2022 KC Goals

[earthling]

Goals for KC in 2022? Or things to focus on over the next year?

- Maintaining Cerner jobs and enticing Oracle for even more long term investment. Given high impact to City, needs to be high priority.
- Announce specific baseball stadium location or if staying in TSC (if anything so that lots aren't tied up and can be developed)
- KCMO needs to refine incentive guidelines to be less strict on affordability reqs but more control over street engagement/TOD reqs in urban core.
- Pursue Downtown SKC soccer stadium?

Broader goals longer term...
- Reducing crime should always be on radar. Easier said than done but KC ranking is poor.
- Boost UMKC as a stronger university as often discussed.
- Entice a startup airline based in KC.
- Continued efforts developing/rehabbing E Side beyond Troost.

What else?

[normalthings]

Startup airline may actually be counterproductive. IMHO, a better goal is to work towards becoming an Alaska or JetBlue Midwest hub or to take the Southwest STL operation (none appear likely).

[dukuboy1]

these seem good, and I agree a startup airline might be rough. It could happen for sure but I like the idea of having Southwest build their presence back /take back STL operations. I also like the JetBlue & Alaska airlines midwest hub idea. One of my favorite airlines over the years was Midwest Airlines. Loved their model of travel. Would really enjoy seeing them come back to KC as a "hub".

I'd also like to see KC get very aggressive in brining in major businesses with regional offices, new HQ's etc. Also bolster the nurturing of start ups and looking to grow the business development of the area. No secret the current mayor has placed the business community as a lower priority along with development. Keeping things in balances with checks and such is a great idea but it appears there was an overcorrection to placate to a specific crowd. But in general, better leadership from our leaders is a given.

[earthling]

A startup airline might be rough at this time but not sure how it would be counterproductive. We had more destinations and more flights per day per major destinations when Vanguard was based out of KC. Much more control of what's best for the core local hub (and therefore KC) than being at the whim of airlines who can easily adjust flights around other hubs that fits their biz, not what's best for KC. Percolating some enticement this year might allow for one to startup by time new terminal opens or shortly after. An alternate plan could be to establish as solid service as we can with Alaska/SWA/etc in new terminal and if service not on par with comparable markets, provide conditions to entice a startup.

Getting mayor back on track for development friendliness might have more success than pursuing other HQs or regional offices from outside given ATL/DFW and other large markets have significantly high office vacancy and top notch air service - but worth trying.

[Highlander]

Startup airline may actually be counterproductive. IMHO, a better goal is to work towards becoming an Alaska or JetBlue Midwest hub or to take the Southwest STL operation (none appear likely).

Judging from their route map, there's a very good case to be made for making KC an Alaska midwest hub.


https://www.flightconnections.com/route-map-alaska-as

[normalthings]

A startup airline might be rough at this time but not sure how it would be counterproductive. We had more destinations and more flights per day per major destinations when Vanguard was based out of KC. Much more control of what's best for the core local hub (and therefore KC) than being at the whim of airlines who can easily adjust flights around other hubs that fits their biz, not what's best for KC. Percolating some enticement this year might allow for one to startup by time new terminal opens or shortly after. An alternate plan could be to establish as solid service as we can with Alaska/SWA/etc in new terminal and if service not on par with comparable markets, provide conditions to entice a startup.

Getting mayor back on track for development friendliness might have more success than pursuing other HQs or regional offices from outside given ATL/DFW and other large markets have significantly high office vacancy and top notch air service - but worth trying.

Did Vanguard even serve any major airports from KCI that don't have service today (or at least 2019)? Pittsburgh is the only major city I can think of. Wichita, Des Moines and Colorado Springs may also have been served at one point. Those inner small cities would not make sense for a startup to serve until after they became a major airlines. Southwest flies those to the STL hub and load factors are poor and tickets are often on-sale. Massive consolidation , security reqs, and the rise of mainstream ULCC and LCC players make it much much harder for a Vanguard 2.0 to sprout today.

Counter Productive: Hurt relationships with existing major airlines for an extremely low, say sub 1% chance that a startup becomes a meaningful new airline. The incentives (direct cash or just waived charges) would be better used to incentivize new domestic or international services on existing players.

[Anthony_Hugo98]

I agree that shifting council and mayoral opinion on development should be the priority. This anti-incentive, anti-core attitude that’s seemed to grow in city hall in the last year isn’t going to encourage development by any means. KC is a mid-sized city, we need to stop acting like developers aren’t taking a risk when investing here…

[normalthings]

I agree that shifting council and mayoral opinion on development should be the priority. This anti-incentive, anti-core attitude that’s seemed to grow in city hall in the last year isn’t going to encourage development by any means. KC is a mid-sized city, we need to stop acting like developers aren’t taking a risk when investing here…

forgot to mention slow growth, lacking major HQs or universities or hub airports/good connectivity, minimal national tourism metro

[earthling]

A startup airline might be rough at this time but not sure how it would be counterproductive. We had more destinations and more flights per day per major destinations when Vanguard was based out of KC. Much more control of what's best for the core local hub (and therefore KC) than being at the whim of airlines who can easily adjust flights around other hubs that fits their biz, not what's best for KC. Percolating some enticement this year might allow for one to startup by time new terminal opens or shortly after. An alternate plan could be to establish as solid service as we can with Alaska/SWA/etc in new terminal and if service not on par with comparable markets, provide conditions to entice a startup.

