KCRag Forum

dukuboy1 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 24, 2022 10:29 pm This bridge is going to be very unappealing in terms of design. I understand a lot of it has to do with building requirements of FAA & airport. Rest is at the hands of MODOT & politicians basically wanting to get it done to serve a function not be functional as well as have a nice design. It’s going to be HOA part 2.

Basically is what it is now. Boring, bland, & opportunity missed. I just hope it functions as intended & provides some congestion improvements

The Broadway bridge replacement is an absolute disgrace. The FAA had nothing to do with it. A new bridge super structure doesn't have to be 200 feet tall for it to be an architecturally interesting bridge.

Even most people on this forum were okay with this project which I never understood. And now that it's pretty much a sure deal that the old bridge will not be saved and repurposed, there is nothing whatsoever to be excited about with this project. KC really dropped the ball on this one IMO.

GRID wrote: ↑Sun Nov 27, 2022 11:28 pm

dukuboy1 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 24, 2022 10:29 pm This bridge is going to be very unappealing in terms of design. I understand a lot of it has to do with building requirements of FAA & airport. Rest is at the hands of MODOT & politicians basically wanting to get it done to serve a function not be functional as well as have a nice design. It’s going to be HOA part 2.

Basically is what it is now. Boring, bland, & opportunity missed. I just hope it functions as intended & provides some congestion improvements

The Broadway bridge replacement is an absolute disgrace. The FAA had nothing to do with it. A new bridge super structure doesn't have to be 200 feet tall for it to be an architecturally interesting bridge.

Even most people on this forum were okay with this project which I never understood. And now that it's pretty much a sure deal that the old bridge will not be saved and repurposed, there is nothing whatsoever to be excited about with this project. KC really dropped the ball on this one IMO.

I blame MODOT for lack of architecture on the bridge. KCMO and the region scraped together funds to pay for it. Replacement was inferior as discussed (3 year closure, still terrible intersection w 70).

I favor replacement versus renovation. The bridge is dangerous for pedestrians and the stoplight causes traffic to back up sometimes across the whole thing.

GRID wrote: ↑Sun Nov 27, 2022 11:28 pm Even most people on this forum were okay with this project which I never understood…there is nothing whatsoever to be excited about with this project.

This is a prerequisite for North Loop removal. This is a short term loss, long term gain. Does it suck that we got a bare bones project and can’t save the old bridge? Absolutely. Is it an acceptable loss if it means we now have the ability to get a highway scar removed from downtown, reconnect a grid system that’s been cut through for 50 years, and increase usable land in the core of DT? Yes, very much an acceptable loss here.

Anthony_Hugo98 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 28, 2022 8:28 am

GRID wrote: ↑Sun Nov 27, 2022 11:28 pm Even most people on this forum were okay with this project which I never understood…there is nothing whatsoever to be excited about with this project.

This is a prerequisite for North Loop removal. This is a short term loss, long term gain. Does it suck that we got a bare bones project and can’t save the old bridge? Absolutely. Is it an acceptable loss if it means we now have the ability to get a highway scar removed from downtown, reconnect a grid system that’s been cut through for 50 years, and increase usable land in the core of DT? Yes, very much an acceptable loss here.

Yeah pretty big statement to infer anybody on here was a-okay with every part of this project. That's just not true.

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Mon Nov 28, 2022 8:58 am

Anthony_Hugo98 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 28, 2022 8:28 am

GRID wrote: ↑Sun Nov 27, 2022 11:28 pm Even most people on this forum were okay with this project which I never understood…there is nothing whatsoever to be excited about with this project.

This is a prerequisite for North Loop removal. This is a short term loss, long term gain. Does it suck that we got a bare bones project and can’t save the old bridge? Absolutely. Is it an acceptable loss if it means we now have the ability to get a highway scar removed from downtown, reconnect a grid system that’s been cut through for 50 years, and increase usable land in the core of DT? Yes, very much an acceptable loss here.

Yeah pretty big statement to infer anybody on here was a-okay with every part of this project. That's just not true.

Seriously, we all pretty much raised hell about this project, but what does Grid want? They’re actively constructing the superstructure for these flyovers, we can’t really change the design much now, but we can appreciate the opportunity this opens up for us going forward.

Lowering 9 highway and any type of improvement to the north loop makes this all worth it to me. The fact that's it's boring sucks for sure. Losing the current Buck bridge sucks for sure. It's wasn't possible to change those things.

I'm not sure where they would even get the money for a bridge park with their goal set on reviving Barney Allis by 2026

The poor architecture of the bridge isn’t a huge issue to me compared to the real issue; the partial destruction and further splitting apart of the neighborhood (what little is left of it at least) on the south end of the bridge. I think there was a chance to reconnect a bit of urban fabric, but instead it’s been further damaged.

We need an update on the north loop removal ASAP

the splitting apart of that little bit of whatever neighborhood you'd call those 2 buildings versus the potential reconnection of RM to CBD isn't even close to comparable.

