Neighborhood Prospects: Sustainable Communities by Design by Kansas City Design Center

NEIGHBORHOOD PROSPECTS

SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES BY DESIGN KANSAS CITY DESIGN CENTER 2018 UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS + KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY

This report documents the process and findings of the Neighborhood Prospects: Sustainable Communities by Design project, developed over the course of the 2017-2018 academic year. This publication was written and designed by the Kansas City Design Center, including Dr. Jason Brody, principal investigator, Joe Colistra, teaching faculty, Thom Allen, research and engagement fellow, Tessneem Elkhateeb, student intern, and particularly the students of Joe Colistraâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 5th year architecture studio at the University of Kansas. The Kansas City Design Center is made possible by two generous support grants from the William T. Kemper Foundation and the Hall Family Foundations. This project was funded by the City of Kansas City, Missouri with additional support from the William T. Kemper Foundation. This publication cannot be sold, duplicated, or published, electronically or otherwise, without the express written consent of the KCDC. The purpose of this publication is academic in nature and is intended to showcase the research, scholarship, design and engagement work of the students of the KCDC. ÂŠ Kansas City Design Center, 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE 6-7

CHAPTER 1:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 8-9

CHAPTER 2:

A LEGACY OF DISINVESTMENT 10-45

CHAPTER 3:

PROSPECTS FOR SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION 46-55

CHAPTER 4:

COMMUNITY RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS 56-97

CHAPTER 5:

TWO APPROACHES FOR COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION 98-139

CHAPTER 6:

CONCLUSIONS 140-143

PREFACE

The Kansas City Design Center (KCDC) is a nationally recognized, nonprofit partnership among local civic leaders, professional designers, and colleges of architecture, planning and design at Kansas State University and the University of Kansas. KCDC’s mission is to promote excellence in the design of Kansas City’s built environment. This is accomplished in three ways: •Education: KCDC engages university faculty and some of the region’s most talented architecture and planning students in a unique learning laboratory exploring real-world issues facing Kansas City’s future development. Educational programs are built around KCDC’s resident urban design studio. Faculty and students at the studio form partnerships with local client groups and stakeholders to develop design concepts and implementation proposals addressing local community challenges. •Research: KCDC faculty conduct architectural and planning research addressing pressing issues in development of the contemporary urban region. Faculty draw upon the rich experience of Kansas City in their research. This research activity contributes to and amplifies the impact of educational and public service initiatives within the region. •Public Service: KCDC serves as an independent forum for critical dialogues about architecture and planning issues, and offers technical assistance to public agencies and local community organizations. This assistance ranges from hosting free lectures by internationally renowned archi-

tects to collaborating with local organizations and non-profits on projects that seek to improve Kansas City’s livability. Neighborhood Prospects: Sustainable Communities by Design is an urban design study that seeks to build momentum in nascent revitalization efforts in Kansas City’s Key Coalition and Santa Fe neighborhoods. It builds upon a handful of prior KCDC projects, including the Independence Avenue Vision Study (2013), Scarritt Renaissance Vision Study (2017), and LISC Momentum Mapping (2014), where KCDC has developed an emerging body of expertise in (a) community engagement and participatory design and (b) investigations into architectural and development types that respond to context and catalyze community wide revitalization. Each of these projects provides a critical arena through which we train young students to be capable, ethical, critically engaged architecture and planning professionals. It is our hope that sustained engagement in critical topics in Kansas City communities will play a small role in the continued revitalization of Kansas City’s urban core. Neighborhood Prospects: Sustainable Communities by Design has been funded through a grant from the City of Kansas City, Missouri with additional support from the William T. Kemper Foundation. The Key Coalition Neighborhood Association, led by Karen Slaughter, and Santa Fe Area Council, led by Marquita Taylor, acted as clients for Neighborhood Prospects and have contributed many hours towards development of the project in their own right. An advisory committee consisting of city, civic, and professional as well

as community residents and stakeholders provided critical guidance towards the project’s development; innumerable residents, stakeholders, and city staff also contributed time and advice through participation in public meetings and other conversations. We thank everyone who supported this effort, particularly Karen Slaughter and Marquita Taylor and Marquita Taylor without whom this project would not have been possible.

this Trojan horse of drawing residents, stakeholders, developers, and city policy makers together in frank discussion within the comparatively safe confines of an innocent academic project may be the greater outcome of this project.

Student-community service learning projects can be akin to Trojan horses. In throwing earnest and often naïve students into the thicket of community design we rely on a great number of residents and stakeholders and community officials to volunteer their perspectives. The student-community project is an opportunity for all to think big – not to abandon the constraints of a project but to hold decision making at bay while engaging students in a project’s greater ambitions. Advising students through the essentially academic exercise of inquiry, analysis, and creative design proposals is low risk for all, one that comes with the minor benefit of contributing to the education of the next generation. In this manner student-community projects can at their best draw stakeholders together in frank discussion that might not be possible when the stakes are higher. As you will see in this report, Neighborhood Prospects: Sustainable Communities by Design generated two main outcomes in differing approaches to sustainable community revitalization, each of which encompasses a package of design, development, and policy strategies. Yet it may be that

CHAPTER 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Neighborhood Prospects: Sustainable Communities by Design is an urban design study that seeks to build momentum in nascent revitalization efforts in historic Kansas City neighborhoods. The study focuses on development of scenarios for a variety of types infill development that support community vitality and social, environmental and economic sustainability. The scenarios build upon community anchors like the Bluford Branch of the Kansas City Public Library as well as a range of public and civic initiatives currently unfolding in the study area. This study was conducted by the students, faculty and staff of the Kansas City Design Center, in service of Key Coalition and Santa Fe neighborhoods and in consultation with staff at the City of Kansas City, Missouri as well as an advisory committee consisting of city, civic, and professional experts and community residents and stakeholders. Over the course of the project, the KCDC team investigated the history and current conditions of Key Coalition and Santa Fe, analyzed plans impacting the neighborhoods, researched precedents, designed scenarios for a variety of types of infill development, developed pro formas for those scenarios, and explored development models that might support implementation. We conducted five public meetings over the course of developing Neighborhood Prospects and had over one hundred meetings with individual residents and stakeholders to better understand their concerns, priorities and capacities to act in revitalizing Key Coalition and Santa Fe.

