Interesting data on KC (Kansas City, Liberty: live in, bus, airport)
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.
So many KC residents that I know are unhappy about the new airport terminal, don't want downtown baseball stadium or any more buildings built or renovated. For some reason they these residents think they are losing out somehow. Most all of the Johnson County KS residents I know feel/think they are not part of KC, exempt from KC and don't want to be part of the KC metro.
So many KC residents have gotten so used to the weird way things are here, and actually think that the airport is good here in KC, because they once had to wait in a hour long security line at LAX or O'Hare. Also, the fact that they even put up with the baseball stadium being located in a run down industrial district, and having to spend $15 extra dollars to be parked 1/2 a mile away in a sweltering hot sea of asphalt, and actually think that this is a good thing? Maybe because of the seemingly commonplace among KC suburban residents fear of going downtown and having to negotiate a parking garage or public transport? It is just bizarre to me how KC residents prefer these sub standard amenities to the point of defending them as the way things should stay. It must be the lack of seeing how things work in other places and realizing that what we have with both our baseball and airport situations is sub standard and needs improvement to get it up to even being average for cities our size around the country. It is a strange myopia that holds the metro area back.
So many KC residents have gotten so used to the weird way things are here, and actually think that the airport is good here in KC, because they once had to wait in a hour long security line at LAX or O'Hare. Also, the fact that they even put up with the baseball stadium being located in a run down industrial district, and having to spend $15 extra dollars to be parked 1/2 a mile away in a sweltering hot sea of asphalt, and actually think that this is a good thing? Maybe because of the seemingly commonplace among KC suburban residents fear of going downtown and having to negotiate a parking garage or public transport? It is just bizarre to me how KC residents prefer these sub standard amenities to the point of defending them as the way things should stay. It must be the lack of seeing how things work in other places and realizing that what we have with both our baseball and airport situations is sub standard and needs improvement to get it up to even being average for cities our size around the country. It is a strange myopia that holds the metro area back.
The siting of the current airport (and also the proposed airport, which construction just started), the sports complex, and the boom in JoCo all had an effect on the growth stall of KC in the 1970s. And I agree that it stalled, especially when contrasted with Atlanta. Atlanta also received a heavy-rail transit spine in those years. That has paid immense benefits recently.
Importantly, the huge uptick in crime and the collapse of the KCMO school district also played a central part in this story. In 1960, much of the middle class still lived in the city limits and there were several competitive high schools (Paseo, Southwest, Southeast). By 1980, Paseo's demolition was being planned, Southeast was not academically viable, and Southwest had a crime problem that drove the kids in its wealthy catchment to Catholic schools or across state line.
Businesses also moved out of downtown KC en-masse in this period -- the Plaza "bowl" grew several high rises which drew the law firms southward, plus the office complexes along Ward Parkway and the newly finished I-435 provided big floorplates that were rare downtown.
I believe that the sports complex and especially the airport were intentionally sited far from downtown to counteract the gravity that was pulling suburban growth southwesterly, but I think it was a mistake. Those amenities should have been kept downtown or near. The airport of course had its own engineering requirements, but even converting Richards Gebaur to the new KCI would have provided some eastward balance to the city. When downtown lost its airport, I think the die was cast.
So many KC residents have gotten so used to the weird way things are here, and actually think that the airport is good here in KC, because they once had to wait in a hour long security line at LAX or O'Hare. Also, the fact that they even put up with the baseball stadium being located in a run down industrial district, and having to spend $15 extra dollars to be parked 1/2 a mile away in a sweltering hot sea of asphalt, and actually think that this is a good thing? Maybe because of the seemingly commonplace among KC suburban residents fear of going downtown and having to negotiate a parking garage or public transport? It is just bizarre to me how KC residents prefer these sub standard amenities to the point of defending them as the way things should stay. It must be the lack of seeing how things work in other places and realizing that what we have with both our baseball and airport situations is sub standard and needs improvement to get it up to even being average for cities our size around the country. It is a strange myopia that holds the metro area back.
Strange indeed. Just the talk of moving the stadium downtown and the comments and temper tantrums people are throwing is just another example. Just like KCI, Kemper Arena etc. The people even get upset with the plaza changing and it seems like it has really slowed the evolution of the plaza district as it becomes less relevant.
