Luxury Living in Downtown Kansas City

[Troyeth]

Mister, your statement of support for fewer cars cannot hide your endorsement of the disastrous feedback loop that got us into this mess. Your discussion of freeway capacity replacement, or more accurately SOV capacity, would ensure that no freeway, anywhere, would be demolished, or would alternately require the construction of equally unnecessary lane mileage. It is this thinking that shackles us to clunkers like the Seattle deep bore tunnel. On the face of it it fails to make any sense: how does one replace an enormous freeway capacity without building another freeway, the very same road typology we have to do away with?

Then, extraordinarily, you posit the allegedly measured approach, which is even more of a pipe dream: massively invest in transit in a sprawled region completely devoid of transit users, narrow the streets, and convert the majority of road trips into Downtown to transit trips. Somehow, you consider this massive upgrade more feasible than the removal of unnecessary, bankrupting pieces of infrastructure that are not critical for mobility and which paralyze real estate prices at their lowest. In fact, that infrastructure would remain in place, continuing to disrupt the very urban network we desperately need to connect while cannibalizing any parallel transit investment.

Finally, I am amused if you think pass-through traffic would continue to travel through any downtown if a bisecting highway was removed. Naturally, a new traffic pattern would develop that would not, as you describe, have car drivers fuming and not knowing where to go.

This is 1990s thinking, mhays.

P.S. Even just a quick review of a map of Kansas City informs us that if we were to be incredibly mad with our bulldozing and raze all of the ring-roads and much of their connectors in central Kansas City, almost all of the city would still be within a quarter hour of a major free way, or immediately near an arterial that would promptly take you to one.

We need to stop planning for the unsustainable capacity that chokes are regions today, and plan for people. When bankruptcy and decay present the next generation with a choice, it will not be as hard as you suggest, mhays, no—undoubtedly, it will be a very easy and intuitive choice to make.

[mhays]

So transit will never work, but you want to get rid of the other main alternative. That's very amusing. Does half the population start walking and biking, in one of the most spread-out cities on earth?

[Troyeth]

I'd say by making roadway infrastructure choices that encourage alternatives, as opposed to the status quo, you are setting yourself up for the construction of a society that features a healthy living arrangement.

You cannot accomplish that in central Kansas City, the most essential urban place in that region, if you let it remain carved as brutally as it is.

Also, I never suggested transit cannot become a realistic option for travel in and about the region—it can. What I did suggest, in contrast to you, is that key cuts to the express roadway network are essential if the nascent transit system is to flourish, especially in the core city. I find it incredible that you, an alleged urban progressive, argue to keep a fine-grained, historic city strangled in freeways that kill its vitality while suburbanites are provided billions to hopefully switch to a transit-oriented commute—and then we can figure out something with Kansas City.

That's nonsensical.

[mhays]

I like to influence mode splits with carrot and stick. In my faster-growing city, this means not expanding roads, passing transit measures in the tens of billions, encouraging density on a large scale, narrowing roads in selective cases, reducing/eliminating parking requirements, etc. In a slower-growth city, this allows more aggression about reducing street capacity.

But your approach is to sword, not stick.

[Troyeth]

Is Seattle your home city? If I am not mistaken, your (our) regional transit agency is aggressively spending billions on rail projects into the suburbs that are neither time or fiscally competitive with the buses they will eliminate; are investing massively in highway projects that are of negligible utility and stunning expense; are rewarding sprawl patterns with poorly designed rail lines serving park-and-rides in center-of-freeway alignments; is considering hugely wasteful rail projects into West Seattle that will never recoup capital costs or meet ridership expectations, and; is tied either to a regional or state funding source that requires a substantial addition to the roadway system from which we are attempting to lessen our dependence. And don't even get me started on the languishing intra-city travel times as we spend billions on new railroad to Fife, thieving taxpayer dollars from many while benefiting few.

Seattle is hardly the model.

