covering the loop?

tat2kc · Post by **tat2kc** » Fri Aug 15, 2003 5:02 pm

There has been a lot of talk about covering the north and south parts of the downtown loop. I think the south side of the loop would be somewhat easier to cover, because of the relatively few entrance/exit ramps. Not so with the north side. Anyone have any ideas how these issues have been resolved in other ciites that have gone this route?

QueSi2Opie · Post by **QueSi2Opie** » Fri Aug 15, 2003 10:02 pm

Don't know, but I love the idea of completely covering the north and south loop along with some of the east. The tunnels would be kinda cool too...unless the city suffered a power outage. Keep the west open...nice view of the bluffs, river, KCK, etc.

FangKC · Post by **FangKC** » Sat Aug 16, 2003 12:43 am

Phoenix constructed a downtown freeway with a 14-block tunnel. It limited the number of exits and that could be done on the north loop. We don't need an exit at every street--just Grand, Main, and Broadway. The other thing would be to build an arced structure over the freeway in between the existing bridges and cover them with landscaping.

Boston is in the process of tunneling its' freeway through downtown. It's been featured on a PBS program called "The Big Dig."

In New York, entire buildings have been constructed over FDR Drive. The plans for "Ground Zero" incorporate new buildings constructed over the West Side Highway.

One can overcome the power outtage problems with backup generators that kick in when power is lost.

trailerkid · Post by **trailerkid** » Sat Aug 16, 2003 12:31 pm

While we're building tunnels, why not add some subway cars while we're at it?

paisstat · Post by **paisstat** » Tue Aug 19, 2003 12:51 am

I think the idea of tunnels, although nice, is far-fetched. The city announced that it can't afford to build over I-670, there will just not be any money for tunnels or build over. I believe that the north side should be kept open, the land on which it is built, is hill-side anyway and the views of the river are fantastic. I agree with building over the highway on teh south side. A relinking of downtown with the rest of the city would be great. Eventually it would be nice to see a healthy big city district stretching from downtown to crown center and beyond, hopefully to the plaza. It may seem likea dream, but with enough small businesses, in conjunction with corporate and public reinvestment, it can be done. Im excited to see more and more new businesses opening weekly in the cross-roads district. The area suffers from blight stillhowever. Many storefronts have been cleaned up and tons of modern touches have been added. Nextdoor you can find a vacant, trash-filled lot however. The time is right for small infill to begin, with above or behind parking. The city really needs to take the lead in this area and fix ALL of the sidewalks, curbs, and streets. Most of the damage that has been done thus far, concerning highway construction is just that, done. We have to focus on no new construction and no new lanes. There is an area between Kansas City and Independence along I-70 that is very well landscaped. There are pine trees lining the highway. This is a great idea, these trees should be planted all along the highway within the city limits. This would both block the city from the highway (the ugliness and the noise) and create an enjoyable drive. I especially enjoy driving on 18th St expressway in Wyandotte. The highway is surrounded by trees, it is a joy on which to drive.

FangKC · Post by **FangKC** » Tue Aug 19, 2003 4:03 am

Paisstat has a lot of good ideas.

I agree with him about the need for infill projects instead of waiting--or relying too heavily--on large-scale monolithic solutions.

Streetscapes need human elements like windows, benches, and landscaping. Buildings that place a block-long wall against the street do nothing but create "dead space." The SW Bell Building on the southeast corner of 11th and McGee, and the Marriott Hotel on W. 12th between Central and Wyandotte are prime examples of what I'm talking about.

The Marriott creates three sides of dead space. It's not a very urban-friendly structure. That is one building I will look forward to seeing imploded (if I live long enough). The solution for that problem is to create large works of art to hang on those sides of the hotel. I think it would be interesting to see a frieze or mammoth painting there.

Another idea would be to place a billboard type installation on the side of the Marriott, and display large-scale art projects. With this type of format, the art could be changed regularly.

Funding for construction of deck parks over the northern and southern freeways downtown would not have to be funded completely by the city. In other cities, federal and state highway money pays for that type of construction.

The federal government has finally realized how urban freeways have harmed neighborhoods and inner cities, so projects of this type are being done all over the country.

If the south loop freeway can at least be covered from Grand to Baltimore--at the very least, that would help downtown reconnect with the Crossroads district. If deck parks are not possible, at least widening the pedestrian portions of the bridges would help a great deal. Walking across the existing bridges is nerve-wracking.

The other issue is creating nice bridges. Some examples well-designed bridges are along Bruce Watkins freeway, the Plaza (that cross Brush Creek), or the Main St. and Grand Ave. bridges over the railyards in the Crossroads District. They have decorative elements like lampposts and wider sidewalks.

Post by **dangerboy** » Tue Aug 19, 2003 7:08 am

Covering the loop has been discussed a lot on this board. An important thing to remember is that the Interstate highways are state-owned, so any decking project needs huge support from MoDOT and the General Assembly to allocate money.

As an example, St. Louis already has a plan for decking over I-70 near the Arch, and is now lobbying for money from the state. We don't even have a plan yet - our leaders are saying "gee it's a nice idea" - but they aren't actively pursuing it.

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Tue Aug 19, 2003 7:44 am

Yeah I was going to mention the STL plan...we should watch that closely and see how they get it done.....just greenspace over 670 would be nice....70 would be a little tougher because of the distance and ramps but covering all of it would be really nice.

tw · Post by tw » Tue Aug 19, 2003 11:45 am

stl. is ahead..do they have forward thinkers or what?

http://stlouis.missouri.org/development ... /mall.html

KC_JAYHAWK · Post by **KC_JAYHAWK** » Tue Aug 19, 2003 11:50 am

typical KC, no planning, no organization, just a mis-match of ideas floating around the air. No wonder STL's downtown is 10 years ahead of ours.

