KCRag Forum

Good article in the KCStar about capping the loop...


http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/16562673.htm

i'd rather not do it at all if they turn truman into a six-lane mega-artery. does anyone else see the irony in that?

DaveKCMO wrote: i'd rather not do it at all if they turn truman into a six-lane mega-artery. does anyone else see the irony in that?

Yeah, I thought the point was to get the cars *off* the surface and out of view.

I really don't understand spending the money on this. I went over both loops yesterday. The north loop is not fun. The south loop you barely notice. Wide sidewalks and it's less than a block. I don't understand what the big deal is. Plus, do we have the demand for infill right now? No. There are tons of surface lots within a couple blocks. I'd be for it if they were just putting in a park, because it would be cheaper and easier and may actually add to the area.

TFA wrote: There is one engineering complication: The freeway is about 15 feet below street level, and a tunnel would require clearance of more than 16 feet, meaning the interstate might need to be lowered.

What is with this kind of backwards thinking? Why not just make the deck higher? It could even be nice!

TheBigChuckbowski wrote: I really don't understand spending the money on this. I went over both loops yesterday. The north loop is not fun. The south loop you barely notice. Wide sidewalks and it's less than a block. I don't understand what the big deal is. Plus, do we have the demand for infill right now? No. There are tons of surface lots within a couple blocks. I'd be for it if they were just putting in a park, because it would be cheaper and easier and may actually add to the area.

Better to start now than in 10-15 years when the cost is doubled or tripled. I mean, how dare there be a project in KC that's forward thinking.

Burton wrote: Better to start now than in 10-15 years when the cost is doubled or tripled. I mean, how dare there be a project in KC that's forward thinking.

Maybe we could actually fix things that are broken with $200 million. Like our sewers, crime or pathetic bus system. Or, maybe since we may not land much funding for light rail, put it towards that.

Seriously, it's $200 million for something that isn't bad, it's just a little inconvenience. If places like Bartle or a hotel want to build over it, great. But, if we're just going to do it on our own with the hope that businesses want to move in there, that's just stupid. Is there any kind of demand for new buildings downtown? No.

Why don't they widen the sidewalks and put up some nice guardrails or higher walls on the bridges (like what's over 71). I think that would accomplish what they want and be a helluva lot cheaper.

I understand what you're saying, but I think people need to start getting their priorities straight. There are many things way more important than being able to walk over a half-block highway without seeing cars.

I think TheBigChuckbowski has a point. The rent's due, and we're using the rent money for a new TV.

I really need to pay attention when I decide mid-sentence to reword

stupid stupid stupid idea.

KCMO "should" have other priorities.  This capping the loop thing is way overrated.

GRID wrote: stupid stupid stupid idea.

KCMO "should" have other priorities.  This capping the loop thing is way overrated.

Especially considering the 997 infill projects needing wheels in the CBD/Xroads proper.

Call me crazy, but the North Loop is a lot more hostile to pedestrians and "bad" for downtown urbanism than the South Loop. The South Loop needs to be done, but as the multi-phase, sweeping Truman Blvd plan. We need a massive public/private financing plan (maybe involving a hotel operator, retail/office developer, state/gov't agencies) that would set a grand vision over the top of Truman and not just a dead, green space on top of an aging freeway.

This would be awesome....link the crossroads up physically and in everyone's mind who thinks downtown ends at 14th st.

trailerkid wrote: Especially considering the 997 infill projects needing wheels in the CBD/Xroads proper.

Call me crazy, but the North Loop is a lot more hostile to pedestrians and "bad" for downtown urbanism than the South Loop. The South Loop needs to be done, but as the multi-phase, sweeping Truman Blvd plan. We need a massive public/private financing plan (maybe involving a hotel operator, retail/office developer, state/gov't agencies) that would set a grand vision over the top of Truman and not just a dead, green space on top of an aging freeway.

You're not crazy, the north loop is far more hostile because of the way its embankments slope gradually away from the highway creating a much greater distance for pedestrians to cover.  Also consider that the north side of dowtown is pretty dead compared to the what the south is about to become and the river market is a much smaller entity than the Crossroads or Crown Center.  Put all that together and I rather like the idea of capping the south loop....as long as its not just replaced with a another wide road which would basically accomplish nothing.

KCPowercat wrote: This would be awesome....link the crossroads up physically and in everyone's mind who thinks downtown ends at 14th st.

I don't see how it would change it that much. You barely notice that loop is there (unlike the north loop), you can't even see it from most vantage points and it gives people traveling through downtown at least some idea that there is a pretty cool city up there and they might stop and check it out.  I guess I like looking at the towers, the star building, arena etc as I pass through downtown and I even like viewing the freeway as I walk across the 670 bridges. 

I just think it would cost a fortune to deck 670, far more than 200 million.  KCMO could do so much more with that money.  A convention center hotel, expanded zoo, whatever.

I would rather have nice bridges than an ugly deck that would do nothing but accumulate trash, bums and deteriorate.

Broadway over 670 is a total and complete embarrassment to the city right now and it's one of the most used bridges in downtown by tourists and suburbanites.  That is what should have been on the front page today.

