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.
It's hard to have both a wide open metro with no traffic and no congestion AND have a vibrant urban city at the same time. KC proves that. Part of city life is having people on sidewalks, in parks, using bikes, dining on sidewalk cafes, using public transit for short trips etc and the only way to really accomplish that on a large scale is for people to leave the cars at home.
I don't think there is really a need to not have a car in KC. You will generally still need a car in KC. I mean, if you live in Downtown KC, you may as well have a car parked so you can use it when you need to go to the grocery store visit friends etc. But in KC, people will go get a car and drive it five blocks and every retail establishment much have parking which really makes it difficult to create a walkalbe city.
There has to be "some" reduction in dependency on the automobile in KC. That doesn't mean urbanites need to ditch cars all together.
I just don't see that happening. At least in the core. People, to me (at the very least me and the people i know), will drive to areas, but walk when we get to those areas. I don't see people parking in one part of the Crossroads and then getting back in their car and driving to another. I see people driving TO downtown/the plaza/westport/waldo/brookside/ 39th w parking, and then walking around downtown. Or those who live in areas with retail around just walking. So yes (some), people drive from 5 or 10 minutes away from Westport to Westport. I don't see very many people obnoxiously using their car to get around places that it wouldn't be inconvenient just to walk.
I've also never understood your measurement for an "active" park on here. I'm struggling to think of one prominent park, bar Berkley's, that lacks a pretty steady stream of joggers/foot traffic and people enjoying the park.
Either way, would purposely making the city more difficult to own a car in really be a sensible way to improve the city's "walkability" (something that seems to change, depending on who's measuring it anyway)?
The city has had a pretty huge increase in biking and jogging traffic over the past couple of years. Driving along side bikers and seeing dozens vs the handful of joggers a few years ago is pretty assured thing driving or walking anywhere in the city core. And the change seems to be do purely down to a mindset change. Not arguing it could be better, it definitely could. But my point being, it hasn't somehow become more difficult to drive, more people have realized the advantages of both driving and walking.
As i've said, I see the need for a improvement in the city's public transit. But i don't feel its needed as much as a necessity for actual transportation as it is as a boost.
^ It's all relative. If you think KC is good enough and walkable enough and doesn't have more parking spaces than pedestrians (way more parking than what is ever needed at any given time), then whatever I guess .
^ It's all relative. If you think KC is good enough and walkable enough and doesn't have more parking spaces than pedestrians (way more parking than what is ever needed at any given time), then whatever I guess .
KC does have, bar none, the best freeway system in the country (for what its worth). This kind of, unfortunately, encourages sprawl and discourages urbanity.
^ It's all relative. If you think KC is good enough and walkable enough and doesn't have more parking spaces than pedestrians (way more parking than what is ever needed at any given time), then whatever I guess .
I just think theres a happy medien between obnoxious amounts of parking lots and making parking such an expensive commodity that it FORCES people into using public transit. I havn't seen anyone argue that kc couldn't be more walkable, what I have seen them argue is that they don't wont to be forced into public transit, simply because its what other urban areas is doing. That makes sense to me. If there's a potential for a city to "have it both ways" why would you not pursue that instead of trying to force a characteristic of other cities thats in all acutality a negative trying to be sold as a positive? I don't want Kansas City to be a place you NEED a car but I also dont want it to be a city that its un practical to own a car.
I just think theres a happy medien between obnoxious amounts of parking lots and making parking such an expensive commodity that it FORCES people into using public transit. I havn't seen anyone argue that kc couldn't be more walkable, what I have seen them argue is that they don't wont to be forced into public transit, simply because its what other urban areas is doing. That makes sense to me. If there's a potential for a city to "have it both ways" why would you not pursue that instead of trying to force a characteristic of other cities thats in all acutality a negative trying to be sold as a positive? I don't want Kansas City to be a place you NEED a car but I also dont want it to be a city that its un practical to own a car.
