OFFICIAL - Buck O'Neil Bridge

[KCPowercat]

No idea. I'd assume we the city would have to buy it if they even offered to sell it versus destroy it.

[TheLastGentleman]

The zoom meeting was apparently recorded but I have no idea where you get to it. The plan sounds pretty promising, they’ve apparently gotten infrastructure bill funds.

[grovester]

The zoom meeting was apparently recorded but I have no idea where you get to it. The plan sounds pretty promising, they’ve apparently gotten infrastructure bill funds.

That would be a pretty great get.

[GRID]

Platt sure seems confident. I've heard nothing

If it’s up to MoDot then KCMO has no choice but to listen and can’t stop them, right? It’s not like we have funds or anything.

The problem is if its' up to MoDot, they will take the easiest and cheapest route. KCMO needs to wrestle the bridge away from MoDot before they have a chance to destroy it. Even if the bridge sits while the city finds the money to do something with it.

If they somehow save and repurpose the old bridge. I will take back everything bad I said about the new bridge.

Edit: Actually, I thought MoDot turned the bridge over to the city quite a while ago??? If KCMO owns the bridge, shouldn't they have full control of it?

[AlkaliAxel]

Platt sure seems confident. I've heard nothing

If it’s up to MoDot then KCMO has no choice but to listen and can’t stop them, right? It’s not like we have funds or anything.

The problem is if its' up to MoDot, they will take the easiest and cheapest route. KCMO needs to wrestle the bridge away from MoDot before they have a chance to destroy it. Even if the bridge sits while the city finds the money to do something with it.

If they somehow save and repurpose the old bridge. I will take back everything bad I said about the new bridge.

Edit: Actually, I thought MoDot turned the bridge over to the city quite a while ago??? If KCMO owns the bridge, shouldn't they have full control of it?

What are the odds we save that bridge…10%

Give me the south loop cap before this any day.

[GRID]

^ you see this is the problem. You don't care, so you are fine with losing the bridge and its potential recreational and even historic/cultural value.

Do both. Find a way to save the bridge AND deck 670. Then tie them together. Make downtown a recreational destination. None of these will do that standing on their own.

With the old Broadway Bridge, the new 169 Bridge having pedestrian paths, the repurposed Kaw Bridge, all the development on the riverfront, the 670 deck, the streetcar bike bridge to the riverfront, levee trails etc all tied together, you really start to have something.

[AlkaliAxel]

^ you see this is the problem. You don't care, so you are fine with losing the bridge and its potential recreational and even historic/cultural value.

Do both. Find a way to save the bridge AND deck 670. Then tie them together. Make downtown a recreational destination. None of these will do that standing on their own.

With the old Broadway Bridge, the new 169 Bridge having pedestrian paths, the repurposed Kaw Bridge, all the development on the riverfront, the 670 deck, the streetcar bike bridge to the riverfront, levee trails etc all tied together, you really start to have something.

This is just my opinion, but I don’t think that bridge would be a viable recreational project unless the north loop is removed because you’d have to cross a highway to get there on foot. Until that’s resolved, it’s not a wise investment compared to several other options like the south loop cap. It’s sad that we’ve ruined so much connectivity with these useless highways. I also don’t think that bridge is that great as some seem to think, it’s not like Pittsburgh’s or the Golden Gate, it’s just a rusty bland looking bridge to be quite honest. Sometimes, we don’t have to save *everything*, which seems to be the sentiment about everything old. GRID, you say you love the brutal honesty- this is just the truth.

[GRID]

The bridge is not that special, but KC doesn't have a lot of bridges and if that goes away, all that's left is the new Bond Bridge. The rest will be boring girder bridges.

And again, you must not get out much. So many cities have taken bridges that are far less interesting than the Broadway Bridge and done a amazing things with them. Once the bridge is gone, it's gone. Right now, I'm just saying don't let it get torn down.

And saving things that are old is a good thing. I literally went door to door begging people to vote yes for both Union Station and Liberty Memorial, two of the most significant KC icons their are. Both were nearly lost. Yet, I was just as active in getting the Sprint Center built and I love the Kauffman Center and was happy about the Paseo Bridge replacement.

Have you spent any time in Charlotte, or Nashville or even Denver? One of the best things about KC and cities like Boston etc is the contrasting architecture the layers of decades of development you see everywhere you go. I'm really surprised how you think sometimes. You can modernize your city without tearing down everything.

Again, go visit Cincy, Little Rock, Tulsa, Memphis, Louisville and many more cities and check out how active and popular their rusty old bridges are now that they have been re-purposed.

[beautyfromashes]

What are the odds we save that bridge…10%

Give me the south loop cap before this any day.

Saving the bridge is a bigger priority simply because there's a real possibility it will be torn down. Capping the south loop can happen at any time.

[GRID]

And I disagree about the bridge. It's nothing special but it adds flavor to the city. That new bridge just doesn't. I hope they can save it.

[AlkaliAxel]

The bridge is not that special, but KC doesn't have a lot of bridges and if that goes away, all that's left is the new Bond Bridge. The rest will be boring girder bridges.

And again, you must not get out much. So many cities have taken bridges that are far less interesting than the Broadway Bridge and done a amazing things with them. Once the bridge is gone, it's gone. Right now, I'm just saying don't let it get torn down.

And saving things that are old is a good thing. I literally went door to door begging people to vote yes for both Union Station and Liberty Memorial, two of the most significant KC icons their are. Both were nearly lost. Yet, I was just as active in getting the Sprint Center built and I love the Kauffman Center and was happy about the Paseo Bridge replacement.

