Kansas side of metro KC develpment thread (Kansas City, Overland: sales, apartment complex)

[kcmo]

Metcalf south project looks like ****. Once again a project that is supposed to be "mixed use" and "walkable", is jut more of the same old thing.

http://www.kansascity.com/news/busin...e28659028.html



But this time, Overland Park just might have the balls to say no and is asking the developers to try again. Maybe they can come up with a site plan that is post 1990.

http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascit...-feedback.html

[pioneer88]

Originally Posted by kcmo

Metcalf south project looks like ****. Once again a project that is supposed to be "mixed use" and "walkable", is jut more of the same old thing.

There



But this time, Overland Park just might have the balls to say no and is asking the developers to try again. Maybe they can come up with a site plan that is post 1990.

Developers of $320M Central Square urged to think outside the big box - Kansas City Business Journal

I'm hopeful they can make this thing worth while. Nice to see Overland Park at least take that first step.

[shindig]

Yeah not an original concept...back to the drawing board, I hope.

[zach_33]

I thought it was kind of righteous of KCMO to post all these things for people to see, and good to have a professional with access to all these good sketches who is willing to share.

I do sense that Metcalf South is shaping up to be more of the same-old-same-old, but I am not sure how the developers can break that mold when the use of automobiles has such a firm grip on the area. Low density sprawl on a grid is tough to plan walkable communities around.

[kcmo]

Originally Posted by zach_33

I thought it was kind of righteous of KCMO to post all these things for people to see, and good to have a professional with access to all these good sketches who is willing to share.

I do sense that Metcalf South is shaping up to be more of the same-old-same-old, but I am not sure how the developers can break that mold when the use of automobiles has such a firm grip on the area. Low density sprawl on a grid is tough to plan walkable communities around.

All of Kansas City will forever be nearly 100% auto dependent. But you can build sustained development in metros like KC and many metro areas very similar to KC are doing it. Johnson County is actually doing some nice development (nice for suburban development), it's just they are putting them in terrible locations like Renner Blvd or 135th when they could be doing them at places like 95th and Metcalf, Mission Mall site etc.

Leawood's Park Place or Lenexa Town Center or Prairie Fire could actually become part of the urban fabric of neighborhoods and could actually someday be served by transit and usable bicycle infrastructure had they not been built on far flung islands. Those islands which are surrounded by tons of unusable grass and highway/arterial road rights of way will never ever develop into walkable areas beyond their boundaries and will never ever have any sort of transit or bike connections (other than minimal recreational bike trails) to surrounding neighborhoods, let alone other parts of the metro.

Take Leawood's Park Place and put it at 95th and Metcalf. Take Prairie Fire and place it at 87th and Metcalf near downtown OP (a museum near downtown OP would have been nice), take Lenexa Town Center and place it on the old Mission Mall site and you can start to see just how much that would have actually changed Johnson County.

Instead they are redeveloping older areas in denser areas that have potential to be walkable and have transit access with big boxes and parking lots and putting the modern mixed use developments in the middle of far out fields that will forever be islands among low density sprawl and extreme automobile infrastructure.

They have used up powerful incentives like STAR bonds and what not to develop the wrong parts of the county and places like Metcalf South are left with far less incentives and so they get bunch of big boxes and parking lots. Although developers will add a little strip mall that has parallel parking and they will build an apartment complex nearby and call it "mixed use" and the city planners typically buy it.

It's not just JoCo, The Bannister Cerner complex is a terrible joke on KC when every other city in America is doing urban or mixed use corporate campuses. They are proposing similar sprawl mixed use projects in the far northland when NKC just sits barely unchanged. So much potential in NKC near the rivers and downtown NKC. KCK continues to build what they call mixed use projects west of 435 when just some of that in the city would probably turn the urban part of the city around within a decade.

I have never understood urban planning in KC. It's like there is not a single person (in position to do anything, public or private) in the entire metro that knows a single thing about post 1960 urban planning techniques and ideals.

[empires228]

Park Place residential looks nice and will be a nice addition! That's in easy walking distance of shopping, dining, movies, a library and the jewish community center. If they work on the sprint campus they could walk to work as well.