How is KC forcing transit on anybody? The city has one of least robust transit systems in the country first off and long range plans for transit in KC don't show it getting much better. I don't see KC having decent regional transit in my lifetime. So suburbanites will always drive into the city and park. Hopefully that parking will be more hidden and off the grid a bit though in the future. It's okay to walk to your final destination and not have parking in front of where you are going. A few streetcar lines won't change the driving habits of most people in KC, even those that live in the downtown/midtown core, but it will make KC more walkable near the lines.
Even a lot of cities with extensive transit options and high transit use are relatively easy cities to park in if you want to such as Minneapolis, Denver, Atlanta, Baltimore etc. But again, it's relative. Take somebody from KC and put them in Denver or Baltimore and they will complain like they are in Manhattan or something.
DC, NYC, Chicago, Philly and SF are really the only places that make driving into the city a total PITA and yet even in those places a LOT of people choose to drive and rarely use transit. They are also easy enough to drive into the city on an occasional basis. We drive into and park in DC all the time with zero problems, but we also take the trains often. But I don't have to keep a car there every night and so if I lived in the city you can easily live there and not own a car.
This is just not even an issue in KC. Not even remotely. KC has WAY too much parking right now, much of it free to near free (comparatively speaking). If you can walk a block or two, KC is probably the easiest urban core of metros over a million to park in the entire country. Most cities half the size of KC have a lower parking ratio than KC, have more enforced parking restrictions, and less free parking. You don't need a set number of parking spaces for every sq foot of retail or office space so that you can drive and park in front of every single thing in a city and that's basically how KC is now. That needs to change.
For example, as the crossroads district develops, start forcing people to use existing large parking structures like the ones at the arts center, union station and the new crossroads garage on the north side of the RR tracks. Those garages are almost never used and when they are (for special events), they are probably half full. So very little additional parking should be required for new development, even if that new development displaces a parking lot.
No matter what KC does in the next 50 years with building up its core and infill development it will be easy to park there and easy to own a car. That doesn't mean that KC can't improve its walkability and urban built environment density and give people more options while creating a more vibrant urban city in the process.
How is KC forcing transit on anybody? The city has one of least robust transit systems in the country first off and long range plans for transit in KC don't show it getting much better. I don't see KC having decent regional transit in my lifetime. So suburbanites will always drive into the city and park. Hopefully that parking will be more hidden and off the grid a bit though in the future. It's okay to walk to your final destination and not have parking in front of where you are going. A few streetcar lines won't change the driving habits of most people in KC, even those that live in the downtown/midtown core, but it will make KC more walkable near the lines.
Even a lot of cities with extensive transit options and high transit use are relatively easy cities to park in if you want to such as Minneapolis, Denver, Atlanta, Baltimore etc. But again, it's relative. Take somebody from KC and put them in Denver or Baltimore and they will complain like they are in Manhattan or something.
DC, NYC, Chicago, Philly and SF are really the only places that make driving into the city a total PITA and yet even in those places a LOT of people choose to drive and rarely use transit. They are also easy enough to drive into the city on an occasional basis. We drive into and park in DC all the time with zero problems, but we also take the trains often. But I don't have to keep a car there every night and so if I lived in the city you can easily live there and not own a car.
This is just not even an issue in KC. Not even remotely. KC has WAY too much parking right now, much of it free to near free (comparatively speaking). If you can walk a block or two, KC is probably the easiest urban core of metros over a million to park in the entire country. Most cities half the size of KC have a lower parking ratio than KC, have more enforced parking restrictions, and less free parking. You don't need a set number of parking spaces for every sq foot of retail or office space so that you can drive and park in front of every single thing in a city and that's basically how KC is now. That needs to change.
For example, as the crossroads district develops, start forcing people to use existing large parking structures like the ones at the arts center, union station and the new crossroads garage on the north side of the RR tracks. Those garages are almost never used and when they are (for special events), they are probably half full. So very little additional parking should be required for new development, even if that new development displaces a parking lot.
