KCRag Forum

pash wrote:From last year:

I didn't notice this previously, but that rendering seems to place the buildings on a landscape near Junction City....(which is a fine idea.)

And doesn't this proposal include additional surface parking to accommodate Royal events?

kcjak wrote:And doesn't this proposal include additional surface parking to accommodate Royal events?

40,000 car parking lot for the BBQ.

Hate this! Who on the council deserves my wrath?

The 40,000 car parking lot proposal has me thinking - let's get Clay Chastain to dust off one of his old gondola proposals. Put the money saved from the parking expansion into a gondola that runs from P&L to the West Bottoms.

The thought of building parking for 40,000 cars that will be utilized one weekend of the year sickens me. Do they even do shuttles from satellite parking now?

beautyfromashes wrote:Hate this! Who on the council deserves my wrath?

all of them. new ordinance supporting demolition on the floor this afternoon.

.

loftguy wrote:

I didn't notice this previously, but that rendering seems to place the buildings on a landscape near Junction City....(which is a fine idea.)

actually, that's not too far off reality. there's no tall buildings that direction. the only things missing are bridges. there are no tall buildings along the river at that view. the river is the brown blob above one of the buildings for perspective

and for the newer renderings
that's actually all existing parking and less of it than today. go look at google maps and you can see for yourself how there's more spots right now

the lines aren't clear but they go the other direction today. there's multiple rows that run the length North-South past the main lot entrance, you must turn left/right past the entrance and go around to the ends
add that full-length treed path and you lose ~100 spots

kemper is clearly the footprint of the new building and small park

in the rendering the cow art piece is exactly like it is today, including the angle to the road

either the rendering isn't the project or the Royal is lieing about needing more parking

.

These are just renderings of the immediate Kemper/AR complex - missing are the adjoining parking areas to the east and southwest, and the 2-level garage to the north.

I'd bet that cow is getting tired of moving.

Here's a map from Missouri CARES showing the 100-year (blue) and 500-year (pink) FEMA flood zones of the West Bottoms. For what it's worth, it looks like the big cluster of old warehouses that are the epicenter of the current antiquing boom is mostly in the 500-year zone. This area can be reached from both the 12th Street and Forester Viaducts. Unfortunately the other nice cluster north of St. Louis Avenue is in the 100-year flood zone.

Interestingly, the little-used rail yards (compared to other yards in the city) that toe the bottom of the bluff and a good stretch of Liberty Street are out of both zones. You can also see that the Berkley Park area that is slated for development is in the 500-year zone. I'm guessing that these FEMA maps don't account for the catastrophic dam failure scenarios we've discussed here, but for financing purposes it seems that if the riverfront can get new development, there's no reason we couldn't rehabilitate existing historic buildings in the West Bottoms.

taxi wrote:I'd bet that cow is getting tired of mooving.

They need something to represent their occasional occupant.

And when the levee along the Kansas River fails, this is what it looks like.

FEMA, how can you play me like that?

And when the levee along the Kansas River fails, this is what it looks like

Not quite sure that 1951 scenario would happen again, that flooding was not due to levee failure. One, there was an extended period (weeks) of rains in the Kaw River basin. Two, when that flood happened there were no upstream dams holding back water. Three, since then the levees have been built up.

Of course, dams and/or levees could fail during weeks of extended rains. But how likely is that? To get more history of this incident the KC Star has a book titled High & Rising.

It's more likely than you think. Just go back to the summer of 2011 when the Corps of Engineers spent the summer informing people downriver that the Gavins Point Dam might fail--a 70-year-old earthen dam--that many say has a flawed design.

It doesn't matter how tall you make a levee. Failure often comes from the levee collapsing from saturation, and flooding also comes from sand boils on other side.

It doesn't matter how tall you make a levee. Failure often comes from the levee collapsing from saturation, and flooding also comes from sand boils on other side.

True, but in 1993 the levees held but were almost topped. Think most of the local levees are concrete with an earth cover.

Still think they should just flood the bottoms and make a lake.

Yeah, it would be our version of Seattle's Lake Washington.