KCRag Forum

taxi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 29, 2020 12:03 pm In today's world, using eminent domain for private development is lengthy, costly, unpopular and very unlikely.

The unpopularity of eminent domain is because of all the functioning neighborhoods destroyed by it's use. In today's world we could use it to help repair the damage of those misguided times. And developing the surface lots in the river market, particularly along the street car route, would enhance two city owned assets. But if private development is unpopular then let the city develop the lots themselves. Either way it would help Kansas City create one of the most attractive markets in the country.

I honestly don’t have any problem unencumbering private lots now that that is out of the bag.

But it’s very expensive and very controversial.

But the state is never going to risk their powers to build infill. Come on.

There are means to get it done.

Rabble wrote: ↑Sun Nov 29, 2020 2:36 pm

taxi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 29, 2020 12:03 pm In today's world, using eminent domain for private development is lengthy, costly, unpopular and very unlikely.

The unpopularity of eminent domain is because of all the functioning neighborhoods destroyed by it's use. In today's world we could use it to help repair the damage of those misguided times. And developing the surface lots in the river market, particularly along the street car route, would enhance two city owned assets. But if private development is unpopular then let the city develop the lots themselves. Either way it would help Kansas City create one of the most attractive markets in the country.

If the city built public residential development you get into a NIMBY fight over “the projects” even if the result would be nothing of the sort.

You’re arguing for the city to take one kind of property away that was developed the way it was because the city required developments to provide parking to their tenants/customers.

It would be the worst kind of hypocrisy.


And why particularly along the streetcar? Isn’t the reason for the train investment to spur private development? Wouldn’t it be better for the city to put its efforts into projects nowhere near the streetcar? The east side sales tax is an example of this, bringing “city” incentives into the community

The worst kind of hypocrisy took place about 70 years ago, when complete neighborhoods were destroyed, so downtown office worker's auto commutes could be shortened, and they sold it as the revitalization of our downtowns.

I've always thought the primary reason people get interested in downtowns is to get away from the car centric society that was shoved down our throats. The amount of respect shown on this forum, for the rights of river market parking leases, seems absurd. I've got no answers, obviously, but until someone does, downtown KC will continue to be a leap-frog collection of buildings in a sea of automobiles and asphalt.

Why not focus on making one neighborhood in downtown as car free as possible, as soon as possible? Let it be the example for the rest of downtown, as to what a filled-in neighborhood can look and feel like. The River Market is getting close but it needs some smart people to figure out how to free these lots up for development. And I see a couple of well placed parking garages as a necessary evil.

Rabble wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 5:07 pm The worst kind of hypocrisy took place about 70 years ago, when complete neighborhoods were destroyed, so downtown office worker's auto commutes could be shortened, and they sold it as the revitalization of our downtowns.

I've always thought the primary reason people get interested in downtowns is to get away from the car centric society that was shoved down our throats. The amount of respect shown on this forum, for the rights of river market parking leases, seems absurd. I've got no answers, obviously, but until someone does, downtown KC will continue to be a leap-frog collection of buildings in a sea of automobiles and asphalt.

Why not focus on making one neighborhood in downtown as car free as possible, as soon as possible? Let it be the example for the rest of downtown, as to what a filled-in neighborhood can look and feel like. The River Market is getting close but it needs some smart people to figure out how to free these lots up for development. And I see a couple of well placed parking garages as a necessary evil.

Because you can’t focus on one entire neighborhood at a time. It’s not realistic.

Property owners have the right to NOT build on their land.

Do you know why someone is interested in downtown development? It’s to make a profit. People get interested in living downtown for a variety of reasons but that’s not what’s important here, we’re talking about private property rights and that comes with contracts and regulations and needing to get a loan and construction.

Why do you think buildings were torn down? Profit. Developers saw, not incorrectly, money in providing parking in an era people didn’t want to live downtown.

Don’t respect parking lot leases, respect the right for a property owner to make a lease on whatever they feel they can make money on. Otherwise the land has no value and it will site unused.

70 years ago was 1950. The streetcar system peak was 1923, the last line shut down in 1957. The Interstate freeway act was 1956. Most road destruction was in 1960 and later. Downtown didn’t decline because of a focus on cars and fast roads. The freeways were promoted heavily by residential owners in the star as making it easier to get downtown. JoCo doubled in population after 1960.

It declined because of new development closer to people’s new homes and people with money continuing to move outwards. Metcalf and then College Blvd were developed in the 1960s on.

The Plaza is a great example of this in an earlier era, the original development didn’t build in the urban center, it built on the edge of town and then they built single family, low density, homes to support it. That was 1922 at the peak of the streetcar. This is a precursor to College Blvd.

In the prime streetcar era there were new lower density Streetcar Suburbs (see the east side) where the new transportation enabled people to live further and further from work, before you were limited to your walking distance. That has parallels to the freeway decades later,

Even before that, Downtown leap frogged over the river market the new tall buildings of the 1880s were built in a residential district and not the established commercial district to the north of 6th

New development needs to be encouraged across many square miles, to redevelop the river market, the downtown core, the east side and on to the plaza. All were leapfrogged one at a time. Any realistic plan that increases density in these areas should be encouraged. There’s room for hundreds of projects to the point one bad project will be dwarfed on the century timescale that it will take.