No matter what KC does in the next 50 years with building up its core and infill development it will be easy to park there and easy to own a car. That doesn't mean that KC can't improve its walkability and urban built environment density and give people more options while creating a more vibrant urban city in the process.
As I said, no one that i've seen is arguing that Kansas City, shouldn't be a more walkable, or that all of the parking is appropriate or aren't excited about the street car line (the vast majority at least, but every idea has a protagonist or two).
But what i don't agree with is forcefully reducing peoples dependency on cars and purposely making it more difficult to drive for the sake of vibrancy, walkability and promotion of public transit. This is what I got from your first few posts on this topic, maybe thats not what you're saying, and if we're on the same page I apologize.
Its worth noting though those three parking structures aren't not used because of their location, but because they're the only pay parking in the area. Its hard to justify parking in a $3 parking garage, when theres even free street-side parking close to them. If they were free, I'm sure they would be used a lot more. (especially during events like First Fridays when the ground lots are all completely full).
As I said, no one that i've seen is arguing that Kansas City, shouldn't be a more walkable, or that all of the parking is appropriate or aren't excited about the street car line (the vast majority at least, but every idea has a protagonist or two).
But what i don't agree with is forcefully reducing peoples dependency on cars and purposely making it more difficult to drive for the sake of vibrancy, walkability and promotion of public transit. This is what I got from your first few posts on this topic, maybe thats not what you're saying, and if we're on the same page I apologize.
Its worth noting though those three parking structures aren't not used because of their location, but because they're the only pay parking in the area. Its hard to justify parking in a $3 parking garage, when theres even free street-side parking close to them. If they were free, I'm sure they would be used a lot more. (especially during events like First Fridays when the ground lots are all completely full).
I don't see how you can make it more difficult to drive in KC short of carjacking somebody. There is just so much excess parking and road capacity that it would take decades of steady urban infill growth to even think about changing people's driving habits there.
All that KC can do is create areas of the city where people have the "option" to not have their car within site of them everywhere they go. The streetcar is basically an attempt to do that. You will still be able to drive right up to the the streetcar line and park pretty much anywhere if that's what you want to do.
The crossroads district desperately needs infill and as infill happens, surface parking has got to go away. A few garages and some high turn over street parking is plenty even if the crossroad's density were to triple.
You want the crossroads to be urban and vibrant more than one day a month. First Fridays are great, but it's one day a month and it gets old that people use that one evening (maybe 6-7 times a year) to describe the vibrancy of the crossroads.
We are on the same page, but KC is the last city where people are "forcing transit" on anybody, KC is nowhere close to even making transit a viable option compared to most large metros, let alone forcing it on people.
I've lived extensive periods of time in both Kansas City and Denver. I certainly prefer Denver, but also like and respect Kansas City. They are both wonderful mid-west cities that have a great many things to offer. I was recently in the downtown area of KC with an out of state friend that had previously only been to southern Johnson County. He was absolutely blown away by the beauty of the Plaza/Mission Hills area. Many people from out of state have a preconceived notion that Kansas City is flat and treeless. They couldn't be more wrong. With that said, Kansas City has many great attributes, but it has a long way to go. The urban density and vibrancy of downtown KC is far from it's potential. I think a lot of people who spent time in both cities during the early 90's would say they were comparable at the time. I think they were both just a little over 1.6 million and both were certainly car-centric cities. Then Denver changed. It's a valid claim that Denver might not have changed much faster than KC if there hadn't been an influx of liberal Californians to the Front Range, but they did come and it did change.
I really don't know much about the Kansas City streetcar project, but it is a start. I do feel that the NEXTRAIL Phase II is necessary for the community to get any kind of feel for what public transportation is really about. Otherwise it pretty much looks like a streetcar to nowhere. Denver choose to start with a regional system and then work toward a system that covers inter-city transit. We can debate if that was the right way to go all day long. Denver probably got lucky because the entire region seems to work in unison.