Vital communities offer a range of amenities, goods and services that allow residents to lead happy, healthy, prosperous lives. Community vitality depends not on any single element but a fruitful mix of things coming together â&#x20AC;&#x201C; safe streets, everyday stores to serve resident needs, parks and playgrounds, businesses either in the neighborhoods or easily accessible nearby to provide jobs for residents. A minimal concentration of people within an area seems necessary to nurture community vitality. A greater concentration of people â&#x20AC;&#x201C; sufficient to support multiple businesses and multiple community institutions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; leads to community resilience as it allows individual entities to fail without critically impacting the vitality of a community as a whole. Key Coalition and Santa Fe are great neighborhoods, with outstanding parks and open space and pockets of beautiful homes. They have also suffered from decades of disinvestment, with population declining by 71% since 1950. This has led to the loss of commercial businesses and abandonment of homes. Low property values have stymied development and provided an implicit disincentive to investment and upkeep. Nonetheless, both residents and the city care deeply about these historic neighborhoods, and a variety of recent efforts suggest potential for sustainable long-term community revitalization. Neighborhood Prospects attempts to address three key dilemmas. First, community vitality needs a concentration of people, but for a variety of reasons context sensitive infill

than the original urban fabric of Key Coalition and Santa Fe: we therefore suggest that new development types developed in appropriate locations can support community vitality. Second, the market does not currently support independent private investment. Public incentives, alternative development models, and careful consideration of development types may be needed. Finally, a number of public, private, and civic development efforts are underway in Key Coalition and Santa Fe. The challenge here is to sort out what strategies hold the most promise and to sort out how these efforts can support each other rather than operate at cross purposes.

• • • • •

Protect the Historic Fabric of Key Coalition and Santa Fe Neighborhoods Find opportunities for Self-Development Models to Empower Community Residents Improve Connectivity Support and Incentivize Transit Oriented Development Establish a Coordinated and Cohesive Vision for Prospect Avenue

Taking these dilemmas into consideration, Neighborhood Prospects suggests taking two approaches to community revitalization. The first, Preserving Historic Neighborhoods, involves an ownership-based development model including a variety of types of development to selectively rebuild density while reinforcing the existing residential character of Key Coalition and Santa Fe. The second, Capitalizing on Areas of Opportunity, proposes new types of higher density, mixed use, mixed income development along corridors whose futures are likely to be different from their past. Implementation of both Preserving Historic Neighborhoods and Capitalizing on Areas of Opportunity would involve a range of principles and strategies that span architectural design, real estate development and financing, and public policy. To implement both approaches we recommend five immediate next steps, including:

CHAPTER 2 A LEGACY OF DISINVESTMENT

11 IMAGES FROM MISSOURI VALLEY SPECIAL COLLECTIONS

FABRIC OF EARLY 20TH CENTURY NEIGHBORHOODS

Key Coalition and Santa Fe were platted in the late nineteenth and built out over the early twentieth centuries with a mix of land uses and building types set within a largely residential fabric. The Santa Fe Place subdivision which makes up the majority of the Santa Fe neighborhood was well laid out with comparatively stately homes well set back from the street, one of the finer residential neighborhoods in Kansas City prior to J.C. Nichols’ Country Club District. The platting and build out of Key Coalition was somewhat less rigorous. Nonetheless, both were blessed with ample access to parks and transportation. As the following Kansas City, Missouri Board of Park Commissioners map from 1922 indicates, streetcar lines ran east-west along 31st St and (in Santa Fe) 27th St as well as north-south along Woodland, Brooklyn, Prospect, and Indiana Aves. Spring Valley Park is a prominent asset in the northwestern portion of Key Coalition, and Linwood and Benton Boulevards crisscross the communities.

to provide larger lots adjacent to Benton Blvd. The whole of the block was single family save for a church.

The following Sanborn fire insurance maps are indicative of the urban fabric of typical blocks in Key Coalition and Santa Fe, as well as along Prospect. The first in each pair depicts a block at roughly 1909 and the second at roughly 1951. The 2900 block of Victor St. in Santa Fe Place was platted with 50’ lots, with the end block lots allotted extra width. At 150’, the lots were deep as well. The block was populated with two and one half story single family homes, most built of stone, all of which had porches facing Victor St. It was mostly but not completely built out by 1909. The three western most parcels on each side of the street were combined

Platted at the dawn of the twentieth century, neither Santa Fe nor Key Coalition were originally designed with much consideration for automobiles. The pairs of Sanborn maps from 1909 and 1951 are indicative of incremental adaptations to accommodate cars after neighborhoods were originally built. While almost no outbuildings were present along Victor St. in Santa Fe in 1909, the great majority of parcels had rear garages by 1951. Olive St. in Key Coalition was originally platted with alleys on either side of the street, and a handful of accessory buildings accessible by alley were present on the east side of the street in 1909. By 1951 the

Compared to Santa Fe Place, the 2900 block of Olive St. in Key Coalition is denser, more compact, and accommodated a wider range of residential types. Lot depths are closer to 120’ here, and the southwest corner of the block contains a handful of two story multifamily units. If the Sanborn maps are accurate, the platting and build out of this block was irregular, with multiple single family houses built across parcel lines. As a result, lot frontage on this block averages just 33’, with uncommon variability within the block. The representative blocks of Key Coalition and Santa Fe show the range of density in residential neighborhoods along Prospect Ave., with the net density of the 2900 block of Olive at approx. 13 dwelling units / acre and the 2900 block of Victor at approximately 6 units / acre.

majority of lots on the west side of the street contained accessory buildings accessible by the alley. The east side of the street also had a number of accessory garages, yet the alley had been closed off. Importantly, the narrowness and irregularity of the lot widths along Olive St. made accommodation of automobiles problematic, and a number of houses still rely on on-street parking. The 1909 and 1951 Sanborn Map pairs depicting for Prospect Ave, extending from Lockridge to 29th St., are indicative of the complexity of Prospect, and suggest some of the challenges Kansas City will face in setting its future. Located at the seam of two distinct neighborhoods, blocks are oriented differently on either side of Prospect and Lockridge, 28th, Victor and 29th Streets do not align. On the western, Key Coalition side of Prospect, the long side of blocks face Prospect, with relatively narrow 110â&#x20AC;&#x2122; lots that are backed with alley access. On the eastern, Santa Fe side the short ends of blocks but up against Prospect, with leads to some incongruous land uses for an arterial road. Prospect in 1909 was primarily residential, and fairly low density, with a mix of single family and flats along with a church. By 1951, Prospect Ave. shows signs of intensification, with rows of three story, twelve unit apartments lining the western side of Prospect and a spattering of commercial uses present, including a funeral home, filling station, auto repair shop, and clinic. Even in this latter period, though, Prospect is much less of a commercially oriented arterial road that we seem to view it as today. It was more residential, and somewhat less dense, than Troost, for instance, at least up until the sixties.

