shinatoo wrote:I-35 on the west side is, in my opinion, the worst thing about the highway system in Kansas City. If I could change one thing about our highway system it would be to move I-35 to the west bottoms if not wholly into Kansas. Higher priority than any part of the loop.
At the time it was built the bluffs were slums and the bottoms were busy industrial.
When the decision was made in the 50's for this portion of the highway the West Bottoms was in far better shape than in later times. True, a big portion of it was the stockyards but other buildings were also places of business, generating jobs and taxes. So if you are going to put a roadway in the west side of downtown wouldn't it be better to put it where a current roadway is for the most part, or tear down buildings and losing tax base and jobs.
Back in the 70's I was able to work with some of those decision makers and those who worked for those decision makers. It isn't like they sat down one afternoon after a liquid lunch and started drawing lines and was finished an hour later. A highway has to go somewhere. If it is going through a farm field that can be a relatively easy decision. But when it has to go through an area that already has development many factors are weighed and one makes the best decision one can make with the knowledge one has at the time.
aknowledgeableperson wrote:When the decision was made in the 50's for this portion of the highway the West Bottoms was in far better shape than in later times. True, a big portion of it was the stockyards but other buildings were also places of business, generating jobs and taxes. So if you are going to put a roadway in the west side of downtown wouldn't it be better to put it where a current roadway is for the most part, or tear down buildings and losing tax base and jobs.
Back in the 70's I was able to work with some of those decision makers and those who worked for those decision makers. It isn't like they sat down one afternoon after a liquid lunch and started drawing lines and was finished an hour later. A highway has to go somewhere. If it is going through a farm field that can be a relatively easy decision. But when it has to go through an area that already has development many factors are weighed and one makes the best decision one can make with the knowledge one has at the time.
Tons of viable urban infrastructure was torn down for I-70 and I-35. I don't think the viability of the West Bottoms had anything to do with it - i suspect what saved the west bottoms was a combination of topography and not really being on the way to anywhere. The interstate system was a good idea if it would have been built as originally intended (between cities and not within them). The system was largely modeled after the German autobahn which either bypassed urban areas or died out into boulevards upon entry. The decision to take the interstate system inside cities was an absolute disaster for the US in every way possible. So, no, I don't think a highway has to go "somewhere".
TheBigChuckbowski wrote:A highway does not have to go through the middle of an urban area.
That is making a judgement on what is followed and known now. Back then the thought process was much different. Much like the old urban renewal practices.
aknowledgeableperson wrote:When the decision was made in the 50's for this portion of the highway the West Bottoms was in far better shape than in later times. True, a big portion of it was the stockyards but other buildings were also places of business, generating jobs and taxes. So if you are going to put a roadway in the west side of downtown wouldn't it be better to put it where a current roadway is for the most part, or tear down buildings and losing tax base and jobs.
Back in the 70's I was able to work with some of those decision makers and those who worked for those decision makers. It isn't like they sat down one afternoon after a liquid lunch and started drawing lines and was finished an hour later. A highway has to go somewhere. If it is going through a farm field that can be a relatively easy decision. But when it has to go through an area that already has development many factors are weighed and one makes the best decision one can make with the knowledge one has at the time.
Tons of viable urban infrastructure was torn down for I-70 and I-35. I don't think the viability of the West Bottoms had anything to do with it - i suspect what saved the west bottoms was a combination of topography and not really being on the way to anywhere. The interstate system was a good idea if it would have been built as originally intended (between cities and not within them). The system was largely modeled after the German autobahn which either bypassed urban areas or died out into boulevards upon entry. The decision to take the interstate system inside cities was an absolute disaster for the US in every way possible. So, no, I don't think a highway has to go "somewhere".
True but there wasn't much choice in many of those areas torn down for the highways. But the highways were put where they were to minimize the destruction. Some things had to go but factors were considered to make the choices of what had to go and what was to be saved.
With regards to this particular section of highway the Intercity(?) Viaduct is already there so nothing has to be done concerning securing right-of-way for it. To go south the city already controls the land needed for right-of-way so let's use that - no buildings need to be taken down.
What would be interesting would be to look at aerials from the 40's and see what was there before the highway. In particular they explained the Jackson Curve and then the Benton Curve going into downtown but I can't remember the reason(s) for them.
The decision to run the highways into the city was already made, the question was where was the path for the highway. And for most of the path the answer was made locally.
aknowledgeableperson wrote:
With regards to this particular section of highway the Intercity(?) Viaduct is already there so nothing has to be done concerning securing right-of-way for it. To go south the city already controls the land needed for right-of-way so let's use that - no buildings need to be taken down.
We can see this in rail line routes studied today in its own way.
The city studied the super easy and relatively cheap Trolley Track Trail over taking it down Troost which would be a better transit route and would easily get more riders.
We're looking at a riverfront route because the property owner is interested in helping pay for the study rather than spend the money on studying an actual transit corridor.
TheBigChuckbowski wrote:A highway does not have to go through the middle of an urban area.
That is making a judgement on what is followed and known now. Back then the thought process was much different. Much like the old urban renewal practices.
Sure, hindsight is 20-20 but it's not like it shouldn't have been obvious that destroying a city would destroy a city. Not only do they tear down a whole lot of density for the highway but nobody wants to live next to a highway (pretty obvious) which hollows out each direction away from it even more. Then, when you spread everything out, screw up the street grid, and take out mass transit, everyone is driving cars into the city. Thus, you need to tear down buildings to build parking, hollowing out the density even more. Pretty soon, you have an office park for an urban area, except it's not nice like the suburbs. The economic engine of your city becomes a place that no one wants to live or work in just a few decades.
