Capping the Loop

[chaglang]

That's what really got me thinking that putting a really great park down there would actually be a great draw for people to head down there.

Other things that draw people: mixed use developments with bars and restaurants; more people; an activated streetscape.

Im telling you if you just plop some apartments or "mixed use" then still nobody is gonna have a reason to go down there unless they live there.

People living there is most of the point and has been for almost 20 years. FWIW, people seem to visit the P&L quite a bit and there's no park there.

You can talk about the fiscal reason as well but I have no doubt the area around it would be developed.

AFAIK the lack of development isn't for lack of adjacent parkland. So why not do the fiscally safe thing and densify now and add parks as needed? An ice rink or seasonal amenity is not going to generate anywhere near the tax revenue as a couple 100 unit apartment or condo buildings. The property tax math doesn't come close to balancing. And the e-tax comparison isn't even possible.

[AlkaliAxel]

That's what really got me thinking that putting a really great park down there would actually be a great draw for people to head down there.

Other things that draw people: mixed use developments with bars and restaurants; more people; an activated streetscape.

Im telling you if you just plop some apartments or "mixed use" then still nobody is gonna have a reason to go down there unless they live there.

People living there is most of the point and has been for almost 20 years. FWIW, people seem to visit the P&L quite a bit and there's no park there.

You can talk about the fiscal reason as well but I have no doubt the area around it would be developed.

AFAIK the lack of development isn't for lack of adjacent parkland. So why not do the fiscally safe thing and densify now and add parks as needed? An ice rink or seasonal amenity is not going to generate anywhere near the tax revenue as a couple 100 unit apartment or condo buildings. The property tax math doesn't come close to balancing. And the e-tax comparison isn't even possible.

We can have the bars and restaurants too. We can have that, and a grandiose central downtown park and really make something great. Putting up more apartments is gonna limit it and that area won't bring in as many people as a great park would. Apartments are private property. And yes you go to P&L because without a park there because it's an entertainment district and the only one we have. I think we need to diversify what we offer in the downtown other than literally just apartments or bars/restaurants. We have pretty much only one shot to build a real central city park where you can walk *without* having to stop alot for road crossings. and it's on that land. We can build bars/restaurants anywhere there's a surface lot.

DC has the Mall, St.Louis has Forrest park, Chicago has Millenium & Grant, NY has Central park, SF has Golden gate park, San Diego has Balboa, and I'm sure there are countless others. They're all centrally located and high density and I'm sure have been a boon. We should take note of that and do this for ourselves instead of yet another bar downtown or luxury condo that we can put anywhere.

[langosta]

IMHO. Forest Park is way to big for what and where it is. Berkley may end up providing most “big” park amenities that downtown needs. Will still need smaller parks in Crossroads, Southloop, and Northloop

[DaveKCMO]

Will still need smaller parks in Crossroads, Southloop, and Northloop

I don't need a park, and I think the assumption that people who don't have dogs need one is flawed.

[AlkaliAxel]

I know people who drive in frequently from the middle of Johnson County just use Loose Park. That park is packed on the weekend and heck even on weeknights. If we had a central one downtown...could be yuuuuuge deal for downtown as per density

[TheLastGentleman]

The big central park downtown is called Penn Valley Park

[AlkaliAxel]

The big central park downtown is called Penn Valley Park

Something closer to Loose Park would be preferable than an open grassland that's disconnected

[TheLastGentleman]

Something closer to Loose Park would be preferable than an open grassland that's disconnected

Yeah it’s like kc can’t maintain the parks it already has

[AlkaliAxel]

Something closer to Loose Park would be preferable than an open grassland that's disconnected

Yeah it’s like kc can’t maintain the parks it already has

I wouldn't even mind if they just developed parts of Penn Valley because most of it just sits there uselessly. Maybe that can solve some of the fiscal problem and then we can arrange for a better park downtown.

[DColeKC]

Something closer to Loose Park would be preferable than an open grassland that's disconnected

Yeah it’s like kc can’t maintain the parks it already has

Another reason the cap project would be a win, the city wouldn’t be responsible to manage or maintain it.

[KCPowercat]

Will still need smaller parks in Crossroads, Southloop, and Northloop

I don't need a park, and I think the assumption that people who don't have dogs need one is flawed.

Still think a park in crossroads would be a welcome amenity for a lot of people. Hell get some street trees at least.