1909 - MISSOURI VALLEY SPECIAL COLLECTIONS

1922- MISSOURI VALLEY SPECIAL COLLECTIONS

1909 - MISSOURI VALLEY SPECIAL COLLECTIONS

1951 - MISSOURI VALLEY SPECIAL COLLECTIONS

17 1909 - MISSOURI VALLEY SPECIAL COLLECTIONS

1951 - MISSOURI VALLEY SPECIAL COLLECTIONS

18 1909 - MISSOURI VALLEY SPECIAL COLLECTIONS

19 1951 - MISSOURI VALLEY SPECIAL COLLECTIONS

NEIGHBORHOOD DISINVESTMENT

Redlining and associated housing, policy, and financial practices ravaged Key Coalition and Santa Fe over the middle and latter decades of the twentieth century, driving investment out of the neighborhoods and causing depopulation that is still problematic today. Redlining emerged as a practice to manage risk in underwriting mortgages and other financial products in the housing industry. Originating as a standard industry practice in private insurance businesses early in the twentieth century, it was institutionalized into federal housing policy first through the Home Owners Loan Corporation and then the Federal Housing Administration during the Great Depression. Redlining involved the preparation of “residential security maps” that coded neighborhoods into one of four categories -- A. Best; B. Still Desirable; C. Definitely Declining; and D. Hazardous -- based on an assessment of the financial promise of the area. The assessment was based on a range of criteria - “relative economic stability” was given greatest weighting, with items like “protection from adverse influences”, “adequacy of transportation”, and “visual appeal” also considered. A key factor in assessing relative economic stability was consideration of the residents. A 1939 FHA underwriters manual argued that “if a neighborhood is to retain stability, it is necessary that properties shall continue to be occupied by the same social and racial classes”. Federal housing agencies and private financial institutions used residential security maps to determine whether neighborhoods would be good or bad bets for loans. As a result of this

standard practice, whole neighborhoods in the urban core had only negligible access to financial capital. You can see how redlining impacted Key Coalition, Santa Fe, and other Kansas City neighborhoods in this archive: https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/redlining/#loc=14/39.0275/-94.4833&opacity=0.8&city=greater-kansas-city-mo. In 1939, Key Coalition was graded as a class D. Hazardous; the Santa Fe Place subdivision was class C. Definitely Declining. The assessment reports that accompany the residential security map explain some of the thinking. Santa Fe is described as one of Kansas City’s best neighborhoods thirty years prior (i.e. 1909) but one whose desirability had declined in face of the popularity of the Country Club District. Key Coalition was described as a “spotty section with many cheap bungalows”, “suffering from commercial encroachment”, an “intermediate fourth-grade district threatened with negro encroachment from the north”. The irregular platting of Key Coalition factored into its negative assessment, but the greater concern was the potential of encroachment of communities of color, and both neighborhoods’ lack of restrictive covenants later implemented in communities like J. C. Nichols’ Country Club District south and west of the Plaza. As Kansas City first developed in the latter part of the 19th century, African-American communities were concentrated in the blocks surrounding 18th and Vine to the north of Key Coalition and Santa Fe. Segregation at this time was

informal, a mix of social custom and threat of violence. With the emergence of communities like the Country Club District, segregation was institutionalized through covenants written into property deeds that prohibited selling properties to “Negros”. Underwriters invariably gave such restricted neighborhoods the best grades in redlining maps. African-Americans were thus doubly hurt by twentieth century housing industry practices: race restrictive covenants in newer neighborhoods limited African Americans to older parts of Kansas City, and redlining limited access to mortgage financing in those communities. Kansas City’s 1947 comprehensive plan further institutionalized segregation. George Kessler in his earlier plans for parks and boulevards had noted that Kansas City’s variegated topography led to a comparatively high degree of socio-economic diversity (if not racial integration) in its neighborhoods as the jumble of highlands, lowlands, and steep slopes encouraged different types and classes of housing in close proximity. The 1947 plan used the neighborhood concept to organize residential environments, but – noting the (perceived) desirability of communities of the same class and ethnic make up – it drew neighborhood boundaries in a way to create, where possible, homogenous neighborhoods out of a comparatively heterogeneous city. Note how the 1947 Master Plan uses the rhetorical trope of residential security maps to affect neighborhood units. It extended redlining, itself a financial practice, into the realm of housing and community development policy. Similar efforts were made

in the city’s segregated school district after World War II, with boundaries for local school catchment areas drawn and redrawn every few years in an ultimately futile attempt to maintain segregation as urban neighborhoods experienced dramatic demographic shifts. Urban communities across the United States experienced upheaval in the decades after World War II as whites blessed with access to financing moved out to modern, deed restricted suburbs. Both Key Coalition and Santa Fe declined in this period, buffeted by a host of challenges as redlining restricted access to financing, newer more modern and auto oriented suburbs brought competition, and the prospect of demographic change brought fear and hysteria. African American Kansas Citians spread out from 18th and Vine; barred from most modern suburbs by restrictive covenants, they moved into neighborhoods like Key Coalition and Santa Fe. Barred by those restrictive covenants from neighborhoods deemed most stable and desirable by the financial industry, African Americans were restricted to neighborhoods that banks would not lend to. They bore the brunt of both public and private housing policy in the twentieth century.

1934 - MISSOURI VALLEY SPECIAL COLLECTIONS

1939 - Nelson, LaDale Winling, Richard Marciano, Nathan Connolly,et al., â&#x20AC;&#x153;Mapping Inequality,â&#x20AC;? American Panorama, ed.

PROPOSED

MASTER

I-NEEDING RESIDENTIAL

«■

REDEVELOPMENT

REHABILITATION

^^ mm

CZI ACTIVE CONSERVATION DEB CONTINUED PROTECTION

1947 - KCMO CITY MASTER PLAN

PLAN

AREAS

PROPOSED

NEIGHBORHOOD BOUNDARIES

COMMUNITY

BOUNDARIES

PROPOSED

3L-

P U

MASTER

BLIC

SCHOOLS

JR.

