Overland Park tower to be imploded (apartment complex, homes, neighborhood)

[luzianne]

Originally Posted by GraniteStater

The I-435 corridor already has a higher population density, and with the large highway nearby means the possibility for mixed-use denser development would make sense. The very low density model is not going to be sustainable as the metro area has consumed enormous amounts of land in inefficient ways over the last few decades. Redevelopment of existing areas will be key, and a "business as usual" approach is not always the best decision. Yes, there are many suburbs around the country that have dense Downtown areas with mixed use developments that are adjacent to low density tree lined suburban streets. One can easily have both, and that scenario makes it more appealing for a wider demographic set.

I wouldn't say it makes it more appealing for a wider demographic set. I would say it makes it more appealing for SOME, but not a majority. I'd say the majority of suburb dwellers do not want higher density. If they did, they'd be living downtown. They chose the suburbs for a reason. And if/when mixed use/higher density developments are built, people who do not want higher density will move further out.


Someone mentioned that some people want to live in a higher density area, but without the crime and decay. Well, with higher density comes crime and decay. That's why people move to the suburbs in the first place. If you bring the higher density and subsequent crime and decay to their area, they will simply move and recreate their suburbs that you ruined. And then you will continue to scream about sprawl.

[CrownVic95]

Originally Posted by luzianne

I wouldn't say it makes it more appealing for a wider demographic set. I would say it makes it more appealing for SOME, but not a majority. I'd say the majority of suburb dwellers do not want higher density. If they did, they'd be living downtown. They chose the suburbs for a reason. And if/when mixed use/higher density developments are built, people who do not want higher density will move further out.


Someone mentioned that some people want to live in a higher density area, but without the crime and decay. Well, with higher density comes crime and decay. That's why people move to the suburbs in the first place. If you bring the higher density and subsequent crime and decay to their area, they will simply move and recreate their suburbs that you ruined. And then you will continue to scream about sprawl.

Nailed it, luzianne. Owe you another.

[pioneer88]

I can't think of one single person that I know older or younger that would rather walk across 1/2 mile of parking lot then have a somewhat "dense" and more walkable business area with shops and housing options close in. I honestly can't think of hardly anyone I've talked with who would rather have big box sprawl than have a quaint "good ol' days" heart and soul to their town. Sure they want "new" but I guarantee if you combine the new shops and restaurants with the soul and community we all hear about from days gone by that town will be healthier and happier for it. What's great is that you could still have the same type of neighborhoods surrounding such a place. I think you'd love it Luzianne. I also realize that Overland Park is far from a small community so it would have much more hustle and bustle but it already does. So why not better centralize that so that there's more room for the quiet and quaint and less for the 6 lane arterial roads and strip malls? That said, it takes all kinds and I understand not everyone likes the same things. But I do live in the burbs and know many many people who would agree with what I've said. You may know many who think otherwise.

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by luzianne

I wouldn't say it makes it more appealing for a wider demographic set. I would say it makes it more appealing for SOME, but not a majority. I'd say the majority of suburb dwellers do not want higher density. If they did, they'd be living downtown. They chose the suburbs for a reason. And if/when mixed use/higher density developments are built, people who do not want higher density will move further out.


Someone mentioned that some people want to live in a higher density area, but without the crime and decay. Well, with higher density comes crime and decay. That's why people move to the suburbs in the first place. If you bring the higher density and subsequent crime and decay to their area, they will simply move and recreate their suburbs that you ruined. And then you will continue to scream about sprawl.

This is related to the historic development patterns of JOCO regarding low density. There are plenty of denser suburban areas, (compared to most of KC), in other areas of the country that have little crime or decay. They often tend to be more expensive COL places where geographic limitations, zoning, and conservation lands hold back more of the sprawl, which inherently pushes land prices up-leading to suburbs that are more dense. For example: Seattle, Boston, NYC, Portland, SF.
KC will probably always be more of an expansive city as opposed to an expensive city. Other peers to KC with an expansive built environment footprint are: STL, Indy, Cincy, etc.