Getting mayor back on track for development friendliness might have more success than pursuing other HQs or regional offices from outside given ATL/DFW and other large markets have significantly high office vacancy and top notch air service - but worth trying.

Did Vanguard even serve any major airports from KCI that don't have service today (or at least 2019)? Pittsburgh is the only major city I can think of. Wichita, Des Moines and Colorado Springs may also have been served at one point. Those inner small cities would not make sense for a startup to serve until after they became a major airlines. Southwest flies those to the STL hub and load factors are poor and tickets are often on-sale. Massive consolidation , security reqs, and the rise of mainstream ULCC and LCC players make it much much harder for a Vanguard 2.0 to sprout today.

Counter Productive: Hurt relationships with existing major airlines for an extremely low, say sub 1% chance that a startup becomes a meaningful new airline. The incentives (direct cash or just waived charges) would be better used to incentivize new domestic or international services on existing players.

Yes, Vanguard did serve several large markets (LAX, SFO, Vegas, several Florida, ORD, JFK, MSP, Pitt, etc) with a net result of more flights per day across sum of all airlines. KCI had over 100 nonstop destinations in Vanguard days as it augmented other airlines, not replacing them. Even just before COVID KCI had less than 50 nonstops. Also IIRC KCI hit peak annual traffic during Vanguard and Brannif periods (across all airlines), which KCI has not seen with other mini hubs from major airlines. So it didn't really hurt relationships. It's a risk though.

[normalthings]

A startup airline might be rough at this time but not sure how it would be counterproductive. We had more destinations and more flights per day per major destinations when Vanguard was based out of KC. Much more control of what's best for the core local hub (and therefore KC) than being at the whim of airlines who can easily adjust flights around other hubs that fits their biz, not what's best for KC. Percolating some enticement this year might allow for one to startup by time new terminal opens or shortly after. An alternate plan could be to establish as solid service as we can with Alaska/SWA/etc in new terminal and if service not on par with comparable markets, provide conditions to entice a startup.

Getting mayor back on track for development friendliness might have more success than pursuing other HQs or regional offices from outside given ATL/DFW and other large markets have significantly high office vacancy and top notch air service - but worth trying.

Did Vanguard even serve any major airports from KCI that don't have service today (or at least 2019)? Pittsburgh is the only major city I can think of. Wichita, Des Moines and Colorado Springs may also have been served at one point. Those inner small cities would not make sense for a startup to serve until after they became a major airlines. Southwest flies those to the STL hub and load factors are poor and tickets are often on-sale. Massive consolidation , security reqs, and the rise of mainstream ULCC and LCC players make it much much harder for a Vanguard 2.0 to sprout today.

Counter Productive: Hurt relationships with existing major airlines for an extremely low, say sub 1% chance that a startup becomes a meaningful new airline. The incentives (direct cash or just waived charges) would be better used to incentivize new domestic or international services on existing players.

Yes, Vanguard did serve several large markets (LAX, SFO, Vegas, several Florida, ORD, JFK, MSP, Pitt, etc) with a net result of more flights per day across sum of all airlines. KCI had over 100 nonstop destinations in Vanguard days as it augmented other airlines, not replacing them. Even just before COVID KCI had less than 50 nonstops. Also IIRC KCI hit peak annual traffic during Vanguard and Brannif periods (across all airlines), which KCI has not seen with other mini hubs from major airlines. So it didn't really hurt relationships. It's a risk though.

Yes, what I am saying is that Vanguard mostly served cities that established airlines serve from KC today. The latest waves of start-ups in the US have focused on unserved routes. They can't compete with an established player on price, connectivity, rewards, or service. Incentivizing a star-up directly against an established airline hurts that relationship for an extremely small chance of things working out.

[earthling]

^Overall KCI had many more nonstops and more flight time options across all airlines when Vanguard and Braniff were operating. Pretty decent breadth and depth for a smallish market. The airline economics are different these days but KC region is also larger. Would be fine to try and establish a hub from existing airlines but they'll likely phase in and out with no consistent coverage overall like a locally based airline can provide (or at least fill in gaps). I doubt we'll see over 100 destinations unless we get lucky with establishing something more than a mini hub with existing or startup a new local.

[Highlander]

Goals for KC in 2022? Or things to focus on over the next year?

- Maintaining Cerner jobs and enticing Oracle for even more long term investment. Given high impact to City, needs to be high priority.
- Announce specific baseball stadium location or if staying in TSC (if anything so that lots aren't tied up and can be developed)
- KCMO needs to refine incentive guidelines to be less strict on affordability reqs but more control over street engagement/TOD reqs in urban core.
- Pursue Downtown SKC soccer stadium?