Most of all, it just kind of embarrassing. Most people there sound like a bunch of country bumpkin rubes. Things like: "I went to a ball game in Cincinnati and it was horrible trying to figure out parking", or "I flew out of X airport and it was just so big and intimidating, I hope we never have such a place in KC".
I will always love KC (when I say KC, I pretty much ONLY mean the area of the city from the River Market to Waldo, as the rest of the metro leaves a lot to be desired. But I do not miss the culture there. The ultra conservative, never change, bring back the 1970's culture is just bizarre.
The siting of the current airport (and also the proposed airport, which construction just started), the sports complex, and the boom in JoCo all had an effect on the growth stall of KC in the 1970s. And I agree that it stalled, especially when contrasted with Atlanta. Atlanta also received a heavy-rail transit spine in those years. That has paid immense benefits recently.
Importantly, the huge uptick in crime and the collapse of the KCMO school district also played a central part in this story. In 1960, much of the middle class still lived in the city limits and there were several competitive high schools (Paseo, Southwest, Southeast). By 1980, Paseo's demolition was being planned, Southeast was not academically viable, and Southwest had a crime problem that drove the kids in its wealthy catchment to Catholic schools or across state line.
Businesses also moved out of downtown KC en-masse in this period -- the Plaza "bowl" grew several high rises which drew the law firms southward, plus the office complexes along Ward Parkway and the newly finished I-435 provided big floorplates that were rare downtown.
I believe that the sports complex and especially the airport were intentionally sited far from downtown to counteract the gravity that was pulling suburban growth southwesterly, but I think it was a mistake. Those amenities should have been kept downtown or near. The airport of course had its own engineering requirements, but even converting Richards Gebaur to the new KCI would have provided some eastward balance to the city. When downtown lost its airport, I think the die was cast.
KCI is like 20 (very easy) minutes from downtown and within 20 minutes of the over 350,000 people that live in the northland. It's a max of like 45 minutes from anywhere in the metro.
For the love of god, I will never understand the argument that KCI is too far away. STOP TAKING 435 TO GET THERE and it won't feel like you just drove to Omaha. Why in the world would you want a big airport like that south of Gladstone or something? So big jets can fly right over all kinds of homes and businesses? There is a reason that areas around airports tend to be some of the crappiest areas of metro areas. KCI is actually in a nice area that is developing and getting nicer. Few major airports can say that.
I find it so odd, that the same people that can't stand the idea of building a modern terminal would be for building a whole new airport. And where would it go? If you put it in the far south part of the city, it would only help JoCo and hurt Downtown. Because again, the airport is only 20 minutes from downtown. More like 12-15 minutes if you don't drive like a typical Kansas Citian and you can drive a decent speed in the left lanes.
Location: Midwesterner living in California (previously East Coast)
296 posts, read 438,532 times
Reputation: 598
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcmo
KCI is like 20 (very easy) minutes from downtown and within 20 minutes of the over 350,000 people that live in the northland. It's a max of like 45 minutes from anywhere in the metro.
For the love of god, I will never understand the argument that KCI is too far away. STOP TAKING 435 TO GET THERE and it won't feel like you just drove to Omaha. Why in the world would you want a big airport like that south of Gladstone or something? So big jets can fly right over all kinds of homes and businesses? There is a reason that areas around airports tend to be some of the crappiest areas of metro areas. KCI is actually in a nice area that is developing and getting nicer. Few major airports can say that.
I find it so odd, that the same people that can't stand the idea of building a modern terminal would be for building a whole new airport. And where would it go? If you put it in the far south part of the city, it would only help JoCo and hurt Downtown. Because again, the airport is only 20 minutes from downtown. More like 12-15 minutes if you don't drive like a typical Kansas Citian and you can drive a decent speed in the left lanes.
Lots of issues with KCI. Don't get me started on the disastrous embarrassment of an airport it is. Once you land, you feel like you're in some bush-league city. The drive isn't bad, but it's certainly not an asset. It FEELS far away. You're driving through some largely undeveloped areas initially before you reach meaningful development. 25 - 35 minutes from the core of the city, driving at a sane pace.
KC isn't some big city that gets a pass on things like airport experience. At its size and national (lack of) significance level, it has to execute well on the basic stuff. The first impression stuff. The airport is a missed opportunity.
If I had a magic wand, I would put the airport in KCK. Build a metro rail that would then connect this urban airport to KCK and again on through to Downtown KCMO and the rest of urban KCMO.
Lots of issues with KCI. Don't get me started on the disastrous embarrassment of an airport it is. Once you land, you feel like you're in some bush-league city. The drive isn't bad, but it's certainly not an asset. It FEELS far away. You're driving through some largely undeveloped areas initially before you reach meaningful development. 25 - 35 minutes from the core of the city, driving at a sane pace.
KC isn't some big city that gets a pass on things like airport experience. At its size and national (lack of) significance level, it has to execute well on the basic stuff. The first impression stuff. The airport is a missed opportunity.
If I had a magic wand, I would put the airport in KCK. Build a metro rail that would then connect this urban airport to KCK and again on through to Downtown KCMO and the rest of urban KCMO.
Lots of airports are in the middle of nowhere. Ever fly into Denver, Dulles etc? If it were located south of the metro, planes would still fly over nothing as they approach from the south to avoid flying over developed areas. Most people don't even look out the window when landing and those that do, who cares? Also, depending on where you are flying from, you often get a pretty nice view of the downtown area or at least the northland suburbs. It's only when you land from the north or west that you don't see anything although the north is kind of cool with smithville lake.
And your idea of KCK makes zero sense. Unless you plan to tear down several thousand houses, where would it go? Way the hell out by the speedway or more likely west of the speedway? That's more in the middle of nowhere than its current location.
And again, if you leave KCI and head to the city, you are in developed areas basically as soon as you leave the airport and it's pretty densely suburbanized just a few miles to the south. And it's actually a really nice suburban area too with lots of retail etc all just minutes from KCI. Even if you live in JoCo, I don't know why you would take 435 to KCI. When I went to KCI when originating in JoCo, I would always take 35 to 635 to 29. From Lees Summit, I would take 470 to 70 to 29 or maybe 435 to 152 to 29. The entire time I lived and KC, I think I was on that rural stretch of 435 between Liberty and KCK like twice and they were likely both times to just see what is out there. Absolutely nothing. Don't take 435, it takes longer, it uses way more gas and there is nothing along the route such as basic services in case you need them. Plus, it makes KCI feel like it's 50 miles outside of the metro and it's just not.
The much bigger problem is the actual terminal. Now that is where the airport becomes embarrassing when you walk off the plane and into something that looks more like a greyhound bus terminal than an international airport. And that is finally being addressed, although a bit too late. KC missed the boat on having a major airport simply by keeping the current terminals too long. And the new terminal is a bare bones, not interested in being more than a regional airport terminal. It has nothing to do with the location of the airport.
Lots of airports are in the middle of nowhere. Ever fly into Denver, Dulles etc? If it were located south of the metro, planes would still fly over nothing as they approach from the south to avoid flying over developed areas. Most people don't even look out the window when landing and those that do, who cares? Also, depending on where you are flying from, you often get a pretty nice view of the downtown area or at least the northland suburbs. It's only when you land from the north or west that you don't see anything although the north is kind of cool with smithville lake.
And your idea of KCK makes zero sense. Unless you plan to tear down several thousand houses, where would it go? Way the hell out by the speedway or more likely west of the speedway? That's more in the middle of nowhere than its current location.
And again, if you leave KCI and head to the city, you are in developed areas basically as soon as you leave the airport and it's pretty densely suburbanized just a few miles to the south. And it's actually a really nice suburban area too with lots of retail etc all just minutes from KCI. Even if you live in JoCo, I don't know why you would take 435 to KCI. When I went to KCI when originating in JoCo, I would always take 35 to 635 to 29. From Lees Summit, I would take 470 to 70 to 29 or maybe 435 to 152 to 29. The entire time I lived and KC, I think I was on that rural stretch of 435 between Liberty and KCK like twice and they were likely both times to just see what is out there. Absolutely nothing. Don't take 435, it takes longer, it uses way more gas and there is nothing along the route such as basic services in case you need them. Plus, it makes KCI feel like it's 50 miles outside of the metro and it's just not.
The much bigger problem is the actual terminal. Now that is where the airport becomes embarrassing when you walk off the plane and into something that looks more like a greyhound bus terminal than an international airport. And that is finally being addressed, although a bit too late. KC missed the boat on having a major airport simply by keeping the current terminals too long. And the new terminal is a bare bones, not interested in being more than a regional airport terminal. It has nothing to do with the location of the airport.
You are right about Denver, I land there several times a year to connect, walk for miles to connect. It feels like, looks like one has landed in western Kansas, but the the size of the airport and volume of traffic let's one know they are at a major airport. I use to think KCI should had been further south and it may have been better for the city proper if it was but the history of TWA and the city is why it's located where it is. It does feel like being in a bus station prior/post landing. The airport makes KC looks like a regional type of city. I've been in the Springfield MO airport and it's more impressive than KCI. The new terminal is being built on the cheap size, but it will raise KC to a regional status once it's built, will take KC to the Wichita, Des Moines, Omaha level.
...The drive isn't bad, but it's certainly not an asset. It FEELS far away. You're driving through some largely undeveloped areas initially before you reach meaningful development. 25 - 35 minutes from the core of the city, driving at a sane pace.
...
If I had a magic wand, I would put the airport in KCK. Build a metro rail that would then connect this urban airport to KCK and again on through to Downtown KCMO and the rest of urban KCMO.
Back in the 1960s, there was talk of swapping the land usages between Municipal Airport and the Fairfax industrial area. Before the new Fairfax assembly plant and its rail spur were built, there was significantly more north-south clearance in Fairfax than where MKC sits. Enough to build two, parallel "jumbo" jet runways (which would have been still adequate even now in 2020).
The problem with MKC is that the runways are too short. TWA already had the overhaul base with runways and fuel infrastructure near Platte City, and the remaining Bartle "good government" people on the city council thought that moving the airport there would help counteract the southern growth of the metro (which then ended around 103d Street). I think this was a fundamental error -- sprawl to counteract sprawl.
Some of this information is courtesy of (still living) Mayor Charlie Wheeler.
Strange indeed. Just the talk of moving the stadium downtown and the comments and temper tantrums people are throwing is just another example. Just like KCI, Kemper Arena etc. The people even get upset with the plaza changing and it seems like it has really slowed the evolution of the plaza district as it becomes less relevant.
Most of all, it just kind of embarrassing. Most people there sound like a bunch of country bumpkin rubes. Things like: "I went to a ball game in Cincinnati and it was horrible trying to figure out parking", or "I flew out of X airport and it was just so big and intimidating, I hope we never have such a place in KC".
I will always love KC (when I say KC, I pretty much ONLY mean the area of the city from the River Market to Waldo, as the rest of the metro leaves a lot to be desired. But I do not miss the culture there. The ultra conservative, never change, bring back the 1970's culture is just bizarre.
There are no doubt a lot of insular people in KC but I'm often pleasantly surprised by how much of a minority they represent on some critical issues. A great example is how easily Kansas Citians saw through the Save KCI arguments and voted for the new terminal overwhelmingly. It was a shame that the city leaders feared that element to the point they probably compromised the overall quality of the new terminal by essentially promising to do it on the extreme cheap.
I wish Kansas Citians would embrace public transportation more than they do but I think the association with Clay Chastain has severely damaged that effort in KC. That said, both local elections to for the streetcar have passed and what has been built is a huge success that has changed a lot of opinions. The relatively recent successful vote in KC to restrict streetcar expansion was more a result of election fraud (in the form of the extremely misleading ballot wording) than anything else.
Hard to say how Kansas Citians will react to a downtown stadium. I think it's a great testament to how far the city has come that there are now few locations to choose from and that it's no longer required for downtown revitalization. Nonetheless, I really would love to see baseball downtown. My own experience with urban stadiums is that traffic is not an issue (in fact I think it would improve relative to the limited entrance and exit points at Kaufman Stadium). Parking will require an education. It's available but folks will moan and groan about distance and convenience. I'm actually rather surprised that the new owners of the Royals support a downtown stadium given that they would be giving up substantial parking revenue.
Growing up in Ohio, all I knew was downtown baseball, and it was awesome, it was a chance to go into the downtown of a big city, and that was part of the adventure. It also linked the teams with their history that went back to the turn of and before the turn of the 20th century. One other thing that makes me support downtown baseball here in KC is the ugliness of the sports complex. Not the stadiums, which are nice, but the roads and parking lots around the stadiums are downright ugly. There is no attempt to make that area nice or landscaped or walkable or anything, it is strictly utilitarian, and the pathetic attempts at landscaping fall very short, as there always seems to be bare dirt, gravel, dying trees etc all around the complex. Couple that with the many sweltering 90+ summer days, and KC baseball fans are settling for an inferior experience by romanticizing tailgating in the wastelands of the Truman Sports Complex ugly, 1970's parking lots.
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.