SCHOOLS HIGH

SCHOOLS

ELEMENTARY

SCHOOLS

1947 - KCMO CITY MASTER PLAN

TO BE PROPOSED ABANDONED

o •

EXISTING HIGH

PLAN

• •

m ®

x—

CONSTRUCTION OF THE BRUCE R. WATKINS DRIVE

The fifty-five year odyssey to conceptualize, plan, litigate, and eventually construct what would become US-71 in Kansas City exacerbated disinvestment in neighborhoods like Key Coalition and Santa Fe that were on its route. Acceptance of the automobile and expected expansion of suburban communities led the City of Kansas City in its 1947 Master Plan to propose a network of express highways as well as primary and secondary thoroughfares throughout the city. The express highways were intended in part to keep downtown connected to the residential population of the region. The plan would become the blueprint for the greatest number of interstate highway miles per capita of any major metropolitan area within the US. The 1947 Master Plan and subsequent planning documents called for construction of the South Midtown Freeway extending southeast from the downtown loop towards Lee’s Summit. By the 1960’s, the predecessor to the Missouri Department of Transportation began purchasing property and clearing land along the anticipated route, which ran between Garfield and Woodland Avenues on the western edge of Key Coalition. Initial plans called for an eight to ten lane limited access expressway with cloverleaf interchanges. A grassroots coalition led by civil rights leaders organized to fight the South Midtown Freeway, plausibly arguing that construction of the expressway through existing urban neighborhoods would be damaging to communities that were disproportionately poor and black. Local Kansas

Citians engaged the NAACP to help fight the South Midtown Freeway in the courts. A 1975 injunction halted work on the expressway, putting the project in limbo for twelve years while legal matters were settled. Eventually the route was redesigned as a landscaped highway with finer connections to adjacent neighborhoods. First conceptualized in 1947, what would be named US-71 the Bruce R. Watkins Drive wouldn’t open until 2001. US-71 destroyed houses and neighborhoods in a two-block swath through Kansas City’s historically disinvested east side, including along the western edge of Key Coalition. Moreover the protracted uncertainty surrounding the highway as it moved from planning into a long legal fight blighted the neighborhoods by inhibiting investment in and adjacent to land slated for highway development. Little incentive existed for residents in the path of the highway to invest in the upkeep of homes that were at imminent risk of being acquired, even if that risk did not become reality for decades. The construction of the current US-71 also had cascading effects on the network of interstate and non-limited access US highways throughout the city. From the creation of the US-highway systems in the 1910s, the pre-interstate, local highway designation of US-71 was applied to Troost and the Paseo leading into downtown from the south. In 1968 the pre-interstate designation was shifted to Prospect in anticipation of the acquisition and construction of the future interstate route. Prospect Ave. kept the local highway US-71 designation until the eventual 2001 opening of the US-71

Bruce R. Watkins Drive. The shift in designation of the old US-71 highway route on local roads from Troost to Prospect Avenue likely brought additional automobile traffic and may have impacted adjacent development patterns. The eventual opening of US-71 Bruce R. Watkins Drive further shifted local automotive traffic patterns, likely absorbing most north-south through traffic in the area but also increasing secondary traffic along east-west routes â&#x20AC;&#x201C; including 29th St., 31st St. and Linwood Blvd â&#x20AC;&#x201C; with access points to the highway. We can see some evidence of this by comparing 1951 Sanborn and contemporary aerial maps of a swath of 31st and Linwood from Montgall St. to Wayne Avenue, where much of the earlier residential fabric along both streets is lost to vacancy and auto-oriented development.

PROPOSED

MASTER

PLAN

JE MAJOR THOROUGHFARES

L 28

PRIMARY

SECONDARY

PROPOSED

THOROUGHFARES' THOROUGHFARES

EXPRESS

1947 - KCMO CITY MASTER PLAN

EXISTING

HIGHWAYS

PROPOSED

1945 - MISSOURI VALLEY SPECIAL COLLECTIONS

HOOD

1.0 EINKING

AV.

4.2 N.E.

RD.

HARDESTY

BROOKLINE

RIDGE

RD.

LIBERTY

2.2

0.2

BIRMINGHAM RS

HUGHES

RD.

1.6

BRIGHTON

3.7

RANDOLPH

RD.

AV.

MONROE ST.

WITHE

WILLIS

CHESTNUT

C CR AV.

AV.

1.6

STERLING

CRYSLER

ST.

66B

OFF CUT-

BL GE RID

2.8

ST.

BLUE RIDGE

59TH

ST.

TRFW

63RD

ST.

66A

LITTL

BLVD.

RD.

75TH

RD.

79TH

83RD

RAYTOWN

5.2

RD RICKEY

ST.

FROST

RD.

ST.

. REED

87TH

ST.

ODS

350

RD.

RD .

GREGORY

BLUE

61ST

RD.

AV.

ST.

55TH

BENNINGTON

TOPPING

51ST

1.7

67TH

RIVER N.

1.0 0.8

TRFWY. TER

MA NC HES

NT BRU

6.1

47TH

ST. OOST

3.8

BELMONT BLVD.

AV. BENTON PKWY.

SWOPE

AV. PROSPECT

89TH

BLVD.

TRFWY.

AVE. ARLINGTON

PROSPECT

ANTIOCH

N. RD. ANTIOCH

U SO

IS M 4.0

BROOKLYN

AV. PROSPECT AV.

AV.

THE PASEO

OZARK

PARK GOLF COURSE

THE ST.

Overland Park

91ST

AV.

1.5 FLINTLOCK

SAM RAY

RD.

N. INDIANA RD.

TROOST N.

2.8

OAK

TROOST

VAN

ST. BROADWAY

AV.

GOLF COURSE

ZOO

ST.

TRFWY.

SWOPE

RIV

RD.

EASTWOOD

ST.

HILLCREST

1.0 TRFWY.

RAINBOW

PKWY. WARD RD. LINE

MISSION

AV.

RD.

SWITZER

WORNALL

ROE

. DR

QUIVIRA

STARLIGHT THEATRE

I-A-B

KANSAS CITY 63RD

STADIUM

63C

BLUE

77TH

85TH

ST.