Focusing on one small area at the expense of multiple square miles of the city would be an insanely large mistake that would put the city back by decades.

The city has LCRA, PIEA, TIF, Chapter 353 for the purposes of transforming blighted parcels (parking lots) back into productive uses. The city shrunk EDC over the years (Lucas made big cuts this year pre-corona). EDC has just 2 development liaisons left with a single development officer covering KCMO South of the River. 20 years ago that there were 8 for a smaller city that was building less than we do today. Seeking incentives is a drawn-out and expensive process with success not guaranteed despite the benefit you may bring to the city. Seems like letting the existing system actually deal with the issues would be a great first step in removing surface lots.

The streetcar has a tax on paid parking lots but not empty lots.

So the city deems parking to be a productive for the purpose of bringing in income.

flyingember wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 11:03 pm
The Plaza is a great example of this in an earlier era, the original development didn’t build in the urban center, it built on the edge of town and then they built single family, low density, homes to support it. That was 1922 at the peak of the streetcar. This is a precursor to College Blvd.

The Plaza was privately developed for white people who wanted an assurance they would only be shopping with other white people. The Plaza catered to cars as much as to pedestrians. The Plaza was the historical beginning of white flight and suburban sprawl in the KC area. When they're done removing the Nichols name off things I wouldn't mind if they started removing his buildings.

flyingember wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 11:03 pm
Property owners have the right to NOT build on their land.

Suppose you owned a 40 car lot where they want to build a baseball stadium?

normalthings wrote: ↑Tue Dec 01, 2020 12:31 am The city has LCRA, PIEA, TIF, Chapter 353 for the purposes of transforming blighted parcels (parking lots) back into productive uses. The city shrunk EDC over the years (Lucas made big cuts this year pre-corona). EDC has just 2 development liaisons left with a single development officer covering KCMO South of the River. 20 years ago that there were 8 for a smaller city that was building less than we do today. Seeking incentives is a drawn-out and expensive process with success not guaranteed despite the benefit you may bring to the city. Seems like letting the existing system actually deal with the issues would be a great first step in removing surface lots.

But according to you the existing system is only a quarter of the size it was 20 years ago.

Rabble wrote: ↑Tue Dec 01, 2020 1:24 pm

flyingember wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 11:03 pm
Property owners have the right to NOT build on their land.

Suppose you owned a 40 car lot where they want to build a baseball stadium?

You just circled back around to the point already made on eminent domain

Rabble wrote: ↑Tue Dec 01, 2020 1:11 pm

flyingember wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 11:03 pm
The Plaza is a great example of this in an earlier era, the original development didn’t build in the urban center, it built on the edge of town and then they built single family, low density, homes to support it. That was 1922 at the peak of the streetcar. This is a precursor to College Blvd.

The Plaza was privately developed for white people who wanted an assurance they would only be shopping with other white people. The Plaza catered to cars as much as to pedestrians. The Plaza was the historical beginning of white flight and suburban sprawl in the KC area. When they're done removing the Nichols name off things I wouldn't mind if they started removing his buildings.

Yep, and that's all completely irrelevant for the location picked.

Also, the 1920s wasn't the start of white flight. That began decades later.

Scroll down to the 1940 map and you'll see how white the city was 20 years later
https://martincitytelegraph.com/2020/06 ... nsas-city/

Shelly v Kramer which struck down housing covenants would be the start of that in 1948 because it enabled the practice of block busting.


Leawood was formed in 1948, Raytown in 1950, Prairie Village and Mission in 1951, Gladstone in 1952, Overland Park in 1960. Those are your white flight destinations and the years they grew big enough to become a city because of said white flight. Since we're talking about pre-Interstates these are all destinations that can drive to downtown easily.

flyingember wrote: ↑Tue Dec 01, 2020 2:15 pm

Rabble wrote: ↑Tue Dec 01, 2020 1:24 pm

flyingember wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 11:03 pm
Property owners have the right to NOT build on their land.

Suppose you owned a 40 car lot where they want to build a baseball stadium?

You just circled back around to the point made on eminent domain

Who's point and what was the point? Is 2nd base involved?

Rabble wrote: ↑Tue Dec 01, 2020 2:28 pm

flyingember wrote: ↑Tue Dec 01, 2020 2:15 pm

Rabble wrote: ↑Tue Dec 01, 2020 1:24 pm

Suppose you owned a 40 car lot where they want to build a baseball stadium?

You just circled back around to the point made on eminent domain

Who's point and what was the point? Is 2nd base involved?

That cities have a much harder time paying for land to take it for development in recent years.

flyingember wrote: ↑Tue Dec 01, 2020 2:15 pm

Rabble wrote: ↑Tue Dec 01, 2020 1:24 pm

flyingember wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 11:03 pm
Property owners have the right to NOT build on their land.

Suppose you owned a 40 car lot where they want to build a baseball stadium?