Broader goals longer term...
- Reducing crime should always be on radar. Easier said than done but KC ranking is poor.
- Boost UMKC as a stronger university as often discussed.
- Entice a startup airline based in KC.
- Continued efforts developing/rehabbing E Side beyond Troost.

What else?

I agree with all of these.

A couple of others for 2022 and onward: 1. Stronger gentrification in the Kansas City's urban core. I know that's a dirty word to some but it's absolutely necessary for KC's well being. KC's unique man-made geography has left few places for the middle class to live in the core if they are not interested in a downtown apartment. By unique geography, I mean having only a narrow corridor of housing that's in decent shape a few blocks wide along state line. There are pockets in the NE but gentrification has been pretty restricted in KC relative to other city's where wide corridors have been gentrified (Denver and Houston are two cities I am familiar with that come to mind).

2. Better cooperation between all corners of the metro to fund the area's cultural infrastructure even if this means throwing Johnson County a bone. Some of the infrastructure that could be better funded as a metro would be improvements to any of the publicly funded stadiums/arenas, the Zoo, the Arboretum in Overland Park, etc..... This cooperation should also be the vanguard of attracting new companies into the metro. (I realize this is the most far fetched of any of my ideas but it's a no brainer in terms of the single best way to improve the Kansas City area).

3. UMKC. I agree but would add that UMKC also double down on its efforts in Life Sciences which would be a great addition with Stowers Institute so close by and with their current expansion plans. UMKC should also look for new land to expand and I would suggest the east side of Troost from Cleaver Boulevard south to Brush Creek. They could even incorporate the existing Gates into that part of the university.

[earthling]

Yes Stowers Institute is a good kickstart but not enough for Life Sciences momentum. The new Oxford on Blue/Glade will help.. unfortunately not closer to UMKC but could still collaborate with UMKC. Would also be nice to see a Cerner exec and/or Oracle start a School of Tech/Health IT within UMKC that produces Health IT talent and feeds the growing data canter momentum.

On E Side 'gentrification', KCMO needs to make sure the 63rd/Prospect project happens this year and create conditions to entice more along Prospect. The Prospect MAX line created a nice streetscape upgrade that can help give Prospect more momentum along with that project.

[AlkaliAxel]

I actually think more importantly than all of that is we just make KC more of a destination.

It’s just simply got to be a place people choose to go to. If you look at all the cities that are growing, there isn’t a direct correlation with having the university & the corporate. Some of the fastest growing metros right now have neither of those. But the reason people are moving to them is because they’re just great places to live. Las Vegas, Jacksonville, Portland, Phoenix. Orlando, Denver, Tucson, San Antonio, Oklahoma City, etc. don’t have one of either a major school or lack corporate HQ, and they’re rocking right now.

Not to mention, with everything shifting to WFA in the future, having corporations based here won’t even matter. You can work anywhere you want.

We just need to make KC more desirable to everyday normal people. Make it more fun, more things to do. And we certainly have the capability to do a few things.

[earthling]

Collison on 2022 KC goals...
https://cityscenekc.com/commentary-look ... d-to-2022/

[Highlander]

Collison on 2022 KC goals...
https://cityscenekc.com/commentary-look ... d-to-2022/

Very nice set of goals. One to add: Get a true home town newspaper with a wide circulation that is not caught up in sensationalist headlines to sell newspaper and internet subscriptions. If we can do that, objectives like this become easier:

"When it comes to granting tax incentives, city and development agency leaders also need to do a much better job educating the public. With limited exceptions, incentives are not hard cash provided by taxpayers to subsidize developers."

The lack of understanding of the process that exists is largely a product of purposeful misleading reporting by the Star.

[moderne]

Adaptation of Star print building into a regional history museum.

Planning to accommodate hundreds of thousands domestic climate refugees from gulf and southeast coasts in near future, and push to have national capital moved here when heart of D.C. is submerged. Maybe use subtropolis (safe from storms) as secure zone for vital agencies

[Anthony_Hugo98]

Adaptation of Star print building into a regional history museum.

Planning to accommodate hundreds of thousands domestic climate refugees from gulf and southeast coasts in near future, and push to have national capital moved here when heart of D.C. is submerged. Maybe use subtropolis (safe from storms) as secure zone for vital agencies

Denver would get the capital before KC

[moderne]

Denver is water insecure, In same boat as rest of the west that depends on water from Colorado River watershed.

[kboish]

https://fox4kc.com/news/4star-politics- ... in-review/

Interview with City manager Platt. In it he is asked what would he pick for his one big thing to focus on in 2022. Other than basic services, he says development. He says there are about a dozen transformational projects brewing that he hopes are finalized this year. He says trying to figure out how to work with developers on some of the new things being asked of them in incentives has been difficult/uncertain, but that he hopes that gets ironed out this year and things move forward.

Sounds promising. Also speaks to the incentives change as a barrier to new development, but not insurmountable.