It should have been disconnected from the loop totally, not connected more with giant high speed flyover ramps. The primary purpose of the new bridge should have been to bring 169 into downtown and have it simply turn into Broadway. But for some reason, everybody wanted I-35/29 traffic routed through there even though the west loop won't be able to handle it anyway. Like KC needs another damn limited access freeway plowing through downtown.

169 and 9 both should be become at grade downtown streets once they cross the river. Modot could have put all that money they are spending on those ramps into a better bridge for people who want to be downtown, not more ramps for people trying to bypass it.

I'm not buying this had to be done to remove the north loop. I don't buy anything Modot says. They have no idea how to build urban pedestrian friendly infrastructure. They will only try to bring their suburban design culture downtown and they are succeeding.

It wasn't just modot that said that though? KCMO and MARC were also planning partners in that study. Also Urban Land Institute,

TheLastGentleman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 28, 2022 10:00 am The poor architecture of the bridge isn’t a huge issue to me compared to the real issue; the partial destruction and further splitting apart of the neighborhood (what little is left of it at least) on the south end of the bridge. I think there was a chance to reconnect a bit of urban fabric, but instead it’s been further damaged.

We need an update on the north loop removal ASAP

I'm just spitballing here but my inkling is that once funds/construction is secured for the 670 cap & the Royals, the city's next "big project" is probably to finally pivot to north loop. That would be the logical next step.

and with that if it is EV, that's going to include east loop fixes (I'd hope/assume)

GRID wrote: ↑Mon Nov 28, 2022 11:02 am But for some reason, everybody wanted I-35/29 traffic routed thought there even though the west loop won't be able to handle it anyway. Like KC needs another damn limited access freeway plowing through downtown. Modot could have put all that money they are spending on those ramps into a better bridge for people what want to be downtown, not more ramps for people trying to bypass it. I'm not buying this had to be done to remove the north loop. I don't buy anything Modot says.

This rings true for me. And I don’t think the Royals DT is going to bring any desire to fruition to remove highways. The parking people will throw a fit. “Downtown traffic is already terrible for getting to a game, now they’re going to remove the highways!!!!!” MoDOT sold us a line. We fell for it and gave money for nothin’.

GRID wrote: ↑Mon Nov 28, 2022 11:02 am I'm not buying this had to be done to remove the north loop. I don't buy anything Modot says. They have no idea how to build urban pedestrian friendly infrastructure. They will only try to bring their suburban design culture downtown and they are succeeding.

Yeah, I never understood this either and don't think I ever saw an actual explanation. It was always "this needs to happen to make North Loop removal possible." But, why though? "Because that's what they said."

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Mon Nov 28, 2022 11:11 am It wasn't just modot that said that though? KCMO and MARC were also planning partners in that study. Also Urban Land Institute,

LOL at MARC. They are clueless. Pretty sure everybody that works for MARC lives in the burbs. Have you actually read any of their studies and stuff? And what have they really done besides get a few grants? What a worthless and waste of a regional alliance. And KCMO is not much better. They all just went with what MoDot said needed to be done.

Since MARC is a joke, the city of KCMO should at least have a few actual urban planners on staff to push back on MoDot, but they just don't seem to have that.

KCMO is a large city of half million residents. It should have a better urban planning department and experts in that field. It's just like Jackson County. It's also a large urbanized county that has the planning and engineering staff of a rural county or something so they are pushed around by MoDot too. While places like St Louis County and even St Charles County are not. The locals push around MoDot on the other side of the state and demand better. And they get it.

Anyway it's a done deal now. Maybe the views of downtown will be pretty neat from the flyovers at least.

I have thought saving the old bridge for a park was an incredibly dumb idea since the first moment I saw it. I appreciate the concept being thrown out there, but the fact that it received any traction was a joke. Were we trying to save the bridge? ..or build a useful place for the community to meet itself? It seemed too forced to be the second reason.

For me, the real tragedy is the lack of celebration to the new bridge design. The old bridge was an event... a moment to celebrate the arrival to downtown or crossing the river. My wife often suggested that we took that route instead of faster routes because it felt special and that we were experiencing something special. The broadway bridge does that. I will miss that.

I was not hoping the new bridge would be some new fancy piece of architecture. I was hoping it would create a sense of arrival. A gateway. Something special to celebrate coming downtown. That could be "architecture", but the visually expressed structure (like the current bridge) can to that as well.

We may be gaining a new bridge, but we will be losing a celebration of downtown.

There will not be any DT views from the flyovers, for those that were hoping for that. The northbound bridge and approaches are the higher of the two spans. Any views of DT from the southbound will be blocked by the higher northbound.

AlbertHammond wrote: ↑Mon Nov 28, 2022 3:11 pm We may be gaining a new bridge, but we will be losing a celebration of downtown.

But the goal of the new bridge is to not have to touch your brakes as you pass by downtown and barley even know you are in a downtown while doing so.

Mission accomplished.

And yeah the bridge park idea was just something I was really behind just to make me feel better about the new bridge. I knew deep down that it would not happen and even if it did KCMO has such a poor track record for maintaining and programing its existing parks, I didn't see it being successful. But I wanted "something" out this. Anything.