Have you spent any time in Charlotte, or Nashville or even Denver? One of the best things about KC and cities like Boston etc is the contrasting architecture the layers of decades of development you see everywhere you go. I'm really surprised how you think sometimes. You can modernize your city without tearing down everything.

Again, go visit Cincy, Little Rock, Tulsa, Memphis, Louisville and many more cities and check out how active and popular their rusty old bridges are now that they have been re-purposed.

Look, GRID, just because someone doesn’t agree with your opinion doesn’t mean you have to instinctively say “you must not get out much or travel”. I’ve see that response in several different threads now. I’m tired of hearing it. Sometimes, it’s people actually do have different opinions…even if they’ve traveled.

My point was about the accessibility/north loop too, not really about the architecture

[GRID]

^ it’s just a rusty bland looking bridge to be quite honest...

Again, all I'm saying is save the bridge. Figure out what to do with it later just like beautyfromashes said. And if you have spent enough time in enough cities, I think it would be difficult for you to not agree with me.

[KCPowercat]

The criticisms of the new bridge really have nothing to do with saving the current one though?

I think the new bridge is the right way to go for trafficflow but for those who don't think so, why would saving the current bridge make it all alright?

[AlkaliAxel]

The criticisms of the new bridge really have nothing to do with saving the current one though?

I think the new bridge is the right way to go for trafficflow but for those who don't think so, why would saving the current bridge make it all alright?

I think one of my chief concerns with the new/old bridge is that if you keep the old bridge just sitting there, for years or decades, then the thing is gonna be a major eyesore when you could be getting views of the downtown spread with the river.

Like one of the biggest assets KC has is its downtown views (as we just witnessed on SNF) and we're pissing all over it to keep a rusty old bridge just sitting there blocking it? Just boggles my mind, sorry.

[GRID]

The criticisms of the new bridge really have nothing to do with saving the current one though?

I think the new bridge is the right way to go for trafficflow but for those who don't think so, why would saving the current bridge make it all alright?

It doesn't make it alright, it just makes it easier to ignore. Another freeway and more flyover ramps downtown plus the loss of the bridge is a pretty hard to swallow IMO. I still think the 169 "freeway" should die at downtown. You take 169 to go Downtown, not to fling around it to get to JoCo or Midtown. If your destination is not downtown, stay on the interstate.

There does not need to be a high speed freeway to connect 169 to 35. Downgrade the west loop and north loop from freeways and run all through traffic on an improved/widened east loop.

It's like 1-2 minutes longer to take the actual interstate 29/35 across the bond bridge than to take 169.

No matter what happens to the north loop, that east loop needs to be rebuilt and widened to accommodate 29/35/71/70. 670 with 8 lanes is wide enough to handle the traffic with some mods to the SE and SW corners of the loop. But the SW corner is trashed if it still has to accommodate the west loop too. Not much you can do there. Too much going on with limited room. So let's make the west loop busier by making 169 a high speed connection!

None of this matters. The west loop is forever a freeway link now and 169 will pull even more traffic off the actual interstate. It's just bad urban planning, but I'm just a guy. I could be wrong. Just my opinion.

[GRID]

The criticisms of the new bridge really have nothing to do with saving the current one though?

I think the new bridge is the right way to go for trafficflow but for those who don't think so, why would saving the current bridge make it all alright?

I think one of my chief concerns with the new/old bridge is that if you keep the old bridge just sitting there, for years or decades, then the thing is gonna be a major eyesore when you could be getting views of the downtown spread with the river.

Like one of the biggest assets KC has is its downtown views (as we just witnessed on SNF) and we're pissing all over it to keep a rusty old bridge just sitting there blocking it? Just boggles my mind, sorry.

But the Broadway Bridge has actual rusty bridges on both sides of it already, the train bridges. How would it obstruct views of downtown? And I would think that the bridge would be repurposed sooner rather than later if it's saved. There is a lot of national momentum to do that with bridges right now.

[AlkaliAxel]

The criticisms of the new bridge really have nothing to do with saving the current one though?

I think the new bridge is the right way to go for trafficflow but for those who don't think so, why would saving the current bridge make it all alright?

I think one of my chief concerns with the new/old bridge is that if you keep the old bridge just sitting there, for years or decades, then the thing is gonna be a major eyesore when you could be getting views of the downtown spread with the river.

Like one of the biggest assets KC has is its downtown views (as we just witnessed on SNF) and we're pissing all over it to keep a rusty old bridge just sitting there blocking it? Just boggles my mind, sorry.

But the Broadway Bridge has actual rusty bridges on both sides of it already, the train bridges. How would it obstruct views of downtown? And I would think that the bridge would be repurposed sooner rather than later if it's saved. There is a lot of national momentum to do that with bridges right now.

I'm open to good idea's for it, they need to move fast though and get some more idea's or renderings or something, otherwise it won't get my *crucial* endorsement

[GRID]

It has always been a dream of mine to do something amazing with Harlem https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1180161 ... a=!3m1!1e3

A repurposed Broadway Bridge along with all the momentum happening on the south side of the river and that is starting to become a possibility.

A park, a mixed use development. Anything. Talk about views of the skyline.

[taxi]

If this bridge is saved, I predict hipster bars will invade Harlem.

[KCKev]

Take the river taxi to bar by the bridge cause there's no bus or streetcar and interstate is so old school!