35TH

ST.

2002 - MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

ST.

BLVD.

NIEMAN

RD.

RD. PFLUMM

SOUTHWEST

BLVD.

. DR

RD.

CKMAN

NNER

AIL

87TH

4.1

39TH

Lenexa

ST.

BLVD.

PKWY

32ND

2.8

A DH

1979 - MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

ST.

INDEPE

ST.

8A-B

DR.

75TH

79TH

ST.

83RD

BLVD.

ST.

Village 79TH

C.H

18TH

63A-B

VETERANS HOSPITAL

BLV

GREGORY

Prairie 75TH

ST.

79TH

ST.

MEYER

Mission Hills

169

INDEPENDENCE

31ST

HIGHWAY DEPT. DIST. 4

75TH

ST.

63RD

ST.

AV.

RD.

63RD

Merriam 67TH

MIDLAND

1.9

ST. 7TH

Fairway

Countryside ST.

63RD

59TH

1.3

CLEVELAND

7TH

18TH

47TH

Shawnee

ST.

LOOSE MEM. PARK

ST.

SWOPE

UNIV. OF MO. AT K.C. ROCKHURST COLLEGE

BLUE VALLEY PARK HEART 7A AIRPORT

ST.

BLVD.

BRUSH

PKWY. 3.2

55TH

Mission Woods

DR.

JOHNSON

DR.

39TH

WARD

Westwood Hills

169

Mission JOHNSON

RD.

435

BLVD.

27TH

ST.

6.3

LINWOOD

PENN

23RD

31ST

METROPOLITAN COM. COLLEGE KANSAS CITY

Westwood

Roeland Park

JOHNSON CO.

Lake Quivira

0.5

ST.

ST. H 38T ST.

BLVD. 42ND

WOODLAND

ST. E NE

THW

SOU

BENTON HOME

3.4

ST.

18TH

RD.

WOODLAND

ST.

ST. 47TH ST. 55TH

RD.

EST

WIN

ST.

THE PASEO

ST.

27TH

34TH

51ST

55TH

59TH AV . ST. 59TH

65TH

LINE

COUNTY

UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS MEDICAL CENTER

0.7

PENN VALLEY PARK

ARMOUR

KENTUCKY

WYANDOTTE CO.

UTE

. ST

49YH

ST.

ST. 67TH ST. 64TH ST.

To Lawrence, KS

169

BLV

12TH TRUMAN

DOWNTOWN INSET

VALLEY COM. COLL.

AV.

4.6

1A-B

THOMAS HART

Sugar Creek

WILSON AV.

1G-H 3A

0.4

2C-D

435

L OL

P.O.

KS JAC

RD.

DR.

0.2

2B-C

NORTH TERRACE PARK

INDEPENDENCE

SEE

2U-V

235

GIBBS

GROVE

4A 1E-F

ST.

OAK

DR.

AV.

RIV

29 35

1.0

1A-B AV.

AV.

635

PASEO BR.

FRONT

GARDNER

S AN

INL

1.2

KANSAS

METROPOLITAN

VROOMAN

55A

1A-B-C 2W

Edwardsville

BROADWAY P BR.

E LEV

L AV

RIV

210

Birmingham

Randolph

FRONT

CHOUTEAU BR.

0.7

CEN

55B

Y. FW

55A

210

ST.

LEWIS AND CLARK VIADUCT

TRA

KANSAS

ING BIRM

GATE

RD. HAM

Kansas

16TH

K.C. DOWNTOWN AIRPORT

AV.

TURNPIKE

KANSAS

40TH

TOLL

RD.

PARVIN

ST.

ARO

AV.

ST.

6A-B

OUR

CITY, KANSAS

QUIND

AV.

WOOD STATE

Avondale

SEV

AV.

269

INDEPEN

Claycomo

ST.

53RD

AV.

North

52A

KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1968 - MISSOURI City 169 ARM

GEORGIA PARALLEL

FAIRFAX BR.

LEAVENWORTH

Glenaire

1.7

1.4

CHO

0.4

635

ST.

41ST

12A

52B

48TH

1.2

32ND

PLATTE PURCHASE BR. TOLL

1.4

283

2.0

1955 - MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 5

TOPPING AV.

WOODLAND

ST. TRFWY. ST.

BROADWAY

OAK

1.5

PLATTE MATTOX

42ND

1.8

1.5

KANSAS

Pleasant Valley RD.

1.7

RD.

1C-D 1B

DR.

ST.

76TH

51 VALLEY

0.5

1D-E

0.6

0.5

RD.

2.5

Northmoor

Riverside

1E VIVION

2.1

N.E.

MIL

.E.

ASA

PLE

2A-B

635

11A-B

RIVER

DICKINSON

435

1.7

NASHUA

152

RD.

3A 3B

CO.

KANS

Oaks

RD.

ENGLEWOOD

TTE

ST.

12A-B

Oakwood Park Oakwood

Houston Lake

PARK COLL.

OUR

4.3

MISS

RD.

Parkville

VALLEY

RD.

56TH

N.W.

Oakview

PASEO

2.5

HODGE PARK

RD.

ST.

1.7

435

GLADSTONE

169 1.9

92ND ST.

N.E. BARRY RD

72ND

DR.

RD.

MAIN

N MADISO ST.

1.9

49A-B

GOWE

64TH

CORUM

2.9

N.W.

ST.

MAPLE WOOD COM. COLLEGE

ST.

RI U SO IS M

WALDRON

AV .

GREEN HILLS RD.

68TH

ROOSTERVILLE AIRPORT

HIGHLAND

HILLS GREEN

0.1

CHILDRESS

1.5

AV. CONGRESS

Lake Waukomis

RD.

80TH

ST.

72ND

RD.

BARRY

MIS KO

CROOKED

UNION CH

RD. 96TH

WABASH

152 88TH ST.

ST.

PROSPECT

U WA

Platte Woods

AIR

ST.

N. AV.

N.W.

4.9

BAUGHAMM RD.

RD.

100TH

N.E.

ST.

N.E. 96TH

9A-B

76TH

96TH

N.W.

RD.

Weatherby Lake

S N.

ROBIN

SKYVIEW

152

RD. FOX N.W.

To Lawrence, KS

AV.

ST.

106TH

100TH

N.W.

AMITY

N HAM PTO

HILLSBORO

120TH

ST.

