Page 134 of 134

Re: Westport

Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2022 10:20 am
by FlippantCitizen
earthling wrote: Fri Dec 16, 2022 10:15 am The main urban core districts need more mixed use neighborhood balance...
Westport - needs more residential within, fewer party bars
CBD - could use some chain retail (small Target, a few chain clothing/mall stores)
Xroads - of course fill in surface lots with mainly more residential
RM - the most complete district in KC, is nearly what it should be after filling in the few remaining lots
Plaza - residential within, a few specialty counter eats, small grocery or upscale bodega, more quaint small restaurants, a tad few less mall stores and mega chain restaurants but enough to maintain a regional draw.
That's a good diagnosis.

Re: Westport

Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2022 12:06 pm
by brewcrew1000
Those stupid save Westport from tearing down historic buildings are holding Westport Back

Re: Westport

Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2022 12:23 pm
by earthling
There are several spots that don't involve tearing down historic buildings.

- Manor Sq is one.
- The meh strip retail with Spectrum store can be torn down and redeveloped, as well as the large lot to W of it.
- The old XO club lot has had some proposals that never went through.
- Was hoping the old Keith Coldsnow could be torn down for residential (now dog place), still could be bought out and redeveloped with midrise.
- The Westport post office branch could be rebuilt with residential midrise and post office restored at base.
- St Lukes lots near Westport could be developed with mix of housing/hospital space.
- Possibly World Market may take offer for lot to be developed if including garage spots for their customers as well. Or maybe to completely rebuid entire site with midrise apts and World Market at base.
- Unclear on WM ownership/lease situation but If Spectrum strip redeveloped with significant ground level retail with apts on top, World Market could move there, allowing for entire WM site to redeveloped.

Several locations that don't impact the oldest/early era buildings. Potential for 3000+ units across all of these depending on height allowed.

Re: Westport

Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2022 12:42 pm
by Anthony_Hugo98
brewcrew1000 wrote: Fri Dec 16, 2022 12:06 pm Those stupid save Westport from tearing down historic buildings are holding Westport Back
Disagree, there’s more than enough empty stretches of Westport, and you can retrofit exiting structures as well, tearing down buildings should always be the absolute last resort

Re: Westport

Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2022 5:57 pm
by TheLastGentleman
KC has so much empty space and disposable architecture that it really shouldn't have to ever tear down a single historic building ever again

Re: Westport

Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2022 7:10 pm
by FangKC
Westport is a historic district. Many of the older buildings enhance the area. There are plenty of opportunities for denser infill to increase the population.

That said, the preservation community should be willing to accept some taller buildings on vacant parcels, and non-historic building replacement (without current parking minimums), and more population density in the area in exchange for preserving the historic ones.

Re: Westport

Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2022 8:14 pm
by WoodDraw
Yeah, my problem with these groups isn't trying to save historical buildings, it's their position on density and development in general.

Re: Westport

Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2022 8:37 pm
by FangKC
I understand their zeal because so much has been lost. Increased population density provides more customers and stability for the businesses there. This in turn ensures that owners can afford to maintain historic buildings and that helps their long-term survival.

This is also especially true for older one- and two-story retail buildings. If the businesses and property owners can't make enough money from the property, there will be more incentive to demolish that building to build a new larger structure with a different purpose that will provide more revenue -- like tearing them down to build a new 5-story apartment building.

We have lost many historic buildings simply because the owner couldn't afford to maintain them properly -- mostly because they were empty or they couldn't command high enough rents for the owner to make a profit -- must less afford to maintain them.