Toellner Tells it

What does the future infastructure of Kansas City look like?

Last week, the Bloomberg administration in New York City released a new manual for how future street development in the city will be done. The 232 page manual provides guidelines -- a "single framework and playbook" - for the types of projects that the adminstration will approve quickly as the city seeks to make over the 1970s-style streetscapes.  Improvements include energy-efficient lighting, wider sidewalks made of a rubber byproduct that is durable and more comfortable to walk on, more benches on sidewalks, sidewalk cafes, types of utility poles, building facades and awnings, narrower streets with slower-moving traffic -- and overall, be more aestetically pleasing, environmentally friendly, and treat strets as public spaces, not just thoroughfares for cars.

Obviously New York's vision is, and should be, different from Kansas City's. But the problem is, what is our vision?

Probably the most influential document for the vision for -- at least the central business corridor -- is the Sasaki Plan that was prepared for the Civic Council of Greater Kansas City. Even though this costly plan was designed as a "framework," many parts of it have been virtually ignored by developers and the folks at City Hall.  In just the past 4 years, things like the placement of the performing arts center, downtown baseball stadium, changed uses for Barney Allis Plaza, mass transit and the placement/use of parking garages and surface parking lots (especially the emphasis on shared parking spaces) have been largely ignored.  

So, if we're going to ignore the only major document that shows a vision for the future of Kansas City, what should we use as a roadmap?  Having a roadmap would provide us with better, prioritized use of taxpayer dollars, wiser use of TIF, provide a roadmap for developers so we would not have new development that doesn't fit into the longterm future of the city, and provide a guideline for what would, and would not, receive support and/or funding at City Hall.

Right now, it seems as if every new development opportunity is decided in complete isolation.

Light rail?  Let's form a committee to see where it should go.

Dog parks? Let's form a committee to see where they should go.

Troost BRT? Let's form a committee to examine.

Redevelopment at Linwood and Troost?  Let's form a committee.

What should and shouldn't go on our boulevards?  Let's form a committee.

And this is just current projects. It seems that as a city we have no idea what our long-term strategy should be for dealing with the issues facing our city. No roadmap for redeveloping our neighborhoods, for Section 8 housing or for dealing with crime, abandoned housing or schools buildings.  This doesn't even tackle futuristic issues like what do we do when there is greater public use of electric cars or better ways to enhance bicycling routes through our core.

It's time for us to build a roadmap. Put together a well-publicized document that people can stand behind and say THIS is the vision for Kansas City. Sure, not everyone will agree with it. But it will prevent us from making all future decisions for roads, parks, development and transit in a complete vacuum... and a little cohesiveness and vision can only be a good thing.

New Urbanism

I just happened to catch an article over at Fast Company today on New Urbanism. 

The video, and the article, talk about some of the environmental struggles that are being caused by the massive amounts of urban sprawl we are seeing in our cities...and that our new building culture stresses cul-de-sacs (which are now being outlawed in some areas) has created a lot of problems in how we live our lives.

"Wouldn't it be great to replace car commutes with walkable town centers? But what the video elides is that many cities actually makes this sort of development illegal, with zoning regulations that actively discourage "mixed use" planning. And many sprawling cities don't have any control over their own borders--developers frequently find it cheaper to simply move further out, rather that work within existing planning frameworks."

I think by and large, people have missed out on a lot in our "new" suburban communities. Additional commute times in vehicles lead to less time spent with families. Time spent in your own large yard replaces time spent in community park areas where you can meet people and socialize. You miss the joys of walking to dinner or the safety of walking home after a night at the corner pub.  The cost of running a school is more expensive because kids have to ride the bus to school instead of walking down the street. And we continue to build out -- taking up farmland and natural habitat (and then complain that the deer are bothering US).

I just think it's interesting two of the most demanded areas in this city for people to live, Brookside and Waldo, completely follow this model. Virtually every house in the area is walkable to shops, bars, restaurants, grocery stores, and the most popular walking/biking trail in the city. It also (not coincidentally) lays along the route of the busiest bus route in the city.

I still haven't figured out why more areas don't strive to emulate these areas and this form of urban design.

Here's another video from CBS that ran awhile back on the same concept and some other areas that are striving for this type of urban design:

Reminders of days past

Just a quick photo I took on a walk along the 3100 block of Troost. This abandoned store front has the store's original purpose literally etched in stone -- the now-abandoned store front used to house a high-end jewelry store.  Across the street, you will note another abandoned entryway with "Goldman's" written in it.

Long gone are the days when major retailers grace neighborhood street store fronts....and we're none-the-better for it.