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Tue Aug 19, 2003 11:57 am

You think so? I laugh at StL's downtown...they have everything going for it as far as facilities and attractions but still less residents and probably less places to eat and drink...it's truly sad.

tw · Post by tw » Tue Aug 19, 2003 12:29 pm

the case in yesteryear kc..but stl. had truely seen the light...with the development of washington ave. and the soon to be ballpark village with their eateries and hotels...I think they finally are getting it. the more people that a city gets living downtown... restaurants and retail are soon to follow!

http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/ ... tory7.html

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Tue Aug 19, 2003 12:31 pm

yeah if they get ballpark villiage, that's different...glad to see them getting lofts on Washington Ave. but we have tons more residential than one street.....

Post by **dangerboy** » Tue Aug 19, 2003 12:34 pm

KC_JAYHAWK wrote:typical KC, no planning, no organization, just a mis-match of ideas floating around the air. No wonder STL's downtown is 10 years ahead of ours.

I wouldn't go that far. They are ahead of us on the I-70 lid idea, but overall I think our Downtown is in better shape, and the surrounding urban core is definitely much better of than in St. Louis.

However, it is a very valid and important criticism of KC that we often fail to move from the planning stage to the implementation stage. We are great at coming up with ideas and master plans, but often lack the couragous leadership to turn plans into construction cranes.

KC_JAYHAWK · Post by **KC_JAYHAWK** » Tue Aug 19, 2003 12:58 pm

Maybe I was a little too critical of our downtown. But honestly, there is not much to do in the "downtown loop" area so to speak. There are a lot of urban attractions outside of the loop, but honestly not much of a reason to patronize downtown. List of things in downtown loop you can't do:

- watch a baseball game
- watch any sort of professional/semi-professional sporting event
- visit a nationally recognized museum
- shop
- enjoy an evening out in an "entertainment district" with bars, restaurants, galleries, etc.
-watch a movie

I realize that these have all been visions of past and current mayors, but Barnes is in her second term, and downtown looks exactly the same, with the exception of some additional housing.

Maybe I'm being cynical, but KC's downtown is not "alive" as so many on this board proclaim.

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Tue Aug 19, 2003 1:03 pm

well limiting KC's downtown to only the mile loop will cut down a lot. Our downtown is much wider than that...it goes to at least Crown Center.....the council puts it at 31st street (this is also what most KC residents define KC as in the survey in the Star)....which is much in line with the area that St. Louis' downtown encompasses....so the first thing you need to do Jayhawk, is expand your thought of downtown...it's not a mile diameter loop.....don't let a man made highway loop define downtown.

So in our downtown area you can visit a mueum, shop, go to galleries/restaurants/bars, and watch a movie.

KC0KEK · Post by **KC0KEK** » Tue Aug 19, 2003 1:34 pm

I'm no engineer, but I suspect that on a per-mile basis, covering KC's loop would be a lot cheaper than Boston's Big Dig or Seattle's proposed burial of the Alaskan Skyway. One way to build a tunnel is "cut and cover": dig a trench, put in the tunnel, and cover it back up. KC's loop is already trenched, so that's one less expense. I don't know how much the covering part would be, though. I guess it depends on what the cover has to be able to support (e.g., landscaping vs. buildings).

FangKC · Post by **FangKC** » Tue Aug 19, 2003 11:31 pm

Whatever problems our city faces, I'd much rather live here than St. Louis. I've never been very fond of that city. Kansas City is a much lovelier place all the way around.
If I recall the last time I looked at Census figures, the Kansas City metro area is growing faster than St. Louis. At at some point in the future, the KC Metro area will exceed the metro area of St. Louis. It is just too bad that so many of the people living in the KC metro region live on the Kansas side, because that reduces the political pressure Kansas City has in Jefferson City.

I grew up in a small town in NW Missouri, and I can tell you that fewer and fewer young people are staying in rural areas. Many of them are moving to Kansas City for jobs, access to shopping, and entertainment. Many of the people living in rural NW Missouri are driving past St. Joseph altogether and doing their shopping in the Northland.

MidtownGrrl · Post by **MidtownGrrl** » Wed Aug 20, 2003 11:45 am

I'm not going to get into the STL-KC argument this time around.

But, what stretch of the highway are envisioning being covered?

The section in St. Louis is rather short, a few city blocks from what I can tell. It already has well kept buildings, skyscrapers, tourist attractions and additional green space around it.

I travel along Truman, probably east of Oak. You could cover it up with beautiful greenery, but it would take a lot more than that to improve the looks of the area.

I have to say I alway thought the "Depressed Section" (the local term) of the highway in STL was pretty cool. We'd take our field trips to the Arch and you could catch a breeze from the traffic as you walked over the highway. Even as an adult I found it interesting to watch the traffic there. (I probably need to get out more, huh?)

Post by **dangerboy** » Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:08 am

FangKC wrote:If I recall the last time I looked at Census figures, the Kansas City metro area is growing faster than St. Louis. At at some point in the future, the KC Metro area will exceed the metro area of St. Louis. It is just too bad that so many of the people living in the KC metro region live on the Kansas side, because that reduces the political pressure Kansas City has in Jefferson City.

In the 1990s metro KC grew by 12%, compared to 1% for metro STL. So the KC area is growing pretty well, while STL is barely treading water. Fortunately in the last 5 years the Missouri suburbs of KC have started to explode. The metro area is actually growing in all four corners, instead of just to the southwest like it did in the 1980s. It will be a long time before we catch STL in overall metro population, but the current trend is verry good.

KCRag Forum