KCRag Forum

The north loop was never the "crosstown freeway."  The crosstown freeway was the sunken I-670 on the south loop.  The north loop was the 6th Street freeway.

The Acme Cleaning Company Building at 3200 Gillham Road (Linwood).

http://kchistory.org/cdm4/item_viewer.p ... X=1&REC=15

trailerkid wrote: Leave it to the automobile to destroy America-- block by block.

Just like guns kill people?  The auto didn't do what you said, it was people making decisions.  Or do autos have brains now?

And cities can be rebuilt again--block by block.

FangKC wrote: Downtown KC in 1940 from the River Market looking south before the North Loop freeway was constructed. In this photo, one can see several old buildings that are gone now: Midland Exchange Hotel building; the Produce Exchange Bank at Missouri and Walnut; the Nelson Building at Missouri and Main; WalSix Building; Old YMCA building; Schuyler and Densmore hotels, Studio-Pepper Building; Victoria and Frederick Hotels at 9th between McGee and Oak; and Manhattan Building on Main near 8th.

Use scroll to see entire photo.

Source: Kansas City Public Library Special Collections



http://kchistory.org/cdm4/item_viewer.p ... X=1&REC=11

It's a real shame seeing pictures like this which show what the city looked like before the biggest mistake in urban American history (the urban interstate).  Not only did the urban interstate system change forever, and for the worse, the landscape of American cities, it also destroyed wide swaths of urbanity on both sides of our downtown.  I have a difficult time understanding the thought process that allowed the state to take that much land from private citizens and destroy it for a highway network.  The decision to run the interstate system through the city was a disaster for my parent's nascent family.  My father's successful restaurant was destroyed for I-70 and the replacement was a total failure....location was indeed everything.  My first few years of life were spent in near poverty as a result.

I love the European highway system.  Inter-city movement is emphasized and there are often ring highways surrounding the cities but they regarded urban real estate as far too precious to destroy for a transportation system.  Their cities are still wonderful places to experience.

Highlander wrote: Inter-city movement is emphasized and there are often ring highways surrounding the cities but they regarded urban real estate as far too precious to destroy for a transportation system.

Is it far too precious to destroy or is it far too expensive to purchase?  And especially when one considers the ratio of land acquistition to cost of the project.  And even the amount of funds a government can throw at a project.  And if one considers Kansas City most of the buildings destroyed for the dt highway system were not "that old" when the decisions were made where to locate the highways.  In other words when we look back now 50 years after those decisions those buildings maybe were not 50 years old, not that much history in terms of age at that time.  And also consider, the high rise buildings in the picture "replaced" buildings of a shorter stature.   And many of the "short" buildings in the picture have since been replaced by other, usually taller, buildings.  For the most part this country has had "make it bigger and better" mentality since the late 1800's and early 1900's.  Building highways was no different than replacing one or more three story buildings with a single 25 story building to those making the decisions.

And concerning real estate values I heard someone brag a few years ago (not sure about the validity of it) that the cost of prime real estate along 76 highway in Branson was higher than dt real estate in KC and St. Louis.  If true that does say something.

Here's an old photo of what we call the East Village now--before so many of the buildings were demolished.

http://kchistory.org/cdm4/item_viewer.p ... X=1&REC=11

The beautiful gothic terra cotta ornament on the SW Bell(Oak Tower) before it was stripped off in 1975.  Once one of the most elegant high rises in the city has looked like a shaved collie ever since.

I agree that the interstate highway system was a disaster for cities.  It was conceived in the Eisenhower era.  I live near San Francisco now and luckily the citizens rose up to stop a freeway that would have run along the waterfront.  It was partially built and was seriously ugly.  Luckily Mother Nature knew better and the 1989 earthquake took care of it.

Then:
http://www.wayfaring.com/waypt/image1/2 ... xlarge.jpg

Now:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... ilding.jpg

moderne wrote: The beautiful gothic terra cotta ornament on the SW Bell(Oak Tower) before it was stripped off in 1975.  Once one of the most elegant high rises in the city has looked like a shaved collie ever since.

I believe the stripping took place because the terra cotta ornament was starting to become unstable and pieces were falling to the street.  Probably not a problem if they had a tenant and hence a way to pay to renovate the exterior but that was in an era when companies were leaving downtown right and left and several attempts to rehabilitate the building since have met with limited success.  Great building, sad history. 