Regardless of who caused the changes in Denver, it is clear what caused them. The light rail system was certainly one of the major catalysts that caused Denver to boom, while Kansas City remains fairly stagnant. It's hard to tell exactly how much of Denver's expansion can be linked directly to light rail because so many other downtown developments came about at the same time... Convention Center, DIA, Revitalization of LoDo, Coors Field, Pepsi Center, Six Flags and several others. Many corporations and conventions come to Denver because of the downtown, light rail (T-Rex - Fastracks) and the world class airport. I'm not going to take the time to find them now, but I have read countless articles online that will back up this statement. Not more than 10 years ago the mountains were by far the main reason people vacationed in Colorado, but downtown Denver has now become a vacation destination in itself. You can spend a week taking advantage of all the things offered in the urban core of Denver. Most places are walkable and the others aren't more than a 10-15 minute train or bus ride away. By the way - RTD is very clean. Probably one of the cleanest systems I've been on. Unfortunately if you vacation in Kansas City, the one thing you will need is a car. You should probably make sure to have a gas card and a map as well, because you will be at every corner of the metro to fill up a week. Some of that can't be helped, but a lot of it could have been avoided with smart city planning.
With all that said, I see no reason why Kansas City can't start making some of the same moves that Denver has made. KC will probably never see the urban growth attitude of Denver in my Lifetime, but at some point population growth and/or economics will demand it. Some balance between Urban and Suburban development is a must if a city wants to thrive and sustain any kind of growth. The alternative can easily be seen if you take a weekend trip to Detroit. I believe KCMO or Denverian had mentioned that a majority of people in the Denver metro may prefer the suburbs, but most everyone in the Front Range loves downtown Denver and claim it as their own. Kansas City has some great Suburbs, but there needs to be a strong urban core to to center the development and growth of the entire region around. The Kansas City metro definitely needs its cities to work together and form some kind of Regional cohesion if they want KC to move into the next tier of American cities like a Denver, Seattle, MSP and Portland. Obviously the Border War extends well beyond KU/MU, but I know KC can get on the same page and become a regional attraction.
spent the weekend in Atlanta for a wedding. Some takeaways:
1. You can have the ATL suburbs....particularly gwinnet county. Overland Park/JOCO is much more walkable and bike able...a lot of the OTP burbs of the ATL have no sidewalks and are windy and difficult to navigate.
2. From midtown to downtown Atlanta blows urban KC out of the water...better restaurants, more ethnic restaurants, better nightlife, and the Centennial Park area offers a good deal for attractions...the $60 ATL pass gets you into the world class aquarium, the Coke museum, the zoo, CNN ect. Having sports downtown makes a big difference too...not sure how the Braves moving out to the burbs affects this.
3. Our arts scene is still way better.
4. Buckhead is developing north of the ATL core, but our plaza still offers more for tourists and pedestrians.
5. If you live or operate Outside the Perimeter to the northeast...getting to ATL airport is just as complicated as getting to kci from Joco. That said, ATL is awesome for food options while you are waiting for your flight...but it is the busiest airport in the world. It really makes kci look incredibly bush league.
6). ATL cares about urban archecture...I really liked the shiny new skyscrapers butted up against old southern gothic homes and bungalows under a heavy forested tree canopy (ATL is virtually in an urban forest). It makes for a stunning landscape, but that creates non-square and less navigable streets.
7) wife and I hiked up stone mountain...we don't have much that rivals that for outdoor activities.
8) traffic sucks almost always in ATL, but it's a small cost to pay for being considered a world class city. Nobody thinks of ATL as cowtown.
I point this out because some people in kc don't care what outsiders think...this is misguided IMO. Perception is everything. If you are perceived as small time and laughable, you will probably become that. I love kc but it needs to step up it's game a bit to attract more top notch jobs, transplants, and companies. Based on recent economic reports we are falling behind in this area...we want a strong economy of bright knowledge workers, and I still think we need to build up the attractiveness of our city to recruit the best.
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.
.
