Re: Capping the Loop
Posted: Wed Jul 07, 2021 10:24 pm
Removing the north loop should crush all other priorities by a wide margin
I really like that idea someone floated on twitter about turning it into our Central Park.FangKC wrote: ↑Thu Jul 08, 2021 12:13 am My concern about prioritizing the North Loop removal right now is that it will add even more parcels of land for development downtown to compete with parcels that have yet to be developed. Mainly I'm talking about the current North Loop surface lots and the East Village.
This wouldn't be comparable to central park at all.AlkaliAxel wrote: ↑Thu Jul 08, 2021 2:20 amI really like that idea someone floated on twitter about turning it into our Central Park.FangKC wrote: ↑Thu Jul 08, 2021 12:13 am My concern about prioritizing the North Loop removal right now is that it will add even more parcels of land for development downtown to compete with parcels that have yet to be developed. Mainly I'm talking about the current North Loop surface lots and the East Village.
Give Missouri Star Bonds and then we can talkbeautyfromashes wrote: ↑Wed Jul 07, 2021 8:43 pm How about we move the American Royal back but use the new capped park for smoking and T-Mobile (I still want to call it Sprint) for events? Get the federal or state government to pay for the cap.
This.TheLastGentleman wrote: ↑Wed Jul 07, 2021 10:24 pm Removing the north loop should crush all other priorities by a wide margin
Regardless of what's happening with the surrounding parcels or the east village, this would be a prime location in downtown. Unlike the surface lots that may have owners unwilling to sell or parking lease agreements tied to them, the north loop parcels are available on Day 1. On the other hand, creating 30 more acres of parkland for the city to maintain seems like a bad use of limited funds. Parks struggles to maintain what they have already - and that's after a sales tax increase a few years ago. Fiscally it seems insane.AlkaliAxel wrote: ↑Thu Jul 08, 2021 2:20 amI really like that idea someone floated on twitter about turning it into our Central Park.FangKC wrote: ↑Thu Jul 08, 2021 12:13 am My concern about prioritizing the North Loop removal right now is that it will add even more parcels of land for development downtown to compete with parcels that have yet to be developed. Mainly I'm talking about the current North Loop surface lots and the East Village.
I honestly think a small park would be a good idea out the gate as that area doesn’t have much green space, however i agree that much more than a small space would immediately become a resource drain and would take away available area that could become quite densechaglang wrote: ↑Thu Jul 08, 2021 9:29 amRegardless of what's happening with the surrounding parcels or the east village, this would be a prime location in downtown. Unlike the surface lots that may have owners unwilling to sell or parking lease agreements tied to them, the north loop parcels are available on Day 1. On the other hand, creating 30 more acres of parkland for the city to maintain seems like a bad use of limited funds. Parks struggles to maintain what they have already - and that's after a sales tax increase a few years ago. Fiscally it seems insane.AlkaliAxel wrote: ↑Thu Jul 08, 2021 2:20 amI really like that idea someone floated on twitter about turning it into our Central Park.FangKC wrote: ↑Thu Jul 08, 2021 12:13 am My concern about prioritizing the North Loop removal right now is that it will add even more parcels of land for development downtown to compete with parcels that have yet to be developed. Mainly I'm talking about the current North Loop surface lots and the East Village.
Play out the worst-case scenarios: If you create a park and the surrounding parcels never develop, then we have a huge void between RM and DT that is generating no revenue and sucking up money in the Parks budget. And AFAIK there's no indication that a park would spur any adjacent development. Alternately, if you develop the north loop parcels and the surrounding lots never develop, you still have tax revenue and density from the development. And eventually, one of the surface lots could be converted into a park if that's really what is the highest and best use of the land. The second scenario is less flashy and lower risk, but immediately better from a density standpoint more fiscally responsible.
Your argument is that no one goes to the River Market?AlkaliAxel wrote: ↑Thu Jul 08, 2021 12:55 pm I do think it should be a park, in my opinion. My gf and I are in our young 20's, we visit P&L district quite often, and the other week we were walking north on Main from the P&L district and she says "eh, turn around and go back, there's nothing even down there". That's what really got me thinking that putting a really great park down there would actually be a great draw for people to head down there. Im telling you if you just plop some apartments or "mixed use" then still nobody is gonna have a reason to go down there unless they live there. You can talk about the fiscal reason as well but I have no doubt the area around it would be developed. That's the only way I ever see pedestrians who don't live downtown willing to ever step foot in that direction of it.
I knew someone would say that lol. Nobody walks to River Market from P&L, or even takes streetcar there much. There are a few draws down there but not a ton. I think putting a great park there would heavily increase pedestrian traffic and awareness of River MarketTheBigChuckbowski wrote: ↑Thu Jul 08, 2021 1:15 pmYour argument is that no one goes to the River Market?AlkaliAxel wrote: ↑Thu Jul 08, 2021 12:55 pm I do think it should be a park, in my opinion. My gf and I are in our young 20's, we visit P&L district quite often, and the other week we were walking north on Main from the P&L district and she says "eh, turn around and go back, there's nothing even down there". That's what really got me thinking that putting a really great park down there would actually be a great draw for people to head down there. Im telling you if you just plop some apartments or "mixed use" then still nobody is gonna have a reason to go down there unless they live there. You can talk about the fiscal reason as well but I have no doubt the area around it would be developed. That's the only way I ever see pedestrians who don't live downtown willing to ever step foot in that direction of it.
Berkeley’s idea of having each amenity operated and maintained by a 3rd party is the way to go and what Cordish seems to desire with the loop cap.AlkaliAxel wrote: ↑Thu Jul 08, 2021 1:50 pm I think it would be great if we had a real downtown park like most great cities have (i.e. Central Park, Golden Gate Park, Forrest Park, Balboa Park, Denver Park, etc.) because I really do think it would be used alot, just as the parks in those cities are. If you're really concerned about the fiscal side of things, we can add things to help that by putting in an amenities like an ice rink or other items. Would actually be another thing to get people downtown in the winter.