Highlander wrote: It's a real shame seeing pictures like this which show what the city looked like before the biggest mistake in urban American history (the urban interstate).  Not only did the urban interstate system change forever, and for the worse, the landscape of American cities, it also destroyed wide swaths of urbanity on both sides of our downtown.  I have a difficult time understanding the thought process that allowed the state to take that much land from private citizens and destroy it for a highway network.  The decision to run the interstate system through the city was a disaster for my parent's nascent family.  My father's successful restaurant was destroyed for I-70 and the replacement was a total failure....location was indeed everything.  My first few years of life were spent in near poverty as a result.

I love the European highway system.  Inter-city movement is emphasized and there are often ring highways surrounding the cities but they regarded urban real estate as far too precious to destroy for a transportation system.  Their cities are still wonderful places to experience.

I understand where you're coming from, but I can also see a couple of different perspectives.

One. The interstate highway system was a real necessity back in the 50's and just getting the whole thing started, let alone finished, was a huge accomplishment in the history of our country. In transportation circles, Eisenhower is still regarded as some sort of god for heading the effort. The planners could of probably routed the highways around all the cities, but back then the highways were seen as a great equalizer for those who barely owned a car, let alone those who could of afforded more expensive travel options.

It was kind of like the "chicken in every pot" spiel, except it was "access to the country for everyone and cheaper goods to boot" spiel.

It was all about access to everywhere for everyone.

Two. The perception of downtown today is not the reality of downtown today. You, me and others look at all the great and cool buildings still left and think it's great that they are being renovated and being used in this day and age, but the reality is that there are a lot of empty and crumbling buildings still out there that are unwanted and unused. Maybe some will have a rebirth, but a lot of them will go in the near future.

As our civilization ages we still look back and say "what if" all the time, but back when they put the highways in, I doubt there were many who opposed it and the ones that did were probably in the same boat as your father. It was a sad deal for many, but America has always been about the greater good. Imagine how many people were put to work either building or supporting the builders of the Interstate Highway System. I'm sure that many families and cities thrived because of it.

Hindsight is always 20-20, at least Dave Mustain thinks so anyway. As for me, I try not to dwell on the "what if's". The loop is here, so what can we do to make what surrounds the loop a better place for everyone?

I've been going downtown since I was a wee lad and have worked DT for almost 24 years. The best times I can remember was when I was a kid going to Kresge's on a Saturday afternoon with my mom, shopping and stopping at the deli on the way out for a huge hoagie, which I ate at the counter while watching the butcher's serve another customer and cut more meat. Thinking about it now makes it seem like a movie I must of watched, but no, I was there. I can still smell the onions and dressing.

The second best times I can remember is now. The city is kind of in the doldrums, but the area from the river to 31st. St. is hopping like it used to hop way back when. It's simply amazing how many buildings have been re-purposed in the area.

It's nice and very cool that so many people have bought into the mindset of rejuvenation for our downtown area.

20 years ago it was dead. Now it's alive again. It's awesome, even if you can still cut the humidity with a knife.

Joe Smith wrote: One. The interstate highway system was a real necessity back in the 50's

Necessity perhaps - but it clearly wasn't necessary to build it in this destructive manner; the rest of the world seems to have gotten on just fine without plowing sixteen lanes of highway through the middle of their urban cores.  That was the exact opposite of "necessity".  And it certainly wasn't a "necessity" to systematically dimantle our rail network in favor of producing as many card-carrying teamsters as we possibly could.  What was done is done, but that doesn't mean we should all be highway apoligists, pat ourselves on the back over it or continue making the same terrible mistakes. 

Highlander, the terra cotta was not irreperable.  The much larger and older Woolworth building in NYC still wears it well.  The terra cotta was removed in 1975 when banker Alexander Barket of the old Civic National Bank purchased the bldng after SW bell moved to its new digs.  Barkett wanted to "modernize" the look of the building.  The garish brilliant white paint on the new stucco panels was painted a more muted color in 1988.  Barkett also did a similar modernization with the old Palace clothing store at 12th and Grand, it was subsequently restored to its original appearance.

