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.
IMO renovating the current airport is the best bet. Location is very important to having a viable airport as well as amenities and KCI is in a pretty good location. Here in Minneapolis we had a similar situation to KC in the early 90's. Back then our airport hadn't been updated since the 60's and it was becoming increasely dated. The state legislature nearly approved a plan to build a new airport from scratch in a exburban location of the metro which would've been a disaster. The airport was and still is in a perfect location right in the center of the metro, 10 miles from both DT Mpls and St Paul and right next to the Mall of America and Bloomington which is a major job center.
Thankfully the leaders here realized that and instead decided to approve a $3 billion, 13 yr plan to extensively remodel and expand the current airport in the mid 90's. When you go to MSP now it's a completely different airport, ultra modern and swanky. A new terminal was built, several new concourses opened, a airport mall was built, dozens of new restaurants opened, and an underground LRT station was built which connects the airport with DT Mpls and MOA. What's crazy is that they're planning another major expansion of the airport over the next several years. I think KC can easily have an airport just like MSP. There just needs to be the will and desire to do it.
IMO renovating the current airport is the best bet. Location is very important to having a viable airport as well as amenities and KCI is in a pretty good location. Here in Minneapolis we had a similar situation to KC in the early 90's. Back then our airport hadn't been updated since the 60's and it was becoming increasely dated. The state legislature nearly approved a plan to build a new airport from scratch in a exburban location of the metro which would've been a disaster. The airport was and still is in a perfect location right in the center of the metro, 10 miles from both DT Mpls and St Paul and right next to the Mall of America and Bloomington which is a major job center.
Thankfully the leaders here realized that and instead decided to approve a $3 billion, 13 yr plan to extensively remodel and expand the current airport in the mid 90's. When you go to MSP now it's a completely different airport, ultra modern and swanky. A new terminal was built, several new concourses opened, a airport mall was built, dozens of new restaurants opened, and an underground LRT station was built which connects the airport with DT Mpls and MOA. What's crazy is that they're planning another major expansion of the airport over the next several years. I think KC can easily have an airport just like MSP. There just needs to be the will and desire to do it.
KC is not looking to build a new airport. I agree, the location of KCI is fine, actually it's great as it's a nice growing suburban area and pretty convenient to a good portion of the metro (only south suburbs tend to be far).
KC just needs a new terminal building just like MSP did. While MSP didn't build a new terminal from the ground up, much of it was built from the ground up and the remodel was quite extensive. KC's existing design makes no sense to throw 3/4 billion dollar at it to "renovate" it. But I'm about 95% sure that's exactly what they will do and KC will be stuck with a renovated airport that still doesn't work quite the way it should for the next 50 years because they won't be able to walk away from such a mistake like they have in the past.
Quote:
Originally Posted by denverian
Which is probably why I left KC 25 years ago. It just doesn't seem to change much, and I prefer both urban and vibrant. To me, that means a dense urban core that's walkable, has great ammenities, decent public transportation, nightlife, people actually living and walking around, and a sense that you're in an actual city. KC is overall, just too slow a pace for me. But I can see why people like it.
Yea, I love KC, it's home and I will always hope for the best there, but after moving away, I'm not sure I could ever go back to the very slow pace and suburban mentality there. I actually like nice suburbs, but I want a VIBRANT city too. KC just seems way too sleepy to me now when we visit like there is just very little activity compared to most major cities. The plaza is about it most of the time and it's like three blocks long. KC is a cheap, comfy city that has plenty to offer though.
Denver has always been one of my favorite cities. Incredible urban core, very nice suburbs, recreation galore, regional pride and cooperation and an extremely progressive chance taking city/metro that seems to get things done. I love the DC area and the Pacific NW would probably be my second choice, but Denver would be right there too.
Yea, I love KC, it's home and I will always hope for the best there, but after moving away, I'm not sure I could ever go back to the very slow pace and suburban mentality there. I actually like nice suburbs, but I want a VIBRANT city too. KC just seems way too sleepy to me now when we visit like there is just very little activity compared to most major cities. The plaza is about it most of the time and it's like three blocks long. KC is a cheap, comfy city that has plenty to offer though.
.
Wow. A couple of weeks ago you said you planned to move back to KC to retire, maybe even to a suburb.
Sorry Kansas City isn't VIBRANT enough for you. LOL. Why didn't you figure that out 20 years ago?
Wow. A couple of weeks ago you said you planned to move back to KC to retire, maybe even to a suburb.
Sorry Kansas City isn't VIBRANT enough for you. LOL. Why didn't you figure that out 20 years ago?
I might have said something about the possibility of moving back to KC when I retire, mostly to be close to family though. But that's when I retire, I'm a long way from that, if I ever actually "retire". When I'm old, I probably won't care as much about living in a city. Plus central KCMO is more slow paced and laid back than most suburbs, including most of KC's suburbs. If I do move back to KC, it would not be to the suburbs unless you consider Brookside suburban. And once again, I have nothing against suburbs. The suburbs around KC don't interest me though especially if I don't have school aged kids. So whatever point you are trying to make, I'm not sure you are making it.
And KC is not a bad place. I just prefer a slightly larger, more progressive and yes "vibrant" city .
I might have said something about the possibility of moving back to KC when I retire, mostly to be close to family though. But that's when I retire, I'm a long way from that, if I ever actually "retire". When I'm old, I probably won't care as much about living in a city. Plus central KCMO is more slow paced and laid back than most suburbs, including most of KC's suburbs. If I do move back to KC, it would not be to the suburbs unless you consider Brookside suburban. And once again, I have nothing against suburbs. The suburbs around KC don't interest me though especially if I don't have school aged kids. So whatever point you are trying to make, I'm not sure you are making it.
