KCRag Forum

im2kull wrote: so wait...what all changed at BAP...any pictures?

http://www.kcskyscrapers.com/newforum/h ... 79#p167479

Kard wrote: http://www.kcskyscrapers.com/newforum/h ... 79#p167479

Thanks...

ULI Panel Offers Bold Concepts to Energize Barney Allis Plaza

Barney Allis Plaza, an underused downtown centerpiece, could be lowered to street level and transformed into a large event lawn flanked by garden and “adventure” playground areas, all atop a new garage, in a $63 million redevelopment concept suggested last week.

The proposal endorsed by an local Urban Land Institute panel assembled was one of four options suggested and would require much additional study. But it comes when major repairs are looming for the 980-space underground garage beneath the Plaza.

...

https://cityscenekc.com/uli-panel-offer ... lis-plaza/

I'm all for having the Crossroads Academy downtown, but not inclined to pay for a dedicated playground for the students. The garden, even if just in a corner, seems like a missed opportunity, and the above-ground parking garage would decimate some amazing views. I'd love to see something along the lines of Millennium Park in Chicago with cafe, water features, ice skating and art.

What about a laser show featuring the history of KC projected on the north face of Municpal? They already have one completed and showed it a couple of years ago on Union Station. The show in San Antonio brings people to the plaza across the street from the church every night it's shown. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjKSX2YbPgA

I'm liking 2 and 4 the best. The idea of residential buildings on site is appealing. That area is one of the biggest planning disasters downtown IMO, so I'm happy to see some plans for it.

Something needs to change at Barney Allis Plaza, glad it is seriously being discussed. It's an attractive site and could be a centerpiece for the convention district downtown, despite the Bartle Hall wall along the west side.

I don't want to see just a big open lawn here. Ideally there will be programming and infrastructure to attract people.

Something like City Garden in STL with a large amount of public art and water/greenspace features might be ideal - http://www.citygardenstl.org/

City garden elements would be great

It should be an event space. Option two is the best for this. There should be concerts/plays/movies/stuff associated with conventions. To try to pull in residential functions into, or adjacent too, the BAP is not a good long-term plan.

It's our convention area and should remain free of the conflicts that could arise from having residents adjacent.

I agree shinatoo.
This is one of the few spots where residential does not make sense.
Plenty of positive civic uses to consider.

kcjak wrote:I'm all for having the Crossroads Academy downtown, but not inclined to pay for a dedicated playground for the students. The garden, even if just in a corner, seems like a missed opportunity, and the above-ground parking garage would decimate some amazing views. I'd love to see something along the lines of Millennium Park in Chicago with cafe, water features, ice skating and art.

What about a laser show featuring the history of KC projected on the north face of Municpal? They already have one completed and showed it a couple of years ago on Union Station. The show in San Antonio brings people to the plaza across the street from the church every night it's shown. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjKSX2YbPgA

I don't think the article was clear that the playground could only be used by Crossroads Academy. Although, if we want schools in our urban core, the idea that having recreation for children seems to make sense. Plenty of public funding goes towards children's recreation - not sure why this should be off the table.

The ultimate civic use is to provide a space for children and families.

Look around and adjacent to downtown

Jarboe Park has a playground and pool
Case Park a playground
Tony Aguire is a community Center
Gage Park, a playground
Observation Park, a playground
Roanoke Park, a playground
Mulkey Square Park

So that's six in quick succession for the west side of downtown

The school district has a playground behind Home Depot
Troost Park has one
Spring Valley Park
Penn Valley Park
Kemper Park at Children's Mercy

So five for the south side of downtown

Kemp Playground has one. Hopefully it's not a homeless camp any more

So the east side of downtown has one

Columbus Square has one
Garrison Square has one and is a community center

Two for the north end

=14

Zero inside the core of downtown

With all of the green space scattered around, none of it is setup for small children

I would think we need 7 more playgrounds inside downtown

Ilus Davis
Oppenstein
Barney Allis
City Market
Washington Square
south end of Bartle Hall
SE corner of the Sprint Center

Playgrounds are relatively cheap compared to most public projects and provide value to lots of different people.

They can be used by hotels. A playground in the convention district would be a HUGE deal for families. One at the Sprint Center is an activity to occupy kids who just sat for an hour event. Ilus Davis covers family of people visiting three courts and residents of the east village. One at the city market let's the other parent shop and puts one within this growing neighborhood. Bartle Hall gets you one within reach of the new convention hotel and Kauffman Center. Oppenstein is near 909 Walnut, Commerce Building, One Light. and so on.

They are a very visible thing that helps sell downtown as family friendly. If you were on the fence on staying downtown with a family a playground a few blocks away across all of downtown can't hurt.

