username to his quote.
I don't want to be associated with anything he's said today.
flyingmember said:

flyingember wrote: Neither place is a place for a huge parking garage, especially when we have in excess of 100,000 parking spots downtown. We haven't even scratched the surface to need new parking.

.

Let's see. Build it on 7th and people can walk across either of the bridges to the City Market. I thought walking across bridges was an obstacle since many complain about the bridges over the south loop.

aknowledgeableperson wrote:Let's see. Build it on 7th and people can walk across either of the bridges to the City Market. I thought walking across bridges was an obstacle since many complain about the bridges over the south loop.

It is. Those bridges are way worse than the south loop.

pash wrote:

flyingember wrote: Neither place is a place for a huge parking garage, especially when we have in excess of 100,000 parking spots downtown. We haven't even scratched the surface to need new parking.

flyingember wrote:I bet every parking garage and lot downtown could support another 4-5000 workers within three blocks without adding any more spots

And yet you've argued repeatedly in the Cerner thread that it would be flatly impossible to add a few thousand workers to a hypothetical Cerner headquarters downtown, because parking. ...

That's so not what I said and it's not even the same thing.

http://kcrag.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=1 ... rs#p549630

As you can see to mimic the Bannister campus we're talking approx. 5x 3200 person towers. Let's hypothetically maximize the chance of sharing parking by spreading them out around downtown and using 9 city blocks around them for parking, figuring that's a reasonable walking distance.

You need to find around 355 free spots per block to not build parking for Cerner. In terms of current structures to add parking that's one tower and three garages the size of the one NW corner of 12th/Grand. So for each of these five buildings you need an entire block of parking that's 6-7 stories tall. That's a huge amount of parking spaces.

If you halve the building size and double to 10x buildings you increase the difficulty of the problem not because it's harder to find available parking for less people but because finding land to build on downtown becomes increasingly difficult without overlapping with another high density use that only makes finding parking even harder than before the doubling of structures.

A downtown cerner campus would be the greatest concentration of cars downtown. It would require the equivalent of 2-3 blocks filled with parking to the height of One Light. Think about what that would look like downtown. And think of what traffic would look like around it with such a concentration of cars in one spot.

That's quite a bit different from adding 4-5000 workers in buildings spread across approx 500 blocks of downtown without adding more parking. That's 10 spots per block needed for parking. That might not be doable everywhere downtown but it's much closer to something that's doable today.

What's up with so many topics being hijacked by tangential subjects like glass and parking and politics, etc? Let's get back to specifically talking about the River Market please.

JBmidtown wrote:What's up with so many topics being hijacked by tangential subjects like glass and parking and politics, etc? Let's get back to specifically talking about the River Market please.

utilizing parking better in the river market so the neighborhood needs less is a major topic right now.

so the location and usability of parking outside the neighborhood, transit access, allowing residents and businesses to have better access to what exists is a key topic

and politics is playing a part in this discussion. the city council is officially nonpartisan but a more conservative member from a more conservative part of town wants to require the cost of parking be included in base rent, not a separate optional cost, and this affects the river market big time. things like shared and optional parking in a transit friendly neighborhood becomes a lot harder under this model

NorthOak wrote:

kcjak wrote:

flyingember wrote:

And yet according to the Downtown Summit, companies looking to relocate don't think that's entirely true.

kcjak Can you please fix your quote, you did it wrong and attributed my username to his quote.
I don't want to be associated with anything he's said today.
flyingmember said:

flyingember wrote: Neither place is a place for a huge parking garage, especially when we have in excess of 100,000 parking spots downtown. We haven't even scratched the surface to need new parking.

Sorry about that - I'll work on it shortly. Apologies!

.

Look at upcoming river market plans by the city and kcata. even the bus company is adding excess parking capacity at a bus terminal. if they're not trying to use existing parking who would be?

When you have a company that locates in a giant parking lot, and knowing most companies want easy and quick parking for guests, starting with the logic that Cerner would want 16,000 spots for 16,000 employees has merit. Really, they'll probably want something like 16,500 spots.

The tide is changing in residential to not provide 1:1 parking, but those are still the exception.

The recent downtown jobs meeting said parking access is a top issue for new jobs locating downtown so we're going to see some level of certainty of parking spaces as a key need

There's no "have to" anywhere in the idea, just there's an expectation that what they would start with is the same parking needs as a suburban office park because every business does this.

and if you think the city would be able to push back on this yet is laughable. I hope there's a point that downtown space is in such demand we can add parking maximums, but we're not there yet. no parking minimums still aren't a thing yet outside of part of downtown

the future of the river market is denser residential with less parking, more parking rules so residents can't park on street 24x7 and keep a prime spot, large city garages at the city market and even more congestion peak use than we have today and a huge fight to get road diets, pedestrian only roads and the like. the new 400 Delaware project with the market and tower will breeze through and only exacerbate the same issues we keep talking about.

until the bus company actually adds more net new service than it combines or cuts back and we have some kind of transit spine to make crosstown transit a reality, with much better commuter service that's not slow cross city service, we're not going to be able to build an urban-only downtown. parking will remain the #1 item

River Market West II wins tax incentive, 116 units. Another lot bites the dust but they need to work on the pedestrian experience, at least on north side/4th street. The first RM West was one of worst projects in RM in terms of ped experience.

https://cityscenekc.com/river-market-we ... t-project/

That developer sure knows how to take ugly up a notch! Yikes.

We'll probably see a lot more 'legoblock' infill but as long as these are scattered and not a cookie cutter row of them. The streetfront experience needs to be improved. They did a really poor job just to the North and this doesn't look much better.

This belongs in downtown OP not KCMO.

.

Tetris!!!

beautyfromashes wrote:Tetris!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWTFG3J1CP8