KCRag Forum

.

pash wrote:Seems like a specious argument to me. People like the boulevards, sure, but there are many prominent parts of the boulevard system that have evidently done nothing at all to stem the decay of the neighborhoods around them.

And it's a false dichotomy to suggest, as that argument seems to, that without the boulevard system Kansas City would have no such grand and green streets. The hallmark of KC's boulevards (in comparison with similar streets in other American cities) is that they are wrapped up in an extra layer of politics and bureaucracy that has kept them unresponsive to the needs of the neighborhoods they run through and has maintained them as static, mid-century anachronisms—pleasant roads to speed down in your automobile, and little more.

It's telling, I think, that the continuing claim to fame of Kansas City's parks and boulevard system is the sheer quantity, the acreage of parks and miles of boulevards, with nary a mention of their quality as urban amenities.

Sorry but I would tend to disagree with you. Your first statement that the boulevards didn't stem the decay makes one believe that these streets could save sections of the city all by themselves. Look at the shape of the boulevards in 1950. Ward Parkway, Paseo, Swope Parkway all had a different look and feel than Wornall, Troost, and Prospect for streets going north and south. Linwood and Meyer Blvd were different than 31st and 63rd Sts. The major problem with all of those blvds except for Ward Parkway was that economic and social ills overcame what was good in these streets by 1980.

Second, to suggest that KC would have had these grand streets without a boulevard system I think is false also. Just look at the old streets that were built as these boulevards were designed and built. How do they compare? Kansas City would not have these boulevards unless there was plan in place for them, no push to have them.

The failure of the boulevards wasn't because of the Park Board. True the Park Board could have done a better job but those streets were more a victim of envy and jealousy more than anything else. There were special benefits given to owners along those streets that were not given to other owners in the city. True, those owners along the boulevards paid an additional tax for those services but over time those services were done away with because the rest of the population felt they were being discriminated. And I guess that goes in line with your statement:

It sometimes seems as though we have a policy that says, no, that street isn't a boulevard, so it can't have nice things.

The problem is those owners along the boulevards were willing to pay the taxes associated with those services, owners in the rest of the city were not.

They're studiously static remnants of a movement that went too far in rejecting urbanism.

Again disagree. They don't reject urbanism. Why can't urbanism include parks? And why can't those parks also include areas along streets? Boulevards enhance city or urban life. They have the potential break up the monotony of city streets. They provide a variety.

.

aknowledgeableperson wrote: Again disagree. They don't reject urbanism. Why can't urbanism include parks? And why can't those parks also include areas along streets? Boulevards enhance city or urban life. They have the potential break up the monotony of city streets. They provide a variety.

the problem with KC is too many boulevards in the city aren't. try and tell me that any of Grand downtown is actually a boulevard in design. even some of our great parkways are little more than trafficways with grassy medians such as the paseo south of 47th

I would like to see parks loses control over actual street design, turning 100% of control to a team that handles streets, within or outside of a redesigned public works

replace the idea of different types of streets with a standard to introduce road diets with street trees and wide sidewalks on any street that it's appropriate. parks maintains the green aspects. not zoning, not paving, not urban design. they would help set the green standard for the city and maintain it, being the advocate for parks, parklets, street planters and such.

flyingember wrote:

aknowledgeableperson wrote: I would like to see parks loses control over actual street design, turning 100% of control to a team that handles streets, within or outside of a redesigned public works

replace the idea of different types of streets with a standard to introduce road diets with street trees and wide sidewalks on any street that it's appropriate. parks maintains the green aspects. not zoning, not paving, not urban design.

Ouch! The fact that P&R is in charge of the road design is the only thing saving it! As someone that designs streetscapes for cities, I have worked for KC Public Works on projects and for KC P&R on other projects. It is night and day. KCPW wants to move cars and move them fast. KCP&R wants to stick with historic design, which tends to calm the road with tight curb radii and narrower lanes. P&R is also attentive to the pedestrian experience more than PW ever could. Street trees are not part of the PW dialog on any roadway. P&R makes street trees an integral part of the design.

pash wrote:Seems like a specious argument to me. People like the boulevards, sure, but there are many prominent parts of the boulevard system that have evidently done nothing at all to stem the decay of the neighborhoods around them.

And it's a false dichotomy to suggest, as that argument seems to, that without the boulevard system Kansas City would have no such grand and green streets. The hallmark of KC's boulevards (in comparison with similar streets in other American cities) is that they are wrapped up in an extra layer of politics and bureaucracy that has kept them unresponsive to the needs of the neighborhoods they run through and has maintained them as static, mid-century anachronisms—pleasant roads to speed down in your automobile, and little more.

It's telling, I think, that the continuing claim to fame of Kansas City's parks and boulevard system is the sheer quantity, the acreage of parks and miles of boulevards, with nary a mention of their quality as urban amenities.