[denverian]

Originally Posted by Truly Missouri

Why do people nag so much with kcmo? And why do people nag with denverian? I've never read anything wrong with their participation in this forum. The participation I do fault-find with however, is with those who nag against them. And for some reason, they always make their nagging personal; with childish insults.

I don't care. I'm quite familiar with JoCo, having grown up there (and was born there).

IMO, Metcalf South would be such a perfect spot for true mixed use, dense development. Very centrally located.

I do have fond memories of that mall.. the organ player up on the top level and tossing coins into that tall fountain with all the trays to collect them, and then shoving my brother into that fountain shown below. Those were the days!

[zach_33]

Originally Posted by kcmo

Those islands which are surrounded by tons of unusable grass and highway/arterial road rights of way will never ever develop into walkable areas beyond their boundaries and will never ever have any sort of transit or bike connections (other than minimal recreational bike trails) to surrounding neighborhoods, let alone other parts of the metro.

This is something I have noticed in JoCo, the areas of it which I frequent, which bugs me a lot. Take Metcalf and 119th, for example. I don't think I can imagine a more pedestrian unfriendly intersection. With Blue Valley Expressway diverging from Metcalf just north of the intersection, it's almost like having 20+ lanes of traffic at a single bisected intersection. Add in the acres of cracking, weed strewn parking lots and shuttered fast food restaurants that separate the intersection from the big box shopping, and you end up with a completely depressing vision of future suburban ghetto.

135th and Metcalf is only marginally better - from that intersection, the Corbin Park Mall is like two football fields away. To get into any of the shopping areas, you have to guess which direction to go such that you can turn into the parking lots. Again, you have 12 lanes of traffic in both directions and with cars speeding through orange lights at 50+ mph I'm sure it would be a little less than fun to walk across the roadway.

So the message I get from the city planners is pretty clear. If you value your life, you will stay in your car. Who needs exercise anyway? Enjoy some low-cost American style Chinese food. Forget about the melting ice caps up north - we've got air-conditioning here.

It's not without it's conveniences and benefits, but the dark side of it is kind of scary to me, not because the people are snobby or look down upon other parts of the metro, but because many of the people seem blissfully ignorant to the unsustainability of it all.

[moxiegal]

And here I thought you were talking about THE Kansas City KS side...not JoCo. KCK-Wyandotte County, could use some serious development and community planning.

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by zach_33

This is something I have noticed in JoCo, the areas of it which I frequent, which bugs me a lot. Take Metcalf and 119th, for example. I don't think I can imagine a more pedestrian unfriendly intersection. With Blue Valley Expressway diverging from Metcalf just north of the intersection, it's almost like having 20+ lanes of traffic at a single bisected intersection. Add in the acres of cracking, weed strewn parking lots and shuttered fast food restaurants that separate the intersection from the big box shopping, and you end up with a completely depressing vision of future suburban ghetto.

135th and Metcalf is only marginally better - from that intersection, the Corbin Park Mall is like two football fields away. To get into any of the shopping areas, you have to guess which direction to go such that you can turn into the parking lots. Again, you have 12 lanes of traffic in both directions and with cars speeding through orange lights at 50+ mph I'm sure it would be a little less than fun to walk across the roadway.

So the message I get from the city planners is pretty clear. If you value your life, you will stay in your car. Who needs exercise anyway? Enjoy some low-cost American style Chinese food. Forget about the melting ice caps up north - we've got air-conditioning here.

It's not without it's conveniences and benefits, but the dark side of it is kind of scary to me, not because the people are snobby or look down upon other parts of the metro, but because many of the people seem blissfully ignorant to the unsustainability of it all.

It's called "planned obsolescence" just in a development kind sense. The city commission, developers and builders (often with large tax subsidies) cannot think long-range (50-100 years down the road) because all they see is quick $$ instead of creating a more self-sustaining multi-faceted type of development model that can be continually worked from, added to, and to create additional layers of density when necessary.
I will never personally live in a metro or city that has this type of prevalent built environment model because I just do not prefer it in any way. I also don't like or enjoy driving very much so that also is another factor.