Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sly is just trying to take a leadership role on the KCI issue. Whether you think KCI needs a new terminal or not, Sly James is exactly the kind of mayor KC needs. I seriously doubt that the task force was put into place to just rubber stanp the the new terminal. Even though most in city hall do support the idea, they were very apprehensive at first. I don't think Sly fully supported a new terminal at first and I know many council members didn't at first. I think many of them have taken a serious look at the situation and how it effects the future of KC and they have therefore convinced themselves that it's in the best interest of the city to pursue it. Just like Mayor Barnes did with downtown when almost nobody (residents) wanted the city to spend money on downtown, new arena etc.
Do people honestly believe that Sly James or other council members only want a new terminal so they can go party with their corrupt development cronies? It's Mayor Barnes all over again on some of these issues. If anything, Sly has been a bit conservative by not pushing harder on some controversial issues such as the convention center hotel. Mayors have to get things like that done sometimes.
People like Sly are taking a MUCH bigger risk with their career trying to support a new terminal vs jumping on the "it's fine the way it is" wagon which would be so much easier.
KC may want to keep their 1960's era bus shelter and call it an airport terminal. But personally I applause Sly for taking a risk and going against the grain of what most people "want". Compare a city that just does what the residents want all the time rather to cities that go ahead and just do things regardless of popularity because the city thinks is in the best interest to do so and you have two VERY different cites. I'll let you guess which cities are progressive vibrant cities today and which cities are "has been" cities just trying to stay relative.
KC is right in the middle right now luckily. Had it not been for Barnes, KC would for sure be a "has been" right now.
KC tried the "what the residents want" mayor (Funkhouser) and it failed big time. Strong cities need strong mayors.
I recall people in KC saying that the P&L district was stupid, a waste of money, and that nobody would go downtown to eat/be entertained and that it would fail. It seemed to be doing quite well when I was there last year.
Sometimes I think KC is like little kids who have to be forced to eat their vegetables. All people can see is that they don't like to walk, and KCI allows them to fly in/out without walking very far. End of story. No understanding of the big picture or what a failure KCI is for a city of 2 million.
I recall people in KC saying that the P&L district was stupid, a waste of money, and that nobody would go downtown to eat/be entertained and that it would fail. It seemed to be doing quite well when I was there last year.
Actually, from what I understand, P&L is operating at a loss and taxpayers are supporting it.
And to kcmo: Wow. I thought the whole point of government in the United States is that it is BY the people and FOR the people. I didn't know this was a monarchy. Taxation without representation?
Actually, from what I understand, P&L is operating at a loss and taxpayers are supporting it.
And to kcmo: Wow. I thought the whole point of government in the United States is that it is BY the people and FOR the people. I didn't know this was a monarchy. Taxation without representation?
Really? It seemed to be doing well when I visited. But it really is a "chicken and egg" situation. If no one lives downtown, then you won't get the foot traffic in there. But without the nightlife, no one will want to live there. Give it time and I would bet it succeeds.
Downtown Denver has the advantage of being surrounded by desireable, urban neighborhoods and it's not "cut off" by freeways, other than I-25. But they've built a pedestrian bridge over the freeway that connects the Highlands neighborhood right in to the 16th St. Mall. KC doesn't really have that advantage.
That's what nobody besides luzianne (and maybe a couple of others like westender) can seem to understand. KCI was and is far more up to date in terms of things that matter than any big box megalopolis of a single terminal. What you want is for KCI to take a big step backward from its cutting edge efficiency and convenience for the sole purpose of being like everybody else. I can't imagine a poorer reason to spend a billion dollars wrecking a uniquely superior airport.
I don't know I can't imagine better places in America than Boston's Back Bay, Cambridge or most of Manhattan...these are the cities where people are spending extra thousands of dollars per month to live because the experience (and I can attest to this, having gone to college in Boston) is amazing. There is so much to do, so much great food, art, and historic architecture. I just can't imagine wanting anything else but enjoying the whatever years I have left on this earth soaking up experiences like this. These cities aren't "Big Box" - they are world class. There is nothing wrong with aspiring to some modicum of what these cities have to offer, and that starts with signature items like an airport. These are the places where people with dreams - and the talent to pursue them - go, while the rest of us give up and take our consolation prize of a family and sf dwelling in the suburbs. As Thoreau said, "most men lead lives of quiet desperation and go to the grave with the song still in them."
Really? It seemed to be doing well when I visited. But it really is a "chicken and egg" situation. If no one lives downtown, then you won't get the foot traffic in there. But without the nightlife, no one will want to live there. Give it time and I would bet it succeeds.
Downtown Denver has the advantage of being surrounded by desireable, urban neighborhoods and it's not "cut off" by freeways, other than I-25. But they've built a pedestrian bridge over the freeway that connects the Highlands neighborhood right in to the 16th St. Mall. KC doesn't really have that advantage.
Very true about downtown Denver. Downtown KC is on an isolated island. It's a little better now that the Crossroads in early mid stages of gentrification from empty warehouses to residential/office. Infill projects are starting to be announced.
The P&L district was not free and is not self sustaining. But was it worth the initial and continued investment? I certainly think so. Downtown KC would still be a total disaster today if the P&L district didn't happen. And while the P&L district does require a large debt service, most of that debt went to infrastructure that was needed anyway. The debt paid for two large public garages that serve the sprint center, rebuilt several blocks of streets, utilities, sewers, curbs, lighting, cleared blightened properties, restored the Midland and Main St Theaters etc. The actual new construction (night clubs, restaurants etc) were a fraction fo the overall cost and debt service, it's just the revenue they produce isn't enough to cover the debt of rebuilding the entire south side of downtown. So does that mean it's a failed project? Many think so. Personally, I think it was a very wise "investment".
