This is why I say it will be a struggle to increase population density to a level that make the City healthy enough to generate more revenue for maintenance and services, as well as retail. The demographics of so many single-living households living in mostly single-family houses, and the historic inexperience residents have with higher-density living, also make it very hard to establish that density.
Residents don't equate this with lack of revenue for city maintenance and services. No one wants their property taxes raised but they also don't want to allow higher density that could make up some revenue, and keep their property taxes as they are now.
Yet, at the same time, they complain about lack of retail, vacant houses, overgrow lots, dumping, lack of snow removal, lack of code enforcement, repairing streets and sewers, etc., while at the same time doing everything possible to prevent apartment buildings from being constructed, or even a new single family house on a vacant lot that isn't to their taste.
It almost begs the question if the City should put something on a ballot for voters to pick: Do you want to have your property taxes raised significantly, or do you want to allow for denser urban development that increases population density? I really don't know what they would pick.
The City's earnings tax has sort of allowed this question to remain unanswered for many years, because if the earning tax were ever to go away, this would eventually become the choice KCMO would face.
I don't think people realize how much better if would be for the City to have some neighborhoods that were primarily rowhouses with shared walls, with a small back courtyard. There are many people that would realize how much easier their lives would be. Many people don't like doing yard work, or that don't have the time for it. Many seniors have to hire it done when they can no longer do it. Rowhouses also have less maintenance cost if they have two shared walls that don't require painting or tucking. A two-or three-story rowhouse would probably have a much smaller roof surface to maintain compared to a single family ranch house, so it would would be cheaper to install a new roof for that property owner.
The other approach that could be taken is how rowhouses, townhouses, or condos are assessed for property taxes. Let say the same sq. footage and resale value of those units would be taxed significantly less than a single family home with a yard. There would be built in tax savings if one opted to live in a housing unit that was in a higher density situation. A $200,000 rowhouse would be taxed significantly less than a $200,000 single family house with a yard. This alone might encourage retired seniors to move out of large single family houses into a rowhouse, townhouse, or condo--especially ones on fixed incomes.
Kansas City has a lot of unproductive space. It's not just parking lots, wooded areas, and flood plains with industrial buildings where there is no housing. Many parts of the City and Metro have house lots with huge yards--both front and back. Even considering those households with children, how many of those do you actually see kids out playing in the yard? Kids today stay inside and watch TV and play video games. I would wager that if you hired people to sit and audit yard usage in our Metro, you would find that yards are actually not used much at all. My neighbor never uses his back yard. I never see him out there except when he mows it. He has a wife and daughter living with him, and two sons who are out of the house. One son has a child. When my neighbor has a family get together, they sit on their driveway and front porch. I have never seen his family using the back yard in the 8 years I've lived here.
I don't really "use" my backyard either. I have a small garden out back, and otherwise I just mow it. I could have a lot half the size and still have my house, driveway, front and back deck, and if the house was pushed closer to the street still have room for a garden out back. In fact, since I've lived here, I have been doing landscaping projects simply to reduce the amount of yard I mow. If I didn't have so many utility lines criss-crossing my yard, I'd turn the back half of it into a wooded area.
I know that my house lot and yard are too big. I certainly don't enjoy mowing it each week. I could get by with a lot less yard, or even no yard--thus rowhouse.
I have a 1025 sq. foot one-story house with one car garage. Two-bedrooms, one bath, utility room. No basement. My lot is 6,969 sq. feet.
I could easily take the same footprint of my one-story house, and have three houses on my lot and still have room for each house to have a one-car garage, some yard, and a small deck or patio. I could also have no shared walls, and private fenced space. I also don't have the largest of lots. There are many house lots in KCMO that are larger.
If I had the same sq. footage house, but it was two-stories instead of one, my lot could handle attached five rowhouses or townhouses -- each with a one-car garage and still have private outdoor space and a small yard. The sq. footage could be even larger if the houses had a small basement.
Now I am not advocating that all of KCMO be this way, or even a majority of it. There is room to still have single family houses with yards. I am just saying that we could devote some portion of our city to higher density housing, and that housing could still provide people with amenities like a private garage for their car, a small place to garden or have landscaping, and also an outdoor patio or deck. You could even have a fenced yard for your dog to roam.
There are areas where this type of density could be implemented--like Paseo West and neighborhoods east of it on both sides of I-70. My preference is that Beacon Hill would have been zoned that way as well instead of allowing new single family houses. The location of that neighborhood would have made it ideal.
The goal of having more of the City be higher density housing is that it would in essence subsidize more of the cost of low-density neighborhoods. Having areas of higher density housing spread out among neighborhoods all over the City would also increase the likelihood that retail could be supported within that neighborhood to a greater extent.
There are corridors where even higher density apartment buildings -- like along Armour Boulevard are warranted. It would make sense to zone parts of 18th Street, Main, Broadway, Linwood, 31st Street, Troost, Independence Avenue, and stretches of Paseo in this manner. There are small areas like along Southwest Trafficway where it would make sense as well--like south of Penn Valley Community College. Doing this would also allow us to run streetcar lines on those corridors.
Example: