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.
I don't know. The lack of density is what makes Kansas City Kansas City. It is different and better than places like New York and Los Angeles. Why would we want to take our easy to get around city and create a traffic nightmare? I also can't blame people who are against development next to their property that will block their view. Who bought their property thinking that a high rise was going to build next to it?
I also don't get the lack of concern about the people being displaced by gentrification.
I kind of like that you can look at the old buildings in Westport and envision how it once looked, precisely because there are no high rise buildings interrupting the view. The buildings you see are the buildings that have been there since the 1800s/early 1900s.
I do like new development. I prefer newer areas to older areas. But I also appreciate history and I don't see density as a good thing.
At the rate KC is "densifying" it will be 100 years before it has any real traffic or crowd issues. It is literally the least congested city of any size in the United States. Rush hour here looks like noon traffic in other cities I've lived in. The idea that KC should hold off on density development to prevent traffic or overcrowding is really quite silly.
I moved here at 30. I have zero interest in new construction and that's been a lifelong thing. I much prefer vintage homes. I will never, ever live in a condo. I like urban living, but am not remotely attracted to being densely packed, and I've lived in much more dense cities. For me, it's not about traffic or parking. It's about atmosphere. I live here because I like the atmosphere. If that were greatly altered, it likely wouldn't be a city I love as much.
I would pick this 1908 home in Hyde Park in a heartbeat over any new construction I've seen.
I just graduated college for a 2nd time, this time with a BBA at UMKC. Being from KC it was cool to see other people from different larger cities being here, learning everything about the city. My favorite thing was how they mentioned how KC was changing and growing bigger. They were excited to see the changes the city was making. Yes I do like the older buildings in the city, but those older buildings,unless renovated, will never help the city grow into something more. Many of you have lived in larger cities, I haven't, but I have traveled to different cities around the U.S. and despite some of Kansas City's flaws, I think its a great city and should continue to develop the urban core and surrounding areas to become the best Kansas City it can be. Its Kansas CITY not Kansas Town. As with traffic it is a non issue. I travel down I-35 in KS every week day during rush hour, and its not that bad. The urban core can benefit from the new density, creating a new sense of life in areas that seemed dead during what you would expect to be a bustling area. Every residential development is beneficial to just about everyone in KC. hopefully we will see more businesses moving into downtown and other areas in the city. Just think that these potential new jobs will keep your kids or future kids/grandkids from moving away someday to bigger cities !
You're wrong. Many empty nesters choose to move to more urban environments when they downsize into condos. I personally know several. I'm 43 now and that's what I plan to do some day. I'd much prefer to be back living in downtown Chicago. But we moved here to be closer to family while our children are young. There were a ton of people In downtown Chicago in their 60s and older who had left the burbs for a richer cultural life in the city. Some were parents of our friends. You're entitled to hate everything urban. But you also should recognize that not everyone shares your view. There have been countless articles about how current generations prefer denser, walkable urban environments. Some people will change as they age. But some won't. Denser development is much more sustainable and environmentally friendly too. You and Dan Coffey can pretend everyone is over 70 and hates urban living. But that doesn't make you right. "Quality" is subjective. To me, high quality is being able to walk from my front door to dozens of restaurants and shops. To get on a train with my kids and head to the museum. To interact with other humans on the sidewalks and on public transit. To ride my bike to work. Living in the burbs as I do now is existing. It's not really living to the fullest. I look forward to being back in the city someday, whether in KC or elsewhere. And btw, I grew up a middle class white kid in the burbs, a son of Republican parents. So you can dispense with your preconceived notion that someone with my point of view is an evil minority liberal (as I assume you might have thought from your other posts).
Grew up in the burbs, still living in (the comfort of) the burbs, but condemning them as expected in your peer group. Such a familiar pattern.
Sorry, Kansas City knows better and sees your endeavor to turn a positive into a negative coming from miles away.
Edit: My post addresses the OP. The post above sneaked in while I was writing.
(emphasis added)
This is what prompted that "paragraph without purpose".
I don't recall ever writing anything like that.
That passage, written by someone who, like me, no longer lives there strikes me as very presumptuous, as it's clearly stating that what you support is what "Kansas City knows."
Especially if, as I think it was, it was directed at an actual resident, even if a non-native.
As I think we can see from the discussions here we both follow, not all Kansas Citians agree with either of us. There are some who agree with you, and others who don't. Ditto me.
And my comments came at the end of a post where I was making the case for a position largely at odds with my own.
I moved here at 30. I have zero interest in new construction and that's been a lifelong thing. I much prefer vintage homes. I will never, ever live in a condo. I like urban living, but am not remotely attracted to being densely packed, and I've lived in much more dense cities. For me, it's not about traffic or parking. It's about atmosphere. I live here because I like the atmosphere. If that were greatly altered, it likely wouldn't be a city I love as much.
I would pick this 1908 home in Hyde Park in a heartbeat over any new construction I've seen.
My husband's taste is opposite. He'd do a modified shipping container home, gladly. Our compromise is going closer to midcentury.
I will never live in a condo, either. Why BUY an apartment? I don't like urban living, don't like being densely packed, and the reason I prefer new construction is that I now live in a 50+ year old house and while I don't mind it, we have had to replace electrical and plumbing and insulation, and have chosen to replace other things like porch, sidewalk, driveway, roof, fencing, deck. I would love to have new construction (QUALITY new construction, which is pricey) with nice new kitchen and bathrooms. And an estate lot wouldn't bother me at all, either.
Before this house we lived in an even older house in northeast Kansas City. While it had beautiful hand-carved woodwork throughout the house and wood floors (our house now has wood floors too), it was an old house. Going down to the old yucky rock basement to do laundry was unpleasant. And the kitchen had seen better days and just wasn't a place I enjoyed cooking. And the bathroom wasn't great, either.
Temperance in supposedly one of the four cardinal virtues, but it is a quality in many Kansas Citians that I find very irksome. Never before have I lived in a place where the average person seems so gosh darn sensible and restrained. Come on people! Live a little! That's my opinion, anyway.
(emphasis added)
I dunno, I thought those were among the most admirable qualities of Kansas Citians, up there with their almost overwhelming friendliness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PA650
I don't oppose new development in Westport, but I do feel current property owners are entitled to have a voice in the future of their neighborhood. Moreover, the nimbyism of KC is no different than other cities, in my opinion.
I'm not sure who you guys speak for. The following two projects are being built currently in downtown Overland Park with more on the way.
Avenue 81
Interurban Lofts
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownVic95
I look at photos like that and just shake my head.
"We" speak for your parents today and you in 25 years....at which point you'll look at those very same photos and ask yourself who in their right mind would want to live there. Because you'll see clearly the life-quality nightmare that they are. And that's when they're brand new.
"What you mean 'we,' white man?"
I'm one of that generation that will be moving into places like Avenue 81 soon if we don't already live there. Given that remark, I strongly suspect that you are too.
Here in Philadelphia, I've spoken with a number of developers who have found empty-nester Baby Boomers wishing to return to the urban lifestyle they enjoyed in their college years willing to pay top dollar for condo apartments in towers like One Riverside:
and 500 Walnut (blue glass tower in watercolor below):
These projects are from different developers but designed by the same starchitect.
I note that the two Overland Park projects PA650 mentioned above are from the same developer, who has built a third in the block next to Avenue 81. It looks to me like that developer is trying to retrofit urbanity on what I remember as a small, unremarkable small-town downtown of single-story buildings that stretched for about two blocks along Santa Fe Drive and just happened to have the largest of Kansas City's suburbs grow up around it. Now this developer at least is trying to give Overland Park the kind of downtown you find in a city of 180,000 souls, and the city appears to be just fine with that - nor have I heard howls of outrage coming from the Johnson Countians posting here.
People are buying or renting places like these, so clearly they don't share your opinion of them. That's what makes your comments so irksome to me. I speak for myself in expressing my preferences, and I know others share them. And I also know that they are minority preferences, at least to date, as revealed by the dominant pattern of housing in every large American city. but I don't presume to speak for everybody the way you do, especially when it's clear that not everyone speaks in your voice.
Very true! Most of my high school friends (I moved here in high school, then graduated and moved away for 20 years) left kc for larger cities. A few have come back. But most didn't. KC has to be able to attract young people in order to flourish. I'm no longer a 20 or 30 something. But I see people are the future of KC. People like crownvic and Dan Coffey are not. Young people more than ever want density and walkability. They want city living. There is a reason rural economies are failing. Young people are moving to cities.
But it is true that the share of millennials who are doing this is smaller than the share of Boomers or even Gen Xers who did. And in many cases, the main factor driving the decision to move to the 'burbs is the quality of the public schools. That's an even more serious issue in Kansas City than it is in Philadelphia, thanks to the Kansas City (Mo.) School District having to rebuild itself after losing accreditation.
And also note what Jessica Luntz of the National Association of Realtors says in the last paragraph of my article.
That also bolsters the case for developments like those RPG is building in downtown Overland Park.
I will never live in a condo, either. Why BUY an apartment? I don't like urban living, don't like being densely packed, and the reason I prefer new construction is that I now live in a 50+ year old house and while I don't mind it, we have had to replace electrical and plumbing and insulation, and have chosen to replace other things like porch, sidewalk, driveway, roof, fencing, deck. I would love to have new construction (QUALITY new construction, which is pricey) with nice new kitchen and bathrooms. And an estate lot wouldn't bother me at all, either.
Before this house we lived in an even older house in northeast Kansas City. While it had beautiful hand-carved woodwork throughout the house and wood floors (our house now has wood floors too), it was an old house. Going down to the old yucky rock basement to do laundry was unpleasant. And the kitchen had seen better days and just wasn't a place I enjoyed cooking. And the bathroom wasn't great, either.
Here in a city where the average age of the housing stock is over 50, what we do is renovate those older homes - in both city and suburbs.
The results are often spectacular. Google "Jawdropper of the Week" for some examples. You can also find some by Googling "First-Time Find."
(And yes, you will also find new or recently built homes in both too.)
I think that's also possible in Kansas City.
That tendency to throw away the old in favor of the new I do find disturbing. We do need new stuff, but there's value in the old too.
Here in a city where the average age of the housing stock is over 50, what we do is renovate those older homes - in both city and suburbs.
The results are often spectacular. Google "Jawdropper of the Week" for some examples. You can also find some by Googling "First-Time Find."
(And yes, you will also find new or recently built homes in both too.)
I think that's also possible in Kansas City.
That tendency to throw away the old in favor of the new I do find disturbing. We do need new stuff, but there's value in the old too.
I am quite aware that people renovate older homes. I just prefer new, because no matter how much you renovate, there are still going to be problems - foundation, etc. People also tear down and build new. We have renovated just about everything we can and it's expensive. It actually would cost less to buy new than to renovate everything in an older home - electrical, plumbing, foundation to begin with, and then upgrading absolutely everything like is done in those "jawdropping" homes. And if you DON'T upgrade the plumbing, electrical, foundation, etc., and only make cosmetic changes, then it's just a disaster waiting to happen. I know people renovate homes and sell them - for millions of dollars - but hopefully EVERYTHING has been redone. If not, the buyers should be made aware of it. Buying an old house with cosmetic upgrades and nothing else is a bad idea.
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.