[urbanlife]

From what I remember reading years ago....probably on here, that KC was originally designed to be the Chicago of the Heartland basically. It has the bones and structure to be a huge city, but that never fully happened because after the Civil War, cities like Chicago and other northern cities got the new rail lines. Obviously I could be butchering this, just a tidbit I remember about there.

Unfortunately my only experience with KC has been driving through it in the middle of the day on a Sunday as my wife and I were moving across the country....we weren't able to stop and do anything there seeing we were on a schedule to be somewhere else.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

From what I remember reading years ago....probably on here, that KC was originally designed to be the Chicago of the Heartland basically. It has the bones and structure to be a huge city, but that never fully happened because after the Civil War, cities like Chicago and other northern cities got the new rail lines. Obviously I could be butchering this, just a tidbit I remember about there.

Unfortunately my only experience with KC has been driving through it in the middle of the day on a Sunday as my wife and I were moving across the country....we weren't able to stop and do anything there seeing we were on a schedule to be somewhere else.

One could argue that KC sort of built up as a satellite of first St. Louis (i believe it was founded by a St. Louisan), and then Chicago and its rail network (its the number 2 hub, I believe). It was never assumed that it would be the main hub of the inland, not to the level of the assumptions that Cincinnati or St. Louis had for themselves. It did have other ties to Chicago, like its strong mafia network affiliations. It boomed after Chicago started booming, and that city had fueled a rail network over and around St. Louis to the west to KC/Omaha/Denver.

[James Bond Agent 007]

I think the goal here would be to increase the population of the KC area by, like, a million or more, then all those extra highways might actually become useful.

[kcexpress69]

Troyeth, have you ever been to Kansas City? If not, how can you figure out what the problems are and how to fix them with just checking out maps of our highway systems? Just because the theory you're discussing can and have worked in other cities doesn't mean that it will work anywhere.

Obviously, I'm repeating stuff that's already been discussed, but before you can even start bulldozing highways, you have to get people to start using other modes of transportation. Asking them to give up their car is a difficult task, especially if you don't have some mass transportation plan already implemented. Yes, we've almost finished the first leg of the streetcar system that's running through the CBD, but big whoop!! It's not mass transportation. We have NO plans to transport mass amounts of people in and out of the city to the suburbs, like similar sized cities such as Cleveland and St. Louis, and you're talking about at least 100 miles for it to be effective on both sides of the state line. I want one. I would vote for one, but until we have a workable, cost effective plan, we're still light years away.

[Troyeth]

Again, you do not have to convince an unsustainable population of suburbanites to switch transportation modes before you can make significant upgrades to a city center that benefits urban residents. You can go ahead and convert those interstates into buildings and streets just like it use to be. The sky will not fall.

Kansas City, like most American metropolitan areas, possesses an overbuilt infrastructure that will reliably dissipate traffic flows even after a major severing of a portion of the system—the redundant, damaging portion.

By the way, your lovely city will never have the transit it deserves if it continues to prop-up and expand the bankrupting, socialized infrastructure that is desecrating your region's core. It does make it super easy to drive through, though (sometimes)!

[BigKidD]

Originally Posted by Troyeth

Again, you do not have to convince an unsustainable population of suburbanites to switch transportation modes before you can make significant upgrades to a city center that benefits urban residents. You can go ahead and convert those interstates into buildings and streets just like it use to be. The sky will not fall.

Kansas City, like most American metropolitan areas, possesses an overbuilt infrastructure that will reliably dissipate traffic flows even after a major severing of a portion of the system—the redundant, damaging portion.

By the way, your lovely city will never have the transit it deserves if it continues to prop-up and expand the bankrupting, socialized infrastructure that is desecrating your region's core. It does make it super easy to drive through, though (sometimes)!