112TH

N.E.

ST.

108TH

2.5

To Beverly

CONGRESS

AV.

RD. N.

RD.

4.7

SPRINGS

108TH

152

MEYER

To Leavenworth, KS

AV.

RD. BRIGHTWELL

4.4

LANTER LA.

TIFFANY

DR.

N.W.

COOKINGHAM

AL ST

RD.

3.5

291

FARLEY

ST.

112TH

435

1.3

4.1

435

N.E

41A-B

N.W.

. RD

KANSAS CITY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

VILLAGE CIRCLE RD.

N.W.

JON

124TH ST.

Ferrelview D

1.3

MEXICO CIT

RD.

ST.

120TH

N MA ER SH

N.W.

2.0

N CABLE BRIDGE

RD.

02/19

➤

09/1991

N 900 ft

Image U.S. Geological Survey Image U.S. Geological Survey

1991 - GOOGLE EARTH

900 ft

Image U.S. Geological Survey Image U.S. Geological Survey

1996 - GOOGLE EARTH

07/20

➤

03/1997

N 900 ft

Image U.S. Geological Survey Image U.S. Geological Survey

1997 - GOOGLE EARTH

900 ft

2002 - GOOGLE EARTH

1951 - MISSOURI VALLEY SPECIAL COLLECTIONS

2018 - GOOGLE EARTH

RETAINING COMMUNITY ANCHORS

The fate of successive entities on the southwest corner of 31st and Prospect that have been viewed as community anchors is indicative of the challenges of retaining commercial businesses in older depopulating neighborhoods. Prior to development of the Linwood Shopping Center this corner was the site of Saint Joseph’s hospital. St. Josephs in its time was seen as an asset to adjacent neighborhoods. Built in 1917, the hospital was modern for its time, a six story building with 250 rooms for patients, designed so that each had a window offering access to light and air. Like many neighborhood hospitals, St. Joseph’s was hemmed in by the surrounding residential community and had to wrestle with whether to expand by building up, moving out to a larger site, or continuing with existing and aging facilities. In the 1960s, St. Joseph’s parent organization began to develop what would become Avila University south of I-435. The local riots that took place after the 1968 assassination of Martin Luther King damaged the hospital building, nudging it towards an eventual closure and consolidation with facilities on the Avila campus. The St. Josephs hospital building along Prospect was abandoned in 1977. By the early 80’s the site of the future Linwood Shopping Center was purchased for $1 under the leadership of Don Maxwell. The construction began in 1985 according to Maxwell and finished with the new Country Fresh grocery store 1986. Leasing started 1987 and the shopping center began to flourish. By the early 2000s however, the store began to struggle and would eventually close in 2007 due to misman-

agement. Ten years later in 2017, the city spent $950,000 to purchase the property through selling bonds. The final development cost totaled $13 million and the new Sun Fresh Grocery Store opened in June of 2018. The newest version of business at 31st and Prospect has brought cautious optimism for the future vibrancy of commercial activity along Prospect Ave. Sun Fresh essentially replaces a prior grocery store that failed and has been built in much the same manner however. It remains to be seen whether the area as currently constituated can sustain a grocery store over the long haul.

1987 - IMAGE PROVIDED BY PROSPECT BUSINESS ASSOCIATION

1954 - MISSOURI VALLEY SPECIAL COLLECTIONS

CURRENT CONDITIONS

The combination of physical planning, transportation planning, and housing policy led to widespread disinvestment in Key Coalition and Santa Fe over the latter half of the 20th century, including depopulation and challenges of retaining commercial businesses. Poor people and communities of color bore the brunt of this change and endured many hardships as a result. Both total population and number of residential dwelling units for each of the neighborhoods would peak in 1950 and then rapidly decline. The historic fabric of Santa Fe place helped stem some of the decline; Key Coalitionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s irregular platting and proximity to the route of the Bruce R. Watkins Dr. exacerbated disinvestment. From 5,436 people and 1,872 dwelling units present in Santa Fe in 1950, 2,078 people and 808 dwelling units remained by 2010. In Key Coalition the figures were 4,728 people and 1,545 dwelling units at its 1950 peak and 886 people and 374 dwelling units in 2010. Combined the two neighborhoods have lost 65% of their dwelling units and 71% of their population from their peak. Equally profound was the shift from largely white to predominantly African American population, a transition that took place almost entirely between 1940 and 1970. Just 160 African Americans lived in Key Coalition and Santa Fe in 1940, compared to 14,255 whites. In 1950, 2,087 African Americans and 13,157 Whites lived in the neighborhoods, a transition that would accelerate in the fifties and sixties such that by 1970 11,042 African Americans lived in the neighborhoods vs just Whites. (The data for this paragraph is larger

than the previous because our sources for this information covered a somewhat larger geographic boundary). This disinvestment in the community rippled through the community creating more vacancies and housing loss. Today, 647 vacant parcels dot both neighborhoods. The most recent data from 2011-2015 provided by the American Community survey points out 137 or 31.7% of the total housing units in Key Coalition were vacant. Santa Fe at had 300 vacant units and totaling 27.6% total units of the housing stock at the time of the survey. The Kansas City Missouri Homesteading Authority and the Land Bank of Kansas City Missouri have served as a holder for many of the vacant and abandoned properties in the community. Currently, a total of 160 parcels and properties are available through these agencies as they work with future homeowners and developers to restore homes and bring in new development. The assessed land value map illustrates low land value for parcels with the neighborhoods where single family homes and vacant lots are located. Of the 2033 assessed parcels, the mean for the improvement value is $5,316.82 and the mean land value is $1,067.42. Viewing recent sales on the reality website Zillow, the three most recent single family homes sold in each neighborhood from before 05/30/2018 show numbers that are sporadic depicting an unstable market, and listed the following: 1. 3344 Michigan Avenue is a 1,465sf 3 bedroom, 1.5 bathroom house and sold for $34,000 on 04/13/2018.