"City to replace falling apart broadway over 670 with new pedestrian friendly bridge"

At first this seemed like the natural solution, but the more i've thought about it, I actually don't think the southern leg of the loop should be capped.  I'm not saying leave it as is, but I think there are other solutions that can be applied to the gap without having to actually put a lid on it. 

I think the "moat" effect that it creates is kind of interesting, and if enhanced could be something really cool.  The city could play up that transition from the Crossroads to the Loop (design wise), and create a more vibrant edge along the highway perimeter.  I especially liked some of the ideas proposed in the 2005 Review Annual:


(that's 670 looking west).

One of the things that most jumped out to me about the proposal was the idea of doing something along the walls of the highway, particularly as windows into underground retail establishments and other spaces (obviously there would have to be some kind of protection/barriers to make sure no unfortunate accidents happened... and the speeds would have to be reduced along this stretch).

This is just one idea, but the larger point is that there may be other ways of relating with large pieces of infrastructure other than hiding it.  In some cases the infrastructure is just blighting, but in others (for example the 12th st Viaduct), the infrastucture can have its own grandiosity, particularly if you emphasize what makes it unique.  In this case, we can enhance the sense of driving into the heart of the city, to really give a 3d immersion as you go by, providing everyone from commuters, to long distance travellers, a taste of what dt has to offer.  The northern leg is so wide and diffuse, that this isn't very feasible, but the southern leg present a great opportunity to try something interesting.

ComandanteCero,
Modot nor the feds would ever approve any of that, but I get what you are saying and totally agree.  Dress it up, make it interesting.

Again, I like the Canyon and it's not nearly as intrusive to downtown as one thinks.  The lack of intense development on the south side of the freeway is more of a problem.  Give people a reason to walk south of 670, like the PAC will.

There's always going to be other more important things the city could be spending it's money on, I agree on this point. However, do you think Denver or MPLS would balk at an opportunity to erase a massive Urban-Renewal era mistake, for the chance to tie together two of the city's most active districts? How many people in Portland do you think threw up their arms in protest of tearing down the downtown freeways, because they "like looking at the buildings and skyline when they drive by."

I'm guessing if there was a poll 2 years ago, 95% of the people on here would vote for capping the loop, yet now that the concept is gaining a real footing, things are all the sudden different. It's situations like these when I harken back to a quote from The Crazy Train article in the pitch a few months ago.

"Kansas City is an overly conservative city, that's always afraid it's going to succeed at something."

GRID wrote:Modot nor the feds would ever approve any of that

GRID wrote: ComandanteCero,
Modot nor the feds would ever approve any of that, but I get what you are saying and totally agree.  Dress it up, make it interesting.

Again, I like the Canyon and it's not nearly as intrusive to downtown as one thinks.  The lack of intense development on the south side of the freeway is more of a problem.  Give people a reason to walk south of 670, like the PAC will.

I am not saying that we should go out and spend 200 million to help Cordish out, but I think they will have a tough time marketing south facing condos on 14th with the south loop immediately outside their windows.  

The biggest problem I have with the south loop is that it is difficult to carry development momentum across it.  It is a definite pedestrian barrier which will always have a tendency to physically and mentally separate the Crossroads and the Power and Light Districts.  

Burton wrote: There's always going to be other more important things the city could be spending it's money on, I agree on this point. However, do you think Denver or MPLS would balk at an opportunity to erase a massive Urban-Renewal era mistake, for the chance to tie together two of the city's most active districts? How many people in Portland do you think threw up their arms in protest of tearing down the downtown freeways, because they "like looking at the buildings and skyline when they drive by."

I'm guessing if there was a poll 2 years ago, 95% of the people on here would vote for capping the loop, yet now that the concept is gaining a real footing, things are all the sudden different. It's situations like these when I harken back to a quote from The Crazy Train article in the pitch a few months ago.

"Kansas City is an overly conservative city, that's always afraid it's going to succeed at something."

If you can get fed funds, then go for it, the freeway will eventially need to be rebuilt anyway.  It would have to be rebuilt before it could be decked.  But if the city spends 200 million when they could spend 200 million to get a light rail starter line built between downtown and the plaza before 2020, I say that would be a far better use of city funds.

Burton wrote: There's always going to be other more important things the city could be spending it's money on, I agree on this point. However, do you think Denver or MPLS would balk at an opportunity to erase a massive Urban-Renewal era mistake, for the chance to tie together two of the city's most active districts? How many people in Portland do you think threw up their arms in protest of tearing down the downtown freeways, because they "like looking at the buildings and skyline when they drive by."

I'm guessing if there was a poll 2 years ago, 95% of the people on here would vote for capping the loop, yet now that the concept is gaining a real footing, things are all the sudden different. It's situations like these when I harken back to a quote from The Crazy Train article in the pitch a few months ago.

"Kansas City is an overly conservative city, that's always afraid it's going to succeed at something."

So, you're saying an area that is a half-block wide is more important in the success of Kansas City than having good public transportation?