The potential consequences are obvious if you don't purposely ignore them.
shinatoo wrote:I-35 on the west side is, in my opinion, the worst thing about the highway system in Kansas City. If I could change one thing about our highway system it would be to move I-35 to the west bottoms if not wholly into Kansas. Higher priority than any part of the loop.
At the time it was built the bluffs were slums and the bottoms were busy industrial.
In context they made a good choice
Um, no.
Fang I could be wrong, but I think flyingember is specifically talking about I-35 starting on the SW corner of downtown heading south (SW Trafficway). He's not talking about the west side of the loop necessarily.
Perhaps very long-term the west loop could be tied into I-670 W and then continue a new highway south to connect with I-35 between Cambridge and Rainbow. That would allow the SW Trafficway to become a parkway again and be redeveloped back into an urban landscape.
aknowledgeableperson is currently on your ignore list.
You will no longer see any of her posts.
He makes reference to the bluffs being slums. The part of I-35 running north from SW Trafficway to downtown is not on the bluff itself. The part of I-35 that replaced Kersey Coates Drive is on the bluff. Indeed, it had been a slum of shacks built on the side of the bluff prior to 1905, when the parks department bought the land and created the parkway. The parkway was there when highway planners appropriated it for I-35.
All of those photos are north of 15th Street near Kersey Coates Drive on the northern side of the bluff going to the West Bottoms.
I don't think he's referring to that area, he's referring to the bluff south of there where SW Trafficway starts (SW loop).
There is actually an elevated bluff all along that western ridge which extends through to the West Side.
The SW corner of the loop where SW Trafficway starts (then "15th St") was also a bluff and that area was very dilapidated.
This is where the Mulkey Square residents were displaced when I-670 was expanded westward.
Here's a photo from 1922 looking west on 15th Street from Main Street, you can see the huge bluff in the background. http://www.kchistory.org/cdm4/item_view ... X=1&REC=11
It is what it is. One of the obvious problems was the route they choose for I-70 through the heart of the city. I've studied the aerial map of the city and it would have been much less damaging to the city fabric had they run I-70 further north through the river bottom -- running up against the bluff in places, or right on top of the bluff, where there was not yet any existing development.
The original purpose of the interstate highway system was to optimize the federal defense capacity to allow military vehicles to quickly move about the country -- moving troops, supplies, and equipment. It was an observation that many of the state highways were too narrow and the traffic on them slow-moving because of one-lane capacity, narrow bridges, and hilly, winding roads that didn't allow for speed. The need was to be able to move between urban areas quickly.
Thus, there was no need to tear up urban neighborhoods. In many cases, the interstate highways could have routed through less developed areas near the city, with connections to existing arterial roads. For example, traffic moving between St. Louis and Denver would have be routed around the city instead of those travelers having to drive through urban areas. This would have reduced traffic flow through the center of the city, and reduced the number of cars on the roadways that didn't need to be there.
Highways became political in the sense that many real estate developers advocated where they would be placed. Politicians saw them as jobs programs. It was true then, and it's still true today. Highways replaced streetcars as development tools for land speculators who bought cheap land on the edge of the city with plans to build subdivisions and retail strips. These developers had little concern for what highways would do to the existing city, or the affect on existing property values. They didn't care about that because they didn't own that property.
NorthOak wrote:All of those photos are north of 15th Street near Kersey Coates Drive on the northern side of the bluff going to the West Bottoms.
I don't think he's referring to that area, he's referring to the bluff south of there where SW Trafficway starts (SW loop).
There is actually an elevated bluff all along that western ridge which extends through to the West Side.
The SW corner of the loop where SW Trafficway starts (then "15th St") was also a bluff and that area was very dilapidated.
This is where the Mulkey Square residents were displaced when I-670 was expanded westward.
Here's a photo from 1922 looking west on 15th Street from Main Street, you can see the huge bluff in the background. http://www.kchistory.org/cdm4/item_view ... X=1&REC=11
That area was removed to construct I-670 connecting to the Loop.
If you go back a page and look at the comment string, when flyingember made that comment, we were discussing the entrance to the 8th Street tunnel being blocked when I-35 was built over Kersey Coates Drive.
"The potential consequences are obvious if you don't purposely ignore them."
Those consequences were not purposely ignored. They were unknown at the time. The highways were much like the urban renewal efforts of the time or putting public housing into highrises. The effects were not obvious.
"It is what it is. One of the obvious problems was the route they choose for I-70 through the heart of the city. I've studied the aerial map of the city and it would have been much less damaging to the city fabric had they run I-70 further north through the river bottom -- running up against the bluff in places, or right on top of the bluff, where there was not yet any existing development."
At what point on the east end would you have proposed for the highway to turn north to run your proposed route. For much of I-70's route through Missouri it is the path of 40 Highway. It starts deviating from 40 Highway around Grain Valley. And I-70 probably didn't start displacing much of the urban fabric until it hit Blue River.
This may be a pie in the sky idea, but what if there was a "station" of sorts in the midtown area for the streetcar. It could serve as a connecting point, kind of like Ogilvie in Chicago. Visiting Chicago always makes me happy that KC is starting to be a real city, however slowly that may be.
miz.jordan17 wrote:This may be a pie in the sky idea, but what if there was a "station" of sorts in the midtown area for the streetcar. It could serve as a connecting point, kind of like Ogilvie in Chicago. Visiting Chicago always makes me happy that KC is starting to be a real city, however slowly that may be.