I usually agree with you, but nothing you state on this subject makes any sense. Sure..if we were NYC, then the boulevards get in the way of urbanity, but we are not. If KC ever goes full-tilt into density, I still think the boulevards would add a level of calm contrast that would benefit the city, not be in the way of it.

try and tell me that any of Grand downtown is actually a boulevard in design.

Grand did not start off being a boulevard. It was just a regular city street, wider than most but just an ordinary street. It was added to the boulevard system not too long ago with the idea that it could be developed into something more than just a street. Not sure of the official name now but it was called Grand Avenue.

official name now is GRAND BOULEVARD OF THE AMERICAS and we've got the flags to prove it!

Some boulevards have lost their integrity. Independence Avenue used to be a really lovely street from Paseo eastward to Benton. The tree-lined residential aspects of it were lost as the City allowed commercial zoning along that stretch. It don't know if it was officially part of the boulevard system, but it was originally designed like a boulevard.

FangKC wrote:Some boulevards have lost their integrity. Independence Avenue used to be a really lovely street from Paseo eastward to Benton. The tree-lined residential aspects of it were lost as the City allowed commercial zoning along that stretch. It don't know if it was officially part of the boulevard system, but it was originally designed like a boulevard.

Did we used to "drive" on the left side of the road?

mykn wrote:

FangKC wrote:Some boulevards have lost their integrity. Independence Avenue used to be a really lovely street from Paseo eastward to Benton. The tree-lined residential aspects of it were lost as the City allowed commercial zoning along that stretch. It don't know if it was officially part of the boulevard system, but it was originally designed like a boulevard.

Did we used to "drive" on the left side of the road?

If you know your history, Kansas City used to be completely lawless.

FangKC wrote:

mykn wrote:

FangKC wrote:Some boulevards have lost their integrity. Independence Avenue used to be a really lovely street from Paseo eastward to Benton. The tree-lined residential aspects of it were lost as the City allowed commercial zoning along that stretch. It don't know if it was officially part of the boulevard system, but it was originally designed like a boulevard.

Did we used to "drive" on the left side of the road?

If you know your history, Kansas City used to be completely lawless.

Haha good point.

FangKC wrote:Some boulevards have lost their integrity. Independence Avenue used to be a really lovely street from Paseo eastward to Benton. The tree-lined residential aspects of it were lost as the City allowed commercial zoning along that stretch. It don't know if it was officially part of the boulevard system, but it was originally designed like a boulevard.

either that image contains artistic license and you can't trust it or at some point everyone in the city had to flip the side of the road they drove on

I'm convinced it was a bit of both

flyingember wrote:

FangKC wrote:Some boulevards have lost their integrity. Independence Avenue used to be a really lovely street from Paseo eastward to Benton. The tree-lined residential aspects of it were lost as the City allowed commercial zoning along that stretch. It don't know if it was officially part of the boulevard system, but it was originally designed like a boulevard.

either that image contains artistic license and you can't trust it or at some point everyone in the city had to flip the side of the road they drove on

I'm convinced it was a bit of both

I saw an old postcard this week that removed Balimore Ave and had the library lofts building butted up against 21ten condos building. Definitely some artistic license.

Not really related to the current discussion but a cool idea.

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-ge ... -Path.html

A new solar-powered, glow-in-the-dark bike path in the Netherlands aims to make bike commuting safer—and more beautiful.

By day, the half-mile path looks like any other paved bike route. But at night, 50,000 stones coated in a phosphorescent paint and solar-powered LEDs light cyclists’ way. Even cooler: Daan Roosegaarde, the designer of the solar bike path, found inspiration from Vincent Van Gogh’s The Starry Night, laying the rocks and lights so they imitated the swirls of the famous Dutch painting.

penn valley park is getting new wayfinding signage:

I walked out to the Scout statute a couple days ago and noticed how crappy all of the sidewalks, access points to the statue are. Aside from largely deteriorating conditions on that side of the park, I'm surprised there is no ADA access to the statue. It seems like the city would want to preserve and beautify one of the more iconic views of the downtown skyline.

mgh7676 wrote:I walked out to the Scout statute a couple days ago and noticed how crappy all of the sidewalks, access points to the statue are. Aside from largely deteriorating conditions on that side of the park, I'm surprised there is no ADA access to the statue. It seems like the city would want to preserve and beautify one of the more iconic views of the downtown skyline.

Currently being totally redone.

Haven't really heard about this, seems like a cool event. http://chipotlecultivate.com/cities/kansas-city/

brewcrew1000 wrote:Haven't really heard about this, seems like a cool event. http://chipotlecultivate.com/cities/kansas-city/

Seriously, when was this announced? Totally slipped past me. and its free? I'll put it on my calendar