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by pioneer88

I can't think of one single person that I know older or younger that would rather walk across 1/2 mile of parking lot then have a somewhat "dense" and more walkable business area with shops and housing options close in. I honestly can't think of hardly anyone I've talked with who would rather have big box sprawl than have a quaint "good ol' days" heart and soul to their town.

Two suburbs in the Midwest that come to mind that have that feel are Royal Oak, MI and Lakewood, OH. An older intact core with shops, restaurants, and residential- true mixed-use, but great leafy historic neighborhoods, sidewalks, tree lawn, and sizable lots- also within walking distance to the older core suburban area.

[SPonteKC]

Originally Posted by luzianne

Well, with higher density comes crime and decay.

Demonstrably false. As is it's correlary.

[rwiksell]

Originally Posted by luzianne

Someone mentioned that some people want to live in a higher density area, but without the crime and decay. Well, with higher density comes crime and decay. That's why people move to the suburbs in the first place. If you bring the higher density and subsequent crime and decay to their area, they will simply move and recreate their suburbs that you ruined. And then you will continue to scream about sprawl.

Is there a snowball's chance you can actually substantiate this claim? It's nothing more than guilt-by-association, from a 1960s white-flight worldview.

By your logic, the very densest neighborhoods in the country would also be among the most dangerous. But this is absolutely not the case. The most popular neighborhoods are quickly gentrifying, densifying and becoming safer every day. In the meantime, many aging, inner-ring suburbs are decaying and becoming more and more dangerous.

Now, if you're imagining something like the projects, where the government builds a dozen identical 20-story East Berlin-style apartment towers, then sure. But that hasn't been the pattern for decades.

In short: Density and Crime/Decay are unrelated.

[vinix1999]

Seems like a lot of "redos"/tear downs in that area of Overland Park. Another older office building a few blocks away on College Blvd. was stripped to the steel structure last year and rebuilt, as is happening to another one near 107th and Roe. The original Drury Inn off Metcalf is also being torn down (they had rebranded it a Pear Tree Inn).

Seems odd that a building that young could not have been "modernized".

[KC_Sleuth]

Originally Posted by luzianne

I wouldn't say it makes it more appealing for a wider demographic set. I would say it makes it more appealing for SOME, but not a majority. I'd say the majority of suburb dwellers do not want higher density. If they did, they'd be living downtown. They chose the suburbs for a reason. And if/when mixed use/higher density developments are built, people who do not want higher density will move further out.


Someone mentioned that some people want to live in a higher density area, but without the crime and decay. Well, with higher density comes crime and decay. That's why people move to the suburbs in the first place. If you bring the higher density and subsequent crime and decay to their area, they will simply move and recreate their suburbs that you ruined. And then you will continue to scream about sprawl.

I live in the I-435 Corridor near College Blvd and Nall and would love a little bit more density. I like that Park Place is nearby...but I would also like more walkable entertainment and dining/bar options close by than what we currently have. It's walkable enough that we can do happy hour on a summer evening and not have to worry about driving home. Crime/Density...not something I am all that concerned about as I have seen a lot of higher-density parts of cities and suburban areas that have managed to avoid this...especially where you have some gentrification.

Really, livability is about options and proximity. The more options for entertainment/fulfillment you have closer to you, the better your area is in terms of livibility.

[kcmo]

Originally Posted by luzianne

I wouldn't say it makes it more appealing for a wider demographic set. I would say it makes it more appealing for SOME, but not a majority. I'd say the majority of suburb dwellers do not want higher density. If they did, they'd be living downtown. They chose the suburbs for a reason. And if/when mixed use/higher density developments are built, people who do not want higher density will move further out.


Someone mentioned that some people want to live in a higher density area, but without the crime and decay. Well, with higher density comes crime and decay. That's why people move to the suburbs in the first place. If you bring the higher density and subsequent crime and decay to their area, they will simply move and recreate their suburbs that you ruined. And then you will continue to scream about sprawl.

Lets say the 435 corridor had several mid and high rise residential or mixed use projects along it. Why in the world would that have any impact (let alone negative impact) on people that live live in the more low density areas further away from 435 (both north and south)?