[chaglang]

There's a scale problem with comparing the north loop parcels to huge parks in other cities. Forest Park is 1300 acres. Balboa Park is 1200. Central Park is around 850. Millennium Park is 320. Penn Valley Park is 175. Loose Park is 75. The north loop parcels are around 60. Fiscal considerations aside, it's questionable how transformative a park of that size could be.

[herrfrank]

As mentioned upthread, Penn Valley Park is the "central" park of Kansas City -- Swope Park is more akin to Forest Park in St. Louis, and Loose Park is a small scale NY Central Park, surrounded by rich residential areas.

Penn Valley Park is however seriously compromised by its sacrifice as a cut-through for Broadway, plus the other roads that isolate and cut it. Closing Broadway through PVP would work wonders. This should have been done years ago.

[AlkaliAxel]

There's a scale problem with comparing the north loop parcels to huge parks in other cities. Forest Park is 1300 acres. Balboa Park is 1200. Central Park is around 850. Millennium Park is 320. Penn Valley Park is 175. Loose Park is 75. The north loop parcels are around 60. Fiscal considerations aside, it's questionable how transformative a park of that size could be.

I don't why we're pretending that Penn Valley is some widely used park, I'm not even sure alot of people know what it is. It's hard to get around it and not even fun to go to. Loose is like 1/20th of the size and has 10x more people come, people from all over the metro know what the little Loose Park is because it's so good. Penn Valley is just a grass field with a couple statues and it's disconnected. Instead of just settinling for "welp I guess we have Penn Valley" why don't we put in some effort and build a real park downtown on that loop that's like the rendering floated around. Then you'd get your Loose Park-like dynamics downtown, which is aloooot of people and density. Ever seen Loose on a Saturday morning?

And yes, you're right it is smaller than Balboa, Forest, etc., which is good for the fiscal issues people are scared about. Won't be as much to maintain. But it's also big enough that it would have a great impact. Loose is one the big reasons that I've lived in Brookside and I imagine the same for alot of residents. I just want that impact downtown.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

There's a scale problem with comparing the north loop parcels to huge parks in other cities. Forest Park is 1300 acres. Balboa Park is 1200. Central Park is around 850. Millennium Park is 320. Penn Valley Park is 175. Loose Park is 75. The north loop parcels are around 60. Fiscal considerations aside, it's questionable how transformative a park of that size could be.

I don't why we're pretending that Penn Valley is some widely used park, I'm not even sure alot of people know what it is. It's hard to get around it and not even fun to go to. Loose is like 1/20th of the size and has 10x more people come, people from all over the metro know what the little Loose Park is because it's so good. Penn Valley is just a grass field with a couple statues and it's disconnected. Instead of just settinling for "welp I guess we have Penn Valley" why don't we put in some effort and build a real park downtown on that loop that's like the rendering floated around. Then you'd get your Loose Park-like dynamics downtown, which is aloooot of people and density. Ever seen Loose on a Saturday morning?

And yes, you're right it is smaller than Balboa, Forest, etc., which is good for the fiscal issues people are scared about. Won't be as much to maintain. But it's also big enough that it would have a great impact. Loose is one the big reasons that I've lived in Brookside and I imagine the same for alot of residents. I just want that impact downtown.

How is it that you see potential for an amazing park in a sunken trench with overpasses every block but not in an established park with the best view of the skyline in KC, an established and renowned museum and one of the top landmarks of the city that connects downtown to midtown? All of your criticisms of PVP are accurate but those are arguments for why we should make it better, not give up on it and turn what would be prime real estate into a North Loop park that could be great but doesn't have even close to the potential of PVP.

[wahoowa]

hol up hol up maybe if we completely fill in the entire river then we can then build a carbon copy of loose park where the river used to be and-----**This user has been placed on administrative time out**

[AlkaliAxel]

There's a scale problem with comparing the north loop parcels to huge parks in other cities. Forest Park is 1300 acres. Balboa Park is 1200. Central Park is around 850. Millennium Park is 320. Penn Valley Park is 175. Loose Park is 75. The north loop parcels are around 60. Fiscal considerations aside, it's questionable how transformative a park of that size could be.

I don't why we're pretending that Penn Valley is some widely used park, I'm not even sure alot of people know what it is. It's hard to get around it and not even fun to go to. Loose is like 1/20th of the size and has 10x more people come, people from all over the metro know what the little Loose Park is because it's so good. Penn Valley is just a grass field with a couple statues and it's disconnected. Instead of just settinling for "welp I guess we have Penn Valley" why don't we put in some effort and build a real park downtown on that loop that's like the rendering floated around. Then you'd get your Loose Park-like dynamics downtown, which is aloooot of people and density. Ever seen Loose on a Saturday morning?