And KC is not a bad place. I just prefer a slightly larger, more progressive and yes "vibrant" city .
The point I am making is that you yourself said you will probably move back to KC and maybe even the suburbs of KC. I didn't say it, you did.
Vibrant is your new catchphrase. You are kind of overusing it. "progressive" and "vibrant" -
KC has a pretty vibrant scene already...it's just a bit more diffuse and scattered than most east coast cities. I have lived in east coast cities...the great thing about KC is you get a lot of the vibrancy (especially when it comes to sports-related and music-related things) without all the crowds in one place. Trust me, there is nothing more miserable than trying to cram into NYC or Boston subway car in the dead of winter and having so many people trying to pack in that you can barely breathe. I really don't like to deal with enormous crowds in one place, and that's one of the big perks about KC. You can find your vibrant scene in almost any nook/corner of the metro area without having it being too popular.
KC is probably the best place I have lived...except sometimes I miss Orlando-area weather.
yea, where KC shines in the accessibility of what it does offer. I would say that KC offers "most" of the culture of a city of 3-4 million without most of the hassle. We go to NHL or MLB games or Kennedy Center or even something simple like an auto show at the DC convention center etc it can be more of a challenge at times. In KC, I would come home from work and pick up the family, hit a ballgame and be home by the ten pm news. Events at the kc convention center are a walk in the park, even during the week. That's just not doable in this area so you have to reserve larger time slots and plan more.
But at the same time while people in KC freak out over non-existent urban parking problems or traffic and complain about how expensive it is to even do most things when they are all dirt cheap there, I actually like talking the trains and walking to the ballparks and honestly, even when we drive into the city and park in a garage, once you live in the area and learn everything it's just as easy to drive to Verizon Center or Kennedy Center or Nationals/Camden Yards or Georgetown etc as it was in KC. I prefer the hustle and bustle. I like going to ballgames on a Tuesday night and there still being 28-30k at the park and I like walking through Chinatown en route to a NHL game or concert.
KC has plenty to do for a city of its size, but I have found since leaving KC that I prefer slightly larger cities. The DC/Baltimore/Annapolis area is just amazing. There is actually too much to do and that means there is always so much to do that you have to decide and choose things over others. I like taking transit, I like having literally hundreds of miles of very popular bike trails, I like having more pro sports teams around, I like living near the bay yet being only an hour or two from several ski resorts and only a few hours from the Ocean City beaches. I like that we can drive into Philly and do things there and come back the same day. Yea, this area has traffic, tolls, etc. But none of that bothers me. Heck, I even prefer the traffic out here, people drive fast and aggressive which I prefer over the passive aggressive drivers in KC that hog left lanes, drive under speed limits and never put down cell phones. I like having three major airports that will get you ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD will much lower travel time because I don't have to connect even though they might take 20 extra minutes to navigate. Some people (most people in KC) are miserable in areas like this. This area is right up my alley.
That doesn't mean I don't like KC. People misunderstand that.
KCI new airport study is out, including a breakdown of where in the region passengers come from:
63% are from Clay, Platte and Jackson.
35% are from the Kansas side, including Wyandotte.
Maybe moving the airport closer to the cars in the parking lot wouldn't be the best idea after all.
Interesting. That's surprising. If you were just talking KS vs MO including outside the metro area it wouldn't be as surprising considering MO's larger population. Where can these stats be found?
So I first moved here LONG after Kay Barnes was mayor...but apparently the debt service on the KC Power and Light District is an absolute financial nightmare. The city is trying to rework the deal so that it can extend the repayment period and lessen annual debt service (which is $14M more than the $6M in annual income generated by the District). So the question is, why would we as a city want to further add to debt service problems by tacking an unnecessary complete terminal rebuild (rather than remodel/downsize) in the first place?
My point is, turning downtown into a "vibrant" space has a tremendous civic cost - and the city went about it by issuing a lot of debt. Debt spending and large bond issuance may be the way other cities pay for "vibrant" unorganically evolved districts like the P+L, but I think KC should seek to differentiate itself by being a model of responsible fiscal discipline rather than lavish and unwise spending on boondoggle projects. Form follows function - and KCI is completely functional.
If you moved to KC long after Barnes, you have no idea how bad that area of downtown was. The vast majority of the money spent on the P&L district was not to build the restaurants and nightclubs. It was used to acquire extremely blighted structures and surface parking lots, relocate and rebuild underground utilities, remove and rebuild streets, traffic signals, streetlights, landscaping, build parking garages (which also serve Sprint Center and other downtown venues).
Basically work that needed to be done anyway. KCMO completely removed and rebuilt a large portion of its downtown, a part of Downtown that had not been touched in many decades that had nothing but half used parking lots, haunted houses and vacant structures. KC actually had haunted houses that were used one month out of the year in the middle of its downtown central business district, I don't think people realize just how bizarre that is for a major metropolitan city to have such a poorly looking and performing area in the middle of a downtown. There would likely be no Sprint Center, no renovated Midland Theater, no grocery store, no renovated President Hotel, no Kauffman Performing Arts Center and much of the renovated and proposed projects (condos, hotels etc) that have occurred in the area would not have happened.
KCMO invested in a MAJOR downtown infrastructure project and an entertainment district was then constructed on this new portion of downtown. Whether you like or support the P&L district or not (yes it caters to tourists and suburbanites, big deal), that project single handedly saved downtown from being the only major city save Detroit to remain a complete disaster into the 2000's.
Yes, it was expensive, but the money was well spent.
And once again, I will never EVER understand why a project like the P&L district gets so much negative attention by locals while suburban greenfield projects like Village West and Prairie Fire which get FAR more public money that goes strait to the actual developers rather than urban infrastructure improvements are completely justified. I will never understand KC area residents mentality.
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.
.