And if downtown can hit 80,000 people with 20% kids (24% of population is under 18), that's 16,000 children. Having 21 playgrounds will be exactly what's needed.

tl;dr

I'm of the opinion that the park needs the residential development on top of it.

A park is a reflection of its surroundings, and right now it is surrounded by only large single uses, which to me translates to a sporadically used park. It will have moments when its busy (i.e. lunch on a beautiful day) - but they can't program their way into a busy park no matter how hard anyone tries.

As it stands the park abuts :
- Convention traffic from Bartle Hall, which will bring some pedestrians, some lunch traffic
- Event traffic, from Municipal/Music Hall/Folly which will bring some pedestrians but only occasionally
- Hotel traffic from Marriott, Crowne Plaza, Phillips, which will bring some foot traffic
- Crossroads Academy, which brings kids for short periods of time
- Business traffic from 12 Wyandotte, which will bring some pedestrians and some lunch traffic

There's a reason that the park now has a vacant commercial space in it (obviously the park's current design was no help, but even with a rejuvenated downtown that space has remained vacant). That leaves a lot of dead periods every day, which is why I think residential development on the site would be a real good idea. It puts eyes on the park, which is good for safety, and a more steady stream of users who aren't in the park only at lunch.

KCDowntown

KCDowntown wrote:I'm of the opinion that the park needs the residential development on top of it.

A park is a reflection of its surroundings, and right now it is surrounded by only large single uses, which to me translates to a sporadically used park. It will have moments when its busy (i.e. lunch on a beautiful day) - but they can't program their way into a busy park no matter how hard anyone tries.

As it stands the park abuts :
- Convention traffic from Bartle Hall, which will bring some pedestrians, some lunch traffic
- Event traffic, from Municipal/Music Hall/Folly which will bring some pedestrians but only occasionally
- Hotel traffic from Marriott, Crowne Plaza, Phillips, which will bring some foot traffic
- Crossroads Academy, which brings kids for short periods of time
- Business traffic from 12 Wyandotte, which will bring some pedestrians and some lunch traffic

There's a reason that the park now has a vacant commercial space in it (obviously the park's current design was no help, but even with a rejuvenated downtown that space has remained vacant). That leaves a lot of dead periods every day, which is why I think residential development on the site would be a real good idea. It puts eyes on the park, which is good for safety, and a more steady stream of users who aren't in the park only at lunch.

KCDowntown

Agreed. Option 4 is the project I never knew I wanted. I don't think we should just have one giant dead space "convention district".

I know others are excited about this, but I’m not sure this is the best use of $70M. Will this park be used even if it is designed perfectly? The entire west side is a convention center border wall and the rest is hotels. Where will the everyday user of the park come from? Do business people staying in hotels use parks during the day?

beautyfromashes wrote:I know others are excited about this, but I’m not sure this is the best use of $70M. Will this park be used even if it is designed perfectly? The entire west side is a convention center border wall and the rest is hotels. Where will the everyday user of the park come from? Do business people staying in hotels use parks during the day?

The term you want is “induced demand”

A bigger, better facility that isn’t so dismal will draw users you didn’t know existed.

Think of who is in those hotels

Guests, workers, convention goers. A 2000 person event has at least 100 workers that could use it. Four hotels flank it making up a lot of rooms. If only 5% have families with kids that’s more kids than use some downtown parks today.

“Meet me at the park next to the Bartle Hall” is really easy to say

People will walk by it to get to their bus.

It’s a block from two future development sites.

So you want a bunch of residents in the convention district to raise hell and NYMBY ever single "loud" convention, event, and tournement; and every single change you want to make to the convention district?

Plenty of places within literal blocks of this park to put residential. Don't fuck it up with a residential tower, it's asinine.

beautyfromashes wrote:I know others are excited about this, but I’m not sure this is the best use of $70M. Will this park be used even if it is designed perfectly? The entire west side is a convention center border wall and the rest is hotels. Where will the everyday user of the park come from? Do business people staying in hotels use parks during the day?

They would if they had something drawing them there ....and residents are within 3 block walk....but to your point if we knew the possibility of the cap on 670 that could fill the need that BAP proposed ideas are trying the fill.

In that case I'd say this is the wrong plans for BAP

A Bloch sized fountain on one part of the space would be cool...one that could be a gathering point.

shinatoo wrote:So you want a bunch of residents in the convention district to raise hell and NYMBY ever single "loud" convention, event, and tournement; and every single change you want to make to the convention district?

Plenty of places within literal blocks of this park to put residential. Don't fuck it up with a residential tower, it's asinine.

Do P&L residents NIMBY every event that happens there?

We can still call it the convention district as a warning, but adding residential would make the area safer and more vibrant.

And 5 floors is hardly a tower. Also, due to the slant, it will probably be shorter in some places. Throw a green roof on there and people in the upper floors of the hotels won't know that it isn't just one giant park.