You just circled back around to the point already made on eminent domain

Rabble wrote: ↑Tue Dec 01, 2020 1:11 pm

flyingember wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 11:03 pm
The Plaza is a great example of this in an earlier era, the original development didn’t build in the urban center, it built on the edge of town and then they built single family, low density, homes to support it. That was 1922 at the peak of the streetcar. This is a precursor to College Blvd.

The Plaza was privately developed for white people who wanted an assurance they would only be shopping with other white people. The Plaza catered to cars as much as to pedestrians. The Plaza was the historical beginning of white flight and suburban sprawl in the KC area. When they're done removing the Nichols name off things I wouldn't mind if they started removing his buildings.

Yep, and that's all completely irrelevant for the location picked.

Also, the 1920s wasn't the start of white flight. That began decades later.

Scroll down to the 1940 map and you'll see how white the city was 20 years later
https://martincitytelegraph.com/2020/06 ... nsas-city/

Shelly v Kramer which struck down housing covenants would be the start of that in 1948 because it enabled the practice of block busting.


Leawood was formed in 1948, Raytown in 1950, Prairie Village and Mission in 1951, Gladstone in 1952, Overland Park in 1960. Those are your white flight destinations and the years they grew big enough to become a city because of said white flight. Since we're talking about pre-Interstates these are all destinations that can drive to downtown easily.

White flight in KC started with Nichols. If the Plaza would have remained a swamp and his country clubs never built, Independence Ave. today might look like Ward Parkway.

flyingember wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 11:03 pm
Focusing on one small area at the expense of multiple square miles of the city would be an insanely large mistake that would put the city back by decades.

Great cities have their coolest stuff near their waterfronts which are usually the oldest part of the town. Our River Market is currently not a tourist attraction but it could be with the right investments. How many cities have a market as nice as ours just blocks from the waterfront? Think of how much money was spent on Union Station and how that benefited the entire downtown. I don't think anyone here would consider Union Station an insanely large mistake.

Rabble wrote: ↑Tue Dec 01, 2020 5:04 pm

flyingember wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 11:03 pm
Focusing on one small area at the expense of multiple square miles of the city would be an insanely large mistake that would put the city back by decades.

Great cities have their coolest stuff near their waterfronts which are usually the oldest part of the town. Our River Market is currently not a tourist attraction but it could be with the right investments. How many cities have a market as nice as ours just blocks from the waterfront? Think of how much money was spent on Union Station and how that benefited the entire downtown. I don't think anyone here would consider Union Station an insanely large mistake.

What does any of that have to do with how tall a building is in the neighborhood?

flyingember wrote: ↑Tue Dec 01, 2020 5:22 pm

Rabble wrote: ↑Tue Dec 01, 2020 5:04 pm

flyingember wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 11:03 pm
Focusing on one small area at the expense of multiple square miles of the city would be an insanely large mistake that would put the city back by decades.

Great cities have their coolest stuff near their waterfronts which are usually the oldest part of the town. Our River Market is currently not a tourist attraction but it could be with the right investments. How many cities have a market as nice as ours just blocks from the waterfront? Think of how much money was spent on Union Station and how that benefited the entire downtown. I don't think anyone here would consider Union Station an insanely large mistake.

What does any of that have to do with how tall a building is in the neighborhood?

When did I say anything about neighborhood building heights? But now that you bring it up, I would prefer to see the River Market be 10 stories or less, with a bunch of much taller buildings on the south south side of Independence looking down at the Market, the river, and the streetcar crossing over on the ASB bridge. Thanks for asking!

Ok, yes, that was someone else.

But you don't want to limit the height for all the same reasons already given. We want as many units as can be built to increase competition and help drive down prices of housing

The south side of Indep Ave is currently owned by MoDOT. Waiting on them to remove the north loop is a fools errand in the context of choosing what projects to approve today.

The streetcar won't cross on the ASB, adding 0.8 miles of brand new bridge is cost prohibitive.

flyingember wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 10:50 am Ok, yes, that was someone else.

But you don't want to limit the height for all the same reasons already given. We want as many units as can be built to increase competition and help drive down prices of housing

The south side of Indep Ave is currently owned by MoDOT. Waiting on them to remove the north loop is a fools errand in the context of choosing what projects to approve today.

The streetcar won't cross on the ASB, adding 0.8 miles of brand new bridge is cost prohibitive.

There are those who consider Penn Station to be New York's greatest building loss. To me it was the 19th century East River front which was also torn down in the 1960's. What a great collection of maritime buildings and what wonderful uses they could have had today. This was the classic downtown profile that New York threw away, by allowing greed to destroy an entire waterfront. Kansas City could create a Midwest version of this profile but it would require some zoning.

I'd like to see some tall buildings built right up to the south side of the north loop, then after the removal and the restoration of the street grid, build some more.

Once again, the streetcar crossing over the ASB instead of the HOA maybe more expensive, but also might be worth it for the tourist potential. The ASB is our only cool bridge, we should make it even cooler.

Reposting as a follow-up to the post above.

Rabble wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 10:26 am

flyingember wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 9:07 am

The loop didn’t have a 25-30 story building until it did. Same with The Plaza

So why is the river market so different that it should be shorter?

Lower Manhattan looked like this until the 1960's

What unchecked market forces can do.

[/quote]