2. 2704 Brooklyn Avenue is a 2,448sf 5 Bedroom 3 Bathroom house and sold for $68,500 on 04/06/2018. 3. 2846 Wabash Avenue is a 2,846 sf 5 bedroom, 3 bathroom single family house and sold for $150,000 on 02/01/2018. 4. 3022 Bellefontaine Avenue is a 1,925 sf, 3 bedroom 1 bathroom house and sold for $15,000 on 08/29/2017. 5. 3034 East 32nd Street is a 1,478sf 2 bedroom, 1 bathroom house and sold for $4,200 on 02/13/2018. 6. 3226 Lockridge Avenue is a 5 bedroom, 2.5 bathroom, 1,925sf house and sold for $70,000 on 10/03/2017. There are a number of private landowners with the largest being Metropolitan Missionary Baptist church, holding 34 parcels, followed by the Ivanhoe Neighborhood Council having 24 parcels under ownership. Institutional developers have and will continue to play a key role in developing the area. On 27th and Prospect Avenue for instance, Morningstar Missionary Baptist church has completed a youth and family life center and will soon complete senior housing adjacent to the center.

Repair Program, landlords do not and receive low rental rates in the area. The Kansas City Missouri Parcel Viewer data shows 22.7% of owners live out of state. Community members have noted that absentee landowners are a major issues and has created delinquencies in maintenance for rental properties with low rent values. Attracting new community members in these conditions is difficult. Unemployment rates from the American Community Survey from 2011-2015 show 16.5% unemployment for Key Coalition and 18.6% unemployment for Santa Fe. Educational opportunities have also been limited making it difficult to attract families. Those with high school degrees or less is 52.1% in Santa Fe and 58% in Key Coalition. There is a clear struggle for access to quality jobs and education.

As new developments unfold, existing community members face challenges of home maintenance. Many people living in poverty tend to live in rentals, adding to the complications of upkeep. Survey data from the American Community Survey from 2011-2015 shows nearly twice the amount of housing units are occupied as rentals over owned units in Key Coalition and Santa Fe. With little incentive to perform upkeep on the homes as tenants, the home maintenance falls to the landlords. While owners have the benefit of the City Home

Santa Fe Number of People and Housing Units 6,000

2,000 1,600 1,400

Number of People

4,000

1,200

3,000

1,000 800

2,000

600 400

1,000 0

Number of Housing Units

1,800

5,000

200 1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

Year

5,000

1,800

4,500

1,600

4,000

1,400

Number of People

3,500

1,200

3,000

1,000

2,500

800

2,000

600

1,500 1,000

400

500

200

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

Year

Source: 1940 through 2010 Censuses Source: 1940 through 2010 Censuses

2000

2010

Number of Housing Units

Key Coalition Number of People and Housing Units

Change in Demographics for Key Coalition and Santa Fe

1940 1940

1950 1950

White

1960

1970 1970

African American

VACANT PARCELS

2018 GIS DATA - PROVIDED BY CITY OF KANSAS CITY MISSOURI

MAJOR LANDOWNERS KCMO Land Bank KCMO Homesteading Authority

2018 GIS DATA - PROVIDED BY CITY OF KANSAS CITY MISSOURI

2 6

ASSESSED LAND VALUE (from low to high)

0 - $2,963 $2,964 - $10,982 $10,983 - $23,767 $23,768 - $49,723 $49,724 - $100,264

2018 GIS DATA - PROVIDED BY CITY OF KANSAS CITY MISSOURI

CHAPTER 3 PROSPECTS FOR SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION

PROSPECTS FOR SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION

The City of Kansas City, Missouri has employed a number of tools and initiatives in an effort to revitalize Key Coalition and Santa Fe, and most recent development in the study area relies on one or more forms of public support. Significantly, the breadth of recent public and civic interest in the area is cause for cautious optimism – despite many headwinds – that Key Coalition and Santa Fe might be building momentum towards attracting independently financed private development and, more importantly, truly sustainable long-term community revitalization. A handful of agencies within the city play active roles in community revitalization in the study area. The Department of Planning and Development leads long range planning for the city as well as coordinating specific planning initiatives like the Prosperity Playbook that impact neighborhoods and communities. The Department of Neighborhood and Housing Services handles a range of action including administering local implementation of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funded programs to develop affordable rental housing, construct limited numbers of new infill housing units, and assist homeowners in maintenance and minor home repair. The Economic Development Corporation of Kansas City along with the Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority provide tools including tax abatement to support redevelopment in three urban renewal areas (Linwood-Prospect, Santa Fe, and more recently Key Coalition) within this study boundary. Kansas City’s Land Bank and Homesteading Authority together assemble vacant proper-

ties in an attempt to turn them back to productive private use. Kansas City’s FOCUS Comprehensive Plan and Heart of the City Area Plan provide broad policy goals for Key Coalition and Santa Fe, including emphasis on compact mixeduse development along transit corridors and a priority of repopulating urban neighborhoods through stabilization, redevelopment, and maintenance strategies. The Prospect Corridor Initiative applied FOCUS’s policy goals to Prospect Ave. while advancing a cycles of change model to address problems of blight. More detailed physical planning is addressed through work the Santa Fe Neighborhood Action Plan and the Key Coalition URA Target Area Neighborhood Design Plan. Kansas City’s Prosperity Playbook Blueprint linked the city’s affirmatively furthering fair housing initiative to broader neighborhood services and economic mobility priorities. The city’s recently enacted TOD policy advances coordination between the city’s land use planning and KCATA investments in transit corridors including the planned Prospect Ave MAX bus rapid transit, targeting dense, mixed use development within these corridors designed to be walkable and to leverage transit amenities. The city partnered with Smart Growth America to study application of the TOD policy within the Prospect Ave. corridor. The Prospect Ave. corridor was also one of four focus areas the Kansas City Catalytic Urban Redevelopment initiative, a collaborative civic/public study to address challenges to successful long term investment and neighborhood transformation in

Kansas Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s east side. Key Coalition and Santa Fe do not lack for plans. Although additional steps could be taken to advance plans through policy, and the zoning ordinance or other regulatory action, substantial consensus exists around efforts to stabilize neighborhoods, application of higher density mixed-use development where appropriate, and addressing implementation including the need for gap financing and community driven development models. A handful of developments in and adjacent to the study area also suggest momentum for community revitalization. The $74 million East Patrol Station at 27th and Prospect and the $15 million renovation of the Linwood Shopping Center promise to bring stability and commercial activity to Prospect Ave., although neither were completed without controversy. The recently established Prospect Business Association, drawn initially from developers and businesses within the Linwood and Linwood Square shopping centers, may help coordinate commercial revitalization along Prospect. The PBA has discussed establishing a Prospect Ave Community Improvement District, which could fund services and public realm improvements similar to those found in other CIDs throughout the city â&#x20AC;&#x201C; although some neighborhood leaders are concerned that the costs of a CID would effectively be passed through to residents. Kansas City has recently received federal funding that will cover the bulk of costs to implement MAX bus rapid transit along Prospect Ave, which will bring significant improvements to frequency and performance of transit service and is expected to stimulate

development interest adjacent to station stops. In addition, the recently passed Central City Economic Development Sales Tax should provide $8-10 million per year to incentivize development along the corridor. There has been a lot of recent interest in Key Coalition and Santa Fe, including both planning and nascent development activity. Such activity has spanned housing, transportation, commercial development and civic enterprise. While the City of Kansas City has long led many of these efforts public and civic entities are now showing interest. In some respects greater strategy or coordination could be constructive within this stream of activity. Interests are often aligned but in are in many cases less than fully coordinated. In other cases differing interests and planning and development activity operate at cross-purposes, something we can see in the specific site examples discussed in the following section.

EXPLORING CURRENT PROSPECTS

We can begin to understand how a variety of public, private and civic initiatives come into play in community revitalization by examining two specific examples within the study area. 27th and Prospect Ave: Transit improvements offer the potential to drive community development Improved transit service along Prospect holds the promise of catalyzing adjacent community development. Both the City of Kansas City and the Kansas City Area Transportation Authority (KCATA) are investigating the feasibility of Transit Oriented Development (TOD) along Prospect in anticipation of starting Prospect MAX in 2020. When completed, Prospect MAX will be Kansas Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s third Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line, offering faster, more frequent service compared to conventional bus transit. Prospect Max will include fixed station infrastructure spaced along proposed route to maximize efficiency for ridership. KCATA is working to build partnerships to pursue Transit Oriented Development along the Prospect Corridor in order to support ridership along the line as well as maximize the value of MAX service to surrounding communities. Planned stops include both 27th and Prospect and 31st/Linwood and Prospect. At the 27th and Prospect stop, the current state of the southeast corner of the intersection holds particular promise for catalytic transit oriented development. Nearly the whole south side of 27th St from Prospect to Benton lies vacant,

with, from west to east, a vacant one story commercial structure at the corner of 27th and Prospect, then nine houses at varying states of occupancy and repair, then seven fully vacant lots, followed by a single apartment building at the corner of 27th and Benton. Concentrated vacancy has led to endemic drug use and prostitution on the block. The Santa Fe Area Council has identified the area as a key priority for clean up and development. They support the location of a MAX transit stop at 27th and Prospect, and hope to see a two to three story mixed use building at the corner with office and meeting space for themselves and other businesses and non-profits as well as ground floor retail. Although KCATA favors TOD adjacent to station stops and extending further into 27th St., the Santa Fe Area Council favors somewhat lower density mixed use development at the intersection of 27th and Prospect only, with the rest of 27th St. infilled with single family homes or multifamily buildings containing no more than four units. Although KCATA prioritizes building density and commercial opportunities along the Prospect Ave. corridor and particularly at station nodes, the Santa Fe Area Council is concerned that future development preserves the historic fabric of the community and does not greatly exceed present densities. 31st and Prospect Ave: As a neighborhood works with the city on community revitalization, development proposals prove controversial

The intersection of 31st and Prospect has seen increased planning and development activity, beginning with designation of the Key Coalition Urban Renewal Area and then the subsequent Target Area Neighborhood Design Plan and KC-CUR. These plans aimed for a mix of housing types as well as walkable neighborhood commercial uses at major intersections. Part of the Target Area Neighborhood Design Plan involves expansion of parking and outdoor functional uses for the Lucile H. Bluford Branch of the Kansas City Public Library. The Bluford branch library at the northwest corner of 31st and Prospect is a community anchor, well valued by a range of stakeholders. Tentative library plans involve development of outdoor play spaces to support learning and healthy living, along with expansion of a surface parking lot currently over capacity during peak hours. A private group led by Sheryl Vickers and Rev. Ron Lindsay have advanced a separate development proposal for the block adjacent to the Bluford branch library, one that proposes higher intensity development than what was called for in earlier city-led planning efforts. Vickers and Rev. Lindsayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s proposal builds on the momentum from construction of the new Sunfresh Grocery in the Linwood Shopping Center. It involves higher density mixed use buildings along Prospect with ground floor retail as well as office and residential uses, including roughly two hundred rental apartment units. An initial version of the proposal included a multistory parking structure along Wabash Ave.; responding to community concerns this part of the proposal was removed and a recent iteration of the proposal included rehabilitation and / or infill

construction of twenty single family homes west of the initial development site. The Key Coalition Neighborhood Association (KCNA) has long been an active participant in community planning, supporting development of the FOCUS comprehensive plan, Heart of the City Area Plan, Vine St. Economic Development plan, Prospect Corridor Initiative, and KCURA Target Area Neighborhood Design Plan. Successes include securing funding for improvements to Spring Valley Park. KCNA is happy for the arrival of the new Sunfresh Grocery store and generally welcomes new business into the area. However, it wants to use the Target Area Neighborhood Design Plan as a template for development at 31st and Prospect adjacent to the Bluford branch library, and it is keen on being involved in the planning phases of future development projects. KCNA is concerned that the Vickers and Rev. Lindsay proposals have been out of step with what was envisioned in the Target Area Neighborhood Design Plan â&#x20AC;&#x201C; a plan that they emphasize was developed with community support. The Target Area Neighborhood Design Plan notes that the gap between development costs and market values in Key Coalition is currently something like 50%, a substantial hurdle to generating private-led development. KCNA would therefore look to any private proposal with at least some interest. The Vickers and Rev. Lindsay proposal promises roughly $60 million in private investment as well as local jobs in retail and property management, but it depends on the assembly of a number of lots into a combined develop-

ment parcel and in all likelihood one or more forms of public subsidy. The project would be a candidate for support via the Central City Economic Development sales tax if it garners community support and advances towards a likelihood of development, but community discomfort with the proposal concepts present a hurdle that the proposal has not yet overcome. The City of Kansas City has a package of tools available to support development and a willingness to use those tools, demonstrated in redevelopment of the Linwood Shopping Center, creation of the KC URA, development of the Target Area Neighborhood Design Plan, and construction of demonstration residential infill projects in the broader Key