School downtown?

[voltopt]

I haven't had an in depth conversation with her recently, but the primary problem beyond building maintainance and consistancy (traditional schools versus charter/magnet) is parental involvement. 

[aknowledgeableperson]

However, I have no problem with someone trying to make it work. I just don't think we need to push a family atmosphere in a neighborhood that people pay a lot more money to live in, in an attempt to live the young, single urban life.

Segregation now, segregation forever.

[bahua]

Yes, they intentionally keep people of a certain demographic out by callously and cruelly abiding by economic realities. What a bunch of elitist bastards!

[nota]

Yes, they intentionally keep people of a certain demographic out by callously and cruelly abiding by economic realities. What a bunch of elitist bastards!

I agree. And if it weren't for the tax breaks and other incentives that the city, etc provide, the elitist bastards probably wouldn't live there either.

It is no wonder more people don't want to move to the city seeing attitudes like yours.

[chrizow]

It is no wonder more people don't want to move to the city seeing attitudes like yours.

i highly doubt people are choosing to not move to urban KCMO b/c of the attitude of urban KCMO residents. 

i'm confused why a school downtown would be the least bit controversial.  if downtown-dwellers (or, since it's a charter school, families from anywhere in KCMO) want to send their kids to this school, so be it. 

i would wager it's more about convenience for people who work downtown and send their kids to public schools than it is about capturing child-producing loft-dwellers, though.  like most Brookside or Sunset Hills families, i doubt any six-figure downtown household would dream of sending their children to any KCMO school, downtown or not.

i'd love to see more families moving downtown.  it probably won't happen in this city, but it would be nice.  i'm in support of anyone who wants to live downtown or urban KCMO generally, kids or no kids.

[loftguy]

I agree. And if it weren't for the tax breaks and other incentives that the city, etc provide, the elitist bastards probably wouldn't live there either.

It is no wonder more people don't want to move to the city seeing attitudes like yours.

[KCTigerFan]

I would venture that the majority of KCMO residents, six-figure income or not, would not send their kids to KCMO public schools if given the choice.  With very limited exceptions (Lincoln, Paseo Arts et cetera) the schools just aren't that good.  Add to that the turmoil that has been self-inflicted (firing, revolving door Superintendents, school closings) and you have a recipe for disaster.  The Charter Schools are a nice addition, but they have had their share of problems (Westport, Southwest). 

If a Downtown Charter is to succeed it must have two things... Great corporate and community support and a perception of stability.  If it has those two things it will succeed.  Look at Academies Lafayette and the success it has had. 

I am a Brooksider with no kids, but the plan for a couple on the horizon.  I have already started saving for pirvate school tuition.  I would love to see a great Charter School succeed so that the money could be invested elsewhere.  But until then I will continue to save for tuition.     

[voltopt]

Yes, they intentionally keep people of a certain demographic out by callously and cruelly abiding by economic realities. What a bunch of elitist bastards!

You point out economic realites but state a preference for not pushing a family atmosphere on urban areas. 
I live downtown not because I want to live the young, unchilded, fun life (although I certainly do live that life!), but because I want to live downtown.  If I have children, I will make it work.  There is nothing specific about living downtown that tells me its only for the young, single professionals of the metro area. 
Basically - I would like there to be fewer stereotypes about "urban living", and instead just get on with the living part of it.

[bahua]

It automatically suits young, relatively successful people with no kids, because these people have disposable income that they can spend on a fun weekend or a plane ticket to visit a friend, instead of being bound to use whatever money they make on things their families need. I don't think a person with a fixed budget and little or no disposable income is going to get much out of living in a downtown area.

That said, if they want to build a school downtown, I don't see it as a problem. If there's money to be made in educating downtown's children, great. If it's going to be a public school, I don't see why it would be any different than any of our other failing schools. If it's given special attention, then we're doing further disservice to the people with kids in the rest of the city. The only viable solution, in my opinion, is a charter school(or a private school).

To be clear, I'm referring to the ones who set the prices as the "elitist bastards," not the residents that willingly pay the price.

[loftguy]

Nota, you left me a bit speechless the first time replying.  What ever you ate for breakfast, it's not agreeing with you.

The KIPP schools, (one of which is planned for downtown KC), are primarily middle schools,  Grades 5 through 8, with a student population that is 95% black or latino in the existing schools nationally.  They attract the best of the best in teaching staff, with good pay, fabulous training and the opportunity to really, really teach.  KIPP schools have a college matriculation rate of 80% for alumni who complete the 8th grade in the program.

There are many of us who have been trying for a couple of years to find a way to develop a K-12 school downtown, that would be a school of excellence, on par with the private school options.  The KIPP option has evolved from this ongoing effort.  It's a long discussion, but many of us feel that families of all economic stratas must have the option of living downtown, in order for downtown to reach full vibrancy. 

The model is insufficient, as long as people of means feel that the only "reasonable" option is to move in order have a family.

And bahau..........you're losing me with the whole elitist bastards line.

[chrizow]

i agree with the latter part of your post (although i do not favor private schools), but...

It automatically suits young, relatively successful people with no kids, because these people have disposable income that they can spend on a fun weekend or a plane ticket to visit a friend, instead of being bound to use whatever money they make on things their families need. I don't think a person with a fixed budget and little or no disposable income is going to get much out of living in a downtown area.

i don't really understand this at all, particularly the last sentence.  

(1) what does "living downtown" have to do with spending disposable income on plane tickets or a "fun weekend?"  i assume young childless folks all across the metro spend money on plane tickets and bars and restaurants.