I remember the coolness of the Terra Cotta when viewed from the city hall observatory.
Good times when I was 14 riding Argentine Transit downtown from Mission annd roaming the skyskrapers.

The removal of terra cotta ornamentation is always a loss, whether for modernization, earthquake safety, etc.  You lose the historical context of an urban area.

LenexatoKCMO wrote: Necessity perhaps - but it clearly wasn't necessary to build it in this destructive manner; the rest of the world seems to have gotten on just fine without plowing sixteen lanes of highway through the middle of their urban cores.  That was the exact opposite of "necessity".  And it certainly wasn't a "necessity" to systematically dimantle our rail network in favor of producing as many card-carrying teamsters as we possibly could.  What was done is done, but that doesn't mean we should all be highway apoligists, pat ourselves on the back over it or continue making the same terrible mistakes. 

By the rest of the world, I'm sure you mean Brazil, China and Russia. Those 3 countries have been around for quite awhile longer than the U.S. has and have done some really nice community razing themselves. Just China alone has wiped out many a city and village building the Three Gorges Dam. Heck, there's even a town sitting at the bottom of Lake Jacomo right now. Who knows how much was lost at the Lake of the Ozarks.

I don't quite get how you can compare a country that was barely over 150 years old with countries that have been around for a millenia or 2.

You don't need to get your knickers all twisted up over something that was finished before most of us were even born. Why would anyone have to be an apologist over some highways? I didn't fund them, plan them or build them. In fact it was all done behind my back ten years before I was born.

Then again, maybe you're one of those "Angst Riders" who's day isn't complete unless you have something tearful and horrid to help grow your suffering.

I don't know what's in your craw, but high horses are really going out of style these days.

I went to the library today and looked at the Annie Chambers folder in the Special Collections room.

I found this. It's a drawing of Madame Lovejoy's bordello. It was a Victorian-style structure located on the northwest corner of 4th and Wyandotte--where HOK Sports is now.  Annie Chambers' bordello is the non-descript-looking building to the right.

Here is an image of the entrance to Annie Chambers' bordello that faced 3rd Street.  The image is a scan of a photocopy, so the quality is not the greatest.

It was described as a Pagoda-style porch entrance.

One of the things that l learned is that Annie Chambers building was demolished for truck parking after it was sold to the owners of the Adams Transfer warehouse to the west.

http://www.kansascity.com/2010/07/08/20 ... cards.html

The Star has a gallery up representing an exhibit in ottawa, ks of antique gag postcards.  Thought some of you postcard buffs might appreciate it. 

Joe Smith wrote: I understand where you're coming from, but I can also see a couple of different perspectives.

One. The interstate highway system was a real necessity back in the 50's and just getting the whole thing started, let alone finished, was a huge accomplishment in the history of our country. In transportation circles, Eisenhower is still regarded as some sort of god for heading the effort. The planners could of probably routed the highways around all the cities, but back then the highways were seen as a great equalizer for those who barely owned a car, let alone those who could of afforded more expensive travel options.

Don't get me wrong.  I love the interstate system, I just question the logic of building the interstate system through urban areas.  Any visitor to Germany in 1945 instantly saw the potential of the autobahn in the US where land was available and distances were significantly more than Europe.  The autobahn was and is a great way to get around and I am happy Eisenhauer copied it in the US, it was needed (particularly if you can remember long drives on non interstate roadways before the network was complete).  Nonetheless, the US went further than pre-war Germany by not only putting the system through urban areas but destroying large swaths of urbanity to accommodate the system.  That's unique t the US.  Bombed out Germany could have done the same in the post war era but in addition to a paucity of land, I just think they had to see the consequences that such an urban system would have on being able to build and maintain appreciable public transport networks in their cities.

In the US, the interstate system was built to essentially replace public transportation which I find extremely shortsighted, even for the time, particularly when Hubbart was already starting to predict an eventual and not-too-distant  peak and decline in US oil resources as early as 1956.  Hubbert was no quack with an agenda, he worked in the Shell Research Lab which was widely recognized as one of the premier petroleum research centers in the world.  By 1956 we knew that the petroleum era was going to have a relatively short life span but yet we comprehensively designed our cities, by virtue of the urban interstate, as if it was going to endure for centuries.  I think we are going to be in a world of hurt in 20 years or so because of the consequent design of our cities.