Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Missouri > Kansas City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-10-2016, 05:22 PM
 
132 posts, read 171,436 times
Reputation: 114

Advertisements

Not developing the waterfront along the river.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-10-2016, 05:27 PM
 
639 posts, read 765,950 times
Reputation: 453
KC has to be the only substantial size city on any river in the USA that hasn't developed it's waterfront. I lived in Tucson for a few years and even they are and have worked on developing their dried up, no water in ten thousand years, river as a riverfront. OMG, if a desert city can develop around a dried up never to have future moving water riverfront, why can't this city?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2016, 09:29 PM
 
Location: Edmonds, WA
8,975 posts, read 10,199,977 times
Reputation: 14247
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovekcmo View Post
KC has to be the only substantial size city on any river in the USA that hasn't developed it's waterfront. I lived in Tucson for a few years and even they are and have worked on developing their dried up, no water in ten thousand years, river as a riverfront. OMG, if a desert city can develop around a dried up never to have future moving water riverfront, why can't this city?
Yeah it's a shame. The Berkley Riverfront Park is nice and they do have some nice festivals like July 4 and Pride last year but there could be way more going on there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2016, 09:27 AM
 
Location: Washington, DC area
11,108 posts, read 23,869,496 times
Reputation: 6438
I still don't get why the city is not utilizing all the levees along the MO and KS rivers as bike/pedestrian trails. Almost every other city in the country has been dong it for years and they are very popular for recreation in all the cities. Yet I don't think this is even on any sort of long term plan for KC. It's not even on their radar. KC has so much potential to have one hell of an urban recreation system, but it's just not doing it. Berkley Park is isolated and not well connected to anything. You have to basically drive to it and then you are pretty limited to about a mile or so or trail. The Grand viaduct is not a very inviting way to get to the park. KC needs to put trails on its levees and build a actual pedestrian bridge over the river like Omaha and many other cities have done.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2016, 07:04 PM
 
639 posts, read 765,950 times
Reputation: 453
Talking with co-workers, who all live in KC/Jackson County,several of them with spouses that work for the city, they all think KC north of the river is a waste/not needed/sucks tax money from the city, etc. Annexing the northland 50-60 years ago was a huge mistake.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2016, 07:17 PM
 
Location: Washington, DC area
11,108 posts, read 23,869,496 times
Reputation: 6438
What is it with you and your co-workers?

It's not that simple. It's never that simple.

There are many positives and negatives to KCMO's northland. Right now the positives drastically outweigh the negatives because the Northland is subsidizing the south part of the city (especially the east side), not the other way around.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2016, 07:45 PM
 
639 posts, read 765,950 times
Reputation: 453
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcmo View Post
What is it with you and your co-workers?

It's not that simple. It's never that simple.

There are many positives and negatives to KCMO's northland. Right now the positives drastically outweigh the negatives because the Northland is subsidizing the south part of the city (especially the east side), not the other way around.
It is that simple. Intellectual (Giants?/midgets) never seem to get it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-18-2016, 08:12 AM
 
1,328 posts, read 1,461,099 times
Reputation: 690
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovekcmo View Post
Talking with co-workers, who all live in KC/Jackson County,several of them with spouses that work for the city, they all think KC north of the river is a waste/not needed/sucks tax money from the city, etc. Annexing the northland 50-60 years ago was a huge mistake.
Would you please make a rudimentary attempt to back up your inflammatory and divisive dogma with some kind of facts?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Missouri > Kansas City

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:33 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top