Very true about downtown Denver. Downtown KC is on an isolated island. It's a little better now that the Crossroads in early mid stages of gentrification from empty warehouses to residential/office. Infill projects are starting to be announced.
The P&L district was not free and is not self sustaining. But was it worth the initial and continued investment? I certainly think so. Downtown KC would still be a total disaster today if the P&L district didn't happen. And while the P&L district does require a large debt service, most of that debt went to infrastructure that was needed anyway. The debt paid for two large public garages that serve the sprint center, rebuilt several blocks of streets, utilities, sewers, curbs, lighting, cleared blightened properties, restored the Midland and Main St Theaters etc. The actual new construction (night clubs, restaurants etc) were a fraction fo the overall cost and debt service, it's just the revenue they produce isn't enough to cover the debt of rebuilding the entire south side of downtown. So does that mean it's a failed project? Many think so. Personally, I think it was a very wise "investment".
I would say so too. You have to start somewhere. I went out to eat last night downtown Denver and it's just amazing that on a Monday night, there are people all over the place, restaurants and bars all over, outdoor dining areas left and right.
I suppose Denver's "P&L District" was the 16th St. Mall. I believe that came to be in the early 80s.
Look at LAX. It's horrible. And yet I don't see LA screaming that it's old and they need to build a new airport. If anyplace should care what other people think about their city/airport, it would be LA. I don't know why KCI needs to change anything; it's fine. Sheesh, if we go tearing down every building over 40 years old...And I really like NEW stuff, but I just think a new airport isn't necessary.
I kind of disagree about it being the 18-35 range that pushes the needle. 35 maybe. 18 - no. 18 year olds don't have any money; marketers and advertisers aren't going to target an age group with no money, unless they have parents with money.
It has been kind of nice being a Baby Boomer. Seems like most of my life things were geared toward what we liked and what we wanted, likely because we were the biggest demographic. I mean, even down to music you hear everywhere you go - ball parks, etc. But that is changing now.
People do complain about LAX being ugly and outdated in the terminals and that it's an embarassment. But if you know what you're doing, you can actually park quite close to your terminal and not have to walk that far. You have to walk quite a lot further at DIA than you do at LAX to go from drop-off or car to your filght. The real problem with LAX is the congestion. I would imagine it's extremely confusing to someone who isn't used to driving in/out. But there is no other place to build a new airport there, other than over the ocean, like the Kansai Airport in Japan.
I don't think KCI is ugly inside. They did a decent job with the remodel last decade. My issue is the the function of it. Not enough dining options, and I really hated going in to the gate, past security, and then feeling so cramped, like I was locked in a cell. And the food options within the secure area were a joke. When my flight was delayed for over an hour, I left the secure area, had to hunt to find an open bar, and then try to estimate when I'd need to go back through security for the second time. It just wasn't a pleasant experience, and that's the same complaints you hear from many people.
Really? It seemed to be doing well when I visited. But it really is a "chicken and egg" situation. If no one lives downtown, then you won't get the foot traffic in there. But without the nightlife, no one will want to live there. Give it time and I would bet it succeeds.
But in the meantime, is it fair for taxpayers who had no say in it to support it? I don't think so. I don't live in Missouri, so it doesn't affect me. But seems to me if taxpayers are going to be footing the bill for something they should have the ultimate say in the matter.
People do complain about LAX being ugly and outdated in the terminals and that it's an embarassment. But if you know what you're doing, you can actually park quite close to your terminal and not have to walk that far. You have to walk quite a lot further at DIA than you do at LAX to go from drop-off or car to your filght. The real problem with LAX is the congestion. I would imagine it's extremely confusing to someone who isn't used to driving in/out. But there is no other place to build a new airport there, other than over the ocean, like the Kansai Airport in Japan.
I don't think KCI is ugly inside. They did a decent job with the remodel last decade. My issue is the the function of it. Not enough dining options, and I really hated going in to the gate, past security, and then feeling so cramped, like I was locked in a cell. And the food options within the secure area were a joke. When my flight was delayed for over an hour, I left the secure area, had to hunt to find an open bar, and then try to estimate when I'd need to go back through security for the second time. It just wasn't a pleasant experience, and that's the same complaints you hear from many people.
I kind of think DIA is ridiculous to get in and out of. Makes me appreciate KCI.
At KCI, you can buy a beer once you go through security. And yeah, the food selection isn't the best but if you're hungry there is something to eat. Really the last place I want to eat is at the airport so I usually eat before I go or on the way. Is it really that often/that long that flights are delayed at KCI? All airports are boring if you have to hang out, whether they have an entire mall inside or not.
KC may want to keep their 1960's era bus shelter and call it an airport terminal. But personally I applause Sly for taking a risk and going against the grain of what most people "want". Compare a city that just does what the residents want all the time rather to cities that go ahead and just do things regardless of popularity because the city thinks is in the best interest to do so and you have two VERY different cites. I'll let you guess which cities are progressive vibrant cities today and which cities are "has been" cities just trying to stay relative.
KC is right in the middle right now luckily. Had it not been for Barnes, KC would for sure be a "has been" right now.
KC tried the "what the residents want" mayor (Funkhouser) and it failed big time. Strong cities need strong mayors.
Since when are elected officials supposed to decide what to do without voter approval? They are elected to represent their constituents, not make decisions in opposition to what the people want. I can't even believe you think like this. Our founding fathers would be appalled. I'm appalled too. The whole purpose of our government structure is so that things like this (one person making decisions rather than the PEOPLE) DO NOT happen.
If Sly James forces this through, he deserves not to be reelected.
And don't even get me started on the stupid things Sly James has said about crime in Kansas City - like highway shootings are just a part of urban living.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