Interesting points throughout, Troyeth. I certainly push for an urban environment and a complete revitalization of the urban core, but I also have to face the reality of this region and many others like it. Simply, the single family home dominates and it's one reason KCMO has invested so much in the Northland region in the past years. That may sound defeatist, yet the simple removal of one section of the highway won't change this concept of the 'American dream.' Now, with more and more infill development in the city, the potential to cap I-670 and perhaps a reconfiguration of I-70 may occur. (Yes, there are a heck of a lot more variables then what I mentioned above, but from personal experience in the area, I find that point most dominating in the task of urban revitalization.)

In addition, this may warrant a new thread, but if we really want to get to the heart of the freeway system of Kansas City, I attached a piece regarding its development from a local publication.

http://www.pitch.com/kansascity/the-...nt?oid=2176457

Muehlebach Hotel owner Barney Allis had worried for years that the proposed system of expressways would damage downtown businesses. Engineers and planners spoke of convenience, but Allis was skeptical that a fast-moving ring of traffic was good for downtown. For example, he fretted that first-time visitors to the city might miss an exit and keep on driving, flung to the hinterlands by centrifugal force. "How many people will we lose?" he had asked, according to a 1960 Times story.

[mhays]

I don't know why Seattle is a topic other than being a chance to attack the messenger. But for the record the two biggest highway jobs are replacements of stuff that's falling down, with no SOV expansions, and significant benefits for non-auto uses in both cases.

[kcexpress69]

Originally Posted by Troyeth

Again, you do not have to convince an unsustainable population of suburbanites to switch transportation modes before you can make significant upgrades to a city center that benefits urban residents. You can go ahead and convert those interstates into buildings and streets just like it use to be. The sky will not fall.

And again, the section of roadway you're speaking of needs to be left alone. The industrial area that sits next to it is doing fine and will not need any building replacing it anytime soon. That portion of the West Bottoms is not residential friendly. However, just to the south of that area lies dozens of old industrial buildings that will eventually be rehabbed for residential use. Those buildings can be easily accessed by the 12th street and 9th street viaducts.

Kansas City, like most American metropolitan areas, possesses an overbuilt infrastructure that will reliably dissipate traffic flows even after a major severing of a portion of the system—the redundant, damaging portion.

We'll have to agree to disagree

By the way, your lovely city will never have the transit it deserves if it continues to prop-up and expand the bankrupting, socialized infrastructure that is desecrating your region's core. It does make it super easy to drive through, though (sometimes)!

We could agree on that point, except it's just not a priority...Especially when you have city leaders trying to make a push to replace our international airport terminal at a cost of 1-2 billion dollars, even though we spent over a quarter of a billion dollars about 12 years ago to make parking and security improvements after 9-11. We also seem to get pitched to put a new stadium downtown for our baseball or football team, thus decimating God knows how many more square blocks of historical buildings and the businesses that make their home there. That would probably cost over another billion, even though we spent over a half a billion just a few years ago to make improvements on both stadiums at their present location. We also have a sewer system that's crumbling which would cost another 10 figures or so to improve, but who cares about that anyway? (sarcasm) It's just never enough!!

[Troyeth]

Originally Posted by mhays

I don't know why Seattle is a topic other than being a chance to attack the messenger. But for the record the two biggest highway jobs are replacements of stuff that's falling down, with no SOV expansions, and significant benefits for non-auto uses in both cases.

Well, because I am from Seattle too. We can relate to the city.

And who is attacking who? This is a debate on infrastructure, my goodness.

Also, mhays, click here.

[James Bond Agent 007]

You would not believe how many people here around Seattle think I'm moving to Kansas when I tell them I'm moving to Kansas City.

I suppose they could technically be right due to the existence of KCK, but that's not what you're normally supposed to think when you say, "I'm moving to Kansas City."

So many geographically illiterate people in the world!

[fflint]

When is the move?

[James Bond Agent 007]

A week from today.

[nergie]

Originally Posted by James Bond Agent 007

A week from today.

Welcome to KCMO my childhood home.