And yes, you're right it is smaller than Balboa, Forest, etc., which is good for the fiscal issues people are scared about. Won't be as much to maintain. But it's also big enough that it would have a great impact. Loose is one the big reasons that I've lived in Brookside and I imagine the same for alot of residents. I just want that impact downtown.

How is it that you see potential for an amazing park in a sunken trench with overpasses every block but not in an established park with the best view of the skyline in KC, an established and renowned museum and one of the top landmarks of the city that connects downtown to midtown? All of your criticisms of PVP are accurate but those are arguments for why we should make it better, not give up on it and turn what would be prime real estate into a North Loop park that could be great but doesn't have even close to the potential of PVP.

I think it has more potential than PVP, by quite a bit. Why are we ignoring the city access in this? You could hop off "north loop park" and be right in the city and do anything. You could hop off and get right on a streetcar easily too!! You never will be able to do that with PVP. Also, the park renderings I've seen on north loop have the park brought to grade, not just in a sunken hole. My idea of of this park would be that you could be in the city and easily go there to hangout, walk, or whatever but still be in the city. As I said several comments ago, nobody is walking down there if you just put in more apartments. PVP park is super hilly, hard to get around, and not to mention very disconnected. There's literally nothing around it. I honestly don't know what you could do to fix it. In my opinion if you wanted to develop that badly, I'd actually rather just develop PVP and just make a Loose Park downtown where I'm proposing where you'll get alot more pedestrians.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I think our downtown core needs more diversity than just bars and apartments. We need something like Loose Park down there that will draw. PVP isn't connected and is nothing like that, and can't really become it with where it's at.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

I don't why we're pretending that Penn Valley is some widely used park, I'm not even sure alot of people know what it is. It's hard to get around it and not even fun to go to. Loose is like 1/20th of the size and has 10x more people come, people from all over the metro know what the little Loose Park is because it's so good. Penn Valley is just a grass field with a couple statues and it's disconnected. Instead of just settinling for "welp I guess we have Penn Valley" why don't we put in some effort and build a real park downtown on that loop that's like the rendering floated around. Then you'd get your Loose Park-like dynamics downtown, which is aloooot of people and density. Ever seen Loose on a Saturday morning?

And yes, you're right it is smaller than Balboa, Forest, etc., which is good for the fiscal issues people are scared about. Won't be as much to maintain. But it's also big enough that it would have a great impact. Loose is one the big reasons that I've lived in Brookside and I imagine the same for alot of residents. I just want that impact downtown.

How is it that you see potential for an amazing park in a sunken trench with overpasses every block but not in an established park with the best view of the skyline in KC, an established and renowned museum and one of the top landmarks of the city that connects downtown to midtown? All of your criticisms of PVP are accurate but those are arguments for why we should make it better, not give up on it and turn what would be prime real estate into a North Loop park that could be great but doesn't have even close to the potential of PVP.

I think it has more potential than PVP, by quite a bit. Why are we ignoring the city access in this? You could hop off "north loop park" and be right in the city and do anything. You never will be able to do that with PVP. Also, the park renderings I've seen on north loop have the park brought to grade, not just in a sunken hole. My idea of of this park would be that you could be in the city and easily go there to hangout, walk, or whatever but still be in the city. As I said several comments ago, nobody is walking down there if you just put in more apartments. PVP park is super hilly, hard to get around, and not to mention very disconnected. There's literally nothing around it. I honestly don't know what you could do to fix it. In my opinion if you wanted to develop that badly, I'd actually rather just develop PVP and just make a Loose Park downtown where I'm proposing where you'll get alot more pedestrians.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I think our downtown core needs more diversity than just bars and apartments. We need something like Loose Park down there that will draw. PVP isn't connected and is nothing like that, and can't really become it with where it's at.