(2)  why do you need disposable income to get a lot out of downtown?  further, why do you assume people with children have no disposable income?  

(3) i think this also assumes a downtown KCMO that does not currently exist.  aside from the tall buildings and architecture, downtown KCMO basically lives like Midtown or something in terms of walkability, proximity to nightlife, etc.  it has a unique flavor, but there's nothing about it that screams "childless!" or "with children!"  

[bahua]

And bahau..........you're losing me with the whole elitist bastards line.

It was a joke that nobody seemed to get.

[nota]

i highly doubt people are choosing to not move to urban KCMO b/c of the attitude of urban KCMO residents. 

i'm confused why a school downtown would be the least bit controversial.  if downtown-dwellers (or, since it's a charter school, families from anywhere in KCMO) want to send their kids to this school, so be it. 

i would wager it's more about convenience for people who work downtown and send their kids to public schools than it is about capturing child-producing loft-dwellers, though.  like most Brookside or Sunset Hills families, i doubt any six-figure downtown household would dream of sending their children to any KCMO school, downtown or not.

i'd love to see more families moving downtown.  it probably won't happen in this city, but it would be nice.  i'm in support of anyone who wants to live downtown or urban KCMO generally, kids or no kids.

My attitude exactly. All the city has to do is get some more amenities for families. A school would be a nice step in the right direction.

As far as "convenience to those who work DT"-are you saying that 'burb folk would bring their kids into the city to school just because of where they work unless they were bringing the kids to a private school?

[chrizow]

As far as "convenience to those who work DT"-are you saying that 'burb folk would bring their kids into the city to school just because of where they work unless they were bringing the kids to a private school?

no, i'm talking about KCMO residents who work downtown that have kids in KCMO public schools.  not everyone who works downtown is from the suburbs.

[Highlander]

Presently, I have 2 kids and I live in an urban area in the UK which is about as dense as downtown KC residential wise.  Perhaps denser.  There are a number of trade-offs for myself.  First, I am closer to the action than a lot of the people in the burbs where where the houses are nicer and the gardens (lawns) are bigger.  This gives me the ability to walk to work and to restaurants and bars but with kids (and the ungodly exchange rate), we eat out very little and rarely go to bars.  But walking to work is nice because it means the family can easily get by with one car.  The real downside, and I suspect this would be a problem in KC also, is that the kids are pretty much at our mercy to take them everywhere for playdates and any kind of athletic venue.  As my son gets older, he walks to friends houses which are a half mile/mile away but we are hemmed in by high traffic roads so you tend to worry about their welfare.  The small yard and lack of neighborhood children precludes the kind of athletic lifestyle I enjoyed as a youth; just isn't much room for them to roam.  I don't think I'd choose a downtown condo just yet if I was moving back to the states.....I'd wait til they were in college....if I could afford it at that point.    

[nota]

Nota, you left me a bit speechless the first time replying.  What ever you ate for breakfast, it's not agreeing with you.

I had Cheerios with fresh strawberries.

I WANT the school. If you are thinking I'm against it, you are going the wrong direction.

As I've said many many times before, until you get the schools in KCMO fixed, the city will never attract enough dwellers to be a vibrant place. Then people will start moving. Parents will be able to both have children and live in the city where they might wish to but can't afford or don't want to send their kids to private.

[nota]

i agree with the latter part of your post (although i do not favor private schools), but...

i don't really understand this at all, particularly the last sentence.  

(1) what does "living downtown" have to do with spending disposable income on plane tickets or a "fun weekend?"  i assume young childless folks all across the metro spend money on plane tickets and bars and restaurants.

I think he is saying that no city resident can have a "fun weekend" unless they get out of town.

[bahua]

(1) what does "living downtown" have to do with spending disposable income on plane tickets or a "fun weekend?"  i assume young childless folks all across the metro spend money on plane tickets and bars and restaurants.

Sure they do. I never disputed that there are single people with money outside downtown. But living downtown makes it difficult to live otherwise.

(2)  why do you need disposable income to get a lot out of downtown?  further, why do you assume people with children have no disposable income? 

Downtown is an expensive place. It's expensive to live there, to park there, to go out there. But in general, you need disposable income to get a lot out of any place. It's just that downtown is something of a playground for disposable income. I didn't assume anything. People who are only supporting themselves, and can afford to live downtown, in general, have money to burn. People with children have financial obligations that people without children do not have. They also have demands on their time that single people do not have.

[chrizow]

As I've said many many times before, until you get the schools in KCMO fixed, the city will never attract enough dwellers to be a vibrant place.

i want the KCMO schools to be successful as much as anyone, but this isn't true.  the public schools in 100% of american large cities are TERRIBLE.  there may be good schools here and there, but for the most part urban schools are failing.  this includes vibrant cities like San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Portland, Los Angeles, etc.

i think it's true that all cities would be much more attractive to families if the schools were top-notch, however.

[KCMax]

Sure they do. I never disputed that there are single people with money outside downtown. But living downtown makes it difficult to live otherwise.

Downtown is an expensive place. It's expensive to live there, to park there, to go out there. But in general, you need disposable income to get a lot out of any place. It's just that downtown is something of a playground for disposable income. I didn't assume anything. People who are only supporting themselves, and can afford to live downtown, in general, have money to burn. People with children have financial obligations that people without children do not have. They also have demands on their time that single people do not have.

I guess I see your point, but just drive through Brookside, Briarcliff or Prairie Village and I think you'll see there is no shortage of families in the area with disposable income.