[BigKidD]

Originally Posted by James Bond Agent 007

You would not believe how many people here around Seattle think I'm moving to Kansas when I tell them I'm moving to Kansas City.

I suppose they could technically be right due to the existence of KCK, but that's not what you're normally supposed to think when you say, "I'm moving to Kansas City."

So many geographically illiterate people in the world!

It's unfortunate. Yet, I usually say Kansas City, Missouri because of this phenomenon.

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by kcexpress69

Uhh, well you and DBR96A are the first ones that suggested this, and actually think that this is a great idea. As I said in my previous post, I completely agree with you that the highway system has carved up Kansas City in a not so good way, but IMO, what's done is done.

First off, I hope I'm not coming across as arrogant, which is purely not my intention, but having lived 40 plus years in Kansas City, and using these very roads every day as a truck driver, I can assure you that what might seem like a good idea in theory, could be a complete trainwreck in reality...and here's why.

Downtown Kansas City is built on bluffs. Even though those bluffs have been smoothed out over time, the part of I-70 that you wish to tear down to make into some sort of a boulevard is actually an elevated roadway that spans from the NW corner of the loop, and eventually splits away and goes south while the other part splits into downtown KCK and the Fairfax District. Taking that all away would be nothing short of a PR nightmare that would result in lost economic opportunity in an important industrial district, and trying to create a boulevard to divert the truck traffic elsewhere would lead to nowhere, since the road would likely go right through the West Bottoms which the elevated highway currently crosses. You would also have the problem of trying to get both sides of the state line to cooperate on such a venture. Neither side would see it as feasible, and KCK would get the worst of it. It would be akin to cutting your nose off to spite your face. I just don't see it working.

Anyway, that's my rant for the night!!

Hmmm I'm going to try and remember something one of my KC-born friends told me about the setup of the loop...

Basically the west side of the downtown loop sits on the bluff itself. Downtown Kansas City basically sits on the edge of a plateau where it has a commanding view over the Missouri and Kaw river valleys. Part of the road that the west side highway was made from sits in what was a park lying on the bluff, one of many beautiful Hare & Hare projects, and another part was one of their boulevards (several of which were upgraded to freeways). Obviously, the part that was a boulevard would be structurally easy enough to return to such a state...the park part, less so.

From a highway design perspective, the primary trade routes (I-70 and I-35) run right through the downtown loop. That was -- in hindsight -- a mistake from the first, but now you're stuck with a network where you really need to do extensive rerouting in order to unbuild the inner part of the loop. And the southwest corner of the outer loop has the metro's worst congestion, to boot.

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

never been to KC, but I've always imagined it's a place with a huge supply of large, midwestern style victorian homes. Wrap around porch, gables, and all that. Is this the case?

link

Not really. During the Victorian period, KC was still oriented towards the river, and most of the surviving architecture from that era still lies atop the bluffs.

Actually, Kansas City looks like what Detroit would look like if half the city didn't get torn down. What had been, in 1900, a very compact and river-oriented city (while the city is primarily a railroad city, the railroads themselves lay in the river flats) rapidly sprawled south. The Country Club Plaza, what is today essentially the city's center in terms of urban life, was well south of town when some land speculator decided to build a Toledo-themed shopping village in the 1920s. Like Detroit, Kansas City developed auto-oriented urbanism early and was already incredibly sprawled as early as 1950. (That said, the part of the city that predates WWII is the most urban and beautiful part.)

The upshot of this is that Kansas City is probably one of the best places in the country if you're a big fan of early 20th century housing stock. The overwhelming majority of its urban core is made up of it. As Bond'll show you:

Originally Posted by James Bond Agent 007

^
Much more than the Victorian homes is a HUGE supply of Craftsman and Tudor houses. There are block after block of stuff that looks like this:
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9965...Ak0w!2e0?hl=en
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0076...OBNg!2e0?hl=en
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0173...Cwbg!2e0?hl=en