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.
Wow. Not sure what else to say but wow. Reading that document is a giant "what could have been" moment and the biggest part of that lies with the downtown baseball stadium. That could have solved so many problems for the city, most notably the severe revenue shortage of the P&L. Having a baseball stadium in the vicinity, drawing 20,000+ people 81 times per year would have made a huge difference. It would have helped make better mass transit a reality. And it would have created a fantastic new area for residential development, like LoDo in Denver. But alas, no one had the foresight or guts to fight for it and now we are stuck with the K, which supports two hotels, a Denny's, a BP and a Taco Bell.
What a great looking vision/plan for KC - too bad it was ignored. Thanks for sharing Brent - I had no idea this existed.
Posted by: Kyle Rohde | May 27, 2009 at 11:22 PM
The Sasaki plan isn't "perfect", but it is a very good document. I can't help but think about how much better off this city would be if we had a plan -- any plan -- that we were striving for that gave us a roadmap for the type of development we're looking for in different places.
And yeah, I have a feeling a lot of our concerns about the revenue shortfalls of the P&L would be eliminated had we spent $400 million on a new ballpark downtwon vs $300 million on renovating the old stadium...
Posted by: Brent | May 30, 2009 at 10:31 AM
Umm... try this.
http://www.kcmo.org/planning.nsf/focus/home
Posted by: Russ | June 04, 2009 at 03:34 PM
Thanks Russ. I've never heard of anyone refer to this plan in all my time in Kansas City. Do people in city hall actually refer to it and use it for decisionmaking/guidance? I obviously haven't read through all of it, but there is some good stuff in it (some is outdated). It is obviously a concern that the majority of the "priority by 2005" plans are left undone in now 2009. Just wondering if this is still readily used at city hall.
Posted by: Brent | June 04, 2009 at 04:25 PM