You don't get Loose Park by bringing North Loop up to grade. It's going to take 30+ years to have established trees like Loose Park. Having it at grade means having to cross a street every single block so no continuous trail along the perimeter. Loose Park is surrounded by mansions, this is surrounded by parking lots, which again, will take decades to fill in. Even if it does somehow rise to the level of Loose Park (narrator: it won't), it's not going to get there for decades, and would ultimately be nothing like Loose Park. Whereas, we can improve the trails in PVP, cut off through traffic on Broadway, apply road diets to all surrounding streets, sell off a few key parcels on the park's perimeter in PVP tomorrow and have the park you're asking for. You act like there's nothing around it but Union Station is to the north, Crown Center and Union Hill are to the east and midtown is to the south. It's disconnected because of terrible design not because nothing's there. And, it already has established amenities that people do go to, what amenities is North Loop going to have, other than greenspace, that wouldn't take up entire blocks of the park?

Also, Penn Valley Park will have three streetcar stops either immediately next door or within a couple blocks so I don't really get your point about hopping off the streetcar and being right there.

[AlkaliAxel]

How is it that you see potential for an amazing park in a sunken trench with overpasses every block but not in an established park with the best view of the skyline in KC, an established and renowned museum and one of the top landmarks of the city that connects downtown to midtown? All of your criticisms of PVP are accurate but those are arguments for why we should make it better, not give up on it and turn what would be prime real estate into a North Loop park that could be great but doesn't have even close to the potential of PVP.

I think it has more potential than PVP, by quite a bit. Why are we ignoring the city access in this? You could hop off "north loop park" and be right in the city and do anything. You never will be able to do that with PVP. Also, the park renderings I've seen on north loop have the park brought to grade, not just in a sunken hole. My idea of of this park would be that you could be in the city and easily go there to hangout, walk, or whatever but still be in the city. As I said several comments ago, nobody is walking down there if you just put in more apartments. PVP park is super hilly, hard to get around, and not to mention very disconnected. There's literally nothing around it. I honestly don't know what you could do to fix it. In my opinion if you wanted to develop that badly, I'd actually rather just develop PVP and just make a Loose Park downtown where I'm proposing where you'll get alot more pedestrians.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I think our downtown core needs more diversity than just bars and apartments. We need something like Loose Park down there that will draw. PVP isn't connected and is nothing like that, and can't really become it with where it's at.

You don't get Loose Park by bringing North Loop up to grade. It's going to take 30+ years to have established trees like Loose Park. Having it at grade means having to cross a street every single block so no continuous trail along the perimeter. Loose Park is surrounded by mansions, this is surrounded by parking lots, which again, will take decades to fill in. Even if it does somehow rise to the level of Loose Park (narrator: it won't), it's not going to get there for decades, and would ultimately be nothing like Loose Park. Whereas, we can improve the trails in PVP, cut off through traffic on Broadway, apply road diets to all surrounding streets, sell off a few key parcels on the park's perimeter in PVP tomorrow and have the park you're asking for. You act like there's nothing around it but Union Station is to the north, Crown Center and Union Hill are to the east and midtown is to the south. It's disconnected because of terrible design not because nothing's there. And, it already has established amenities that people do go to, what amenities is North Loop going to have, other than greenspace, that wouldn't take up entire blocks of the park?

I'm not saying copy exactly Loose Park and place it down there. Also I don't think it being surrounded by mansions has anything to do with it. I think part of what makes Loose a great park is that it has a.) the amenities like the pond, the tennis courts, the rose garden, etc. and also b.) it's a tight compact rectangle so it's simple to understand and walk around and all the amenities in the park are easy to get to from any point in the park. That is why it gets alot of pedestrians every day. That can be much more easily replicated downtown *plus* you'll have ease of access to streetcar and venues.

For all the hatred of sprawl and the love of density you see in these threads, I'm surprised we'd see endorsing building on PVP when it's quite literally the definition of sprawl whereas it's a.) hard to get around, sort of confusing, .b) way to big and not compact at all c.) disconnected from the city center. North loop park would be filled with people, dense, close to amenities and actually grow the downtown much more.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

it has a.) the amenities like the pond, the tennis courts, the rose garden, etc.

You mean like a pond, tennis courts, Liberty Memorial, WW1 Museum, view of the skyline, Scout statue, softball fields, skatepark, dog park, fountain, theatre like already exist in PVP park? Or the non-existent amenities in North Loop you wouldn't have room to build?

b.) it's a tight compact rectangle so it's simple to understand and walk around

How would an at-grade North Loop park be easy to get around when you have to stop every 100 feet to cross traffic?

I will concede the point that Loose Park is less confusing to walk around than PVP but that's nothing some signage wouldn't fix.

Also, weird that you would criticize PVP as being sprawl but lionize Loose Park, a former country club in the heart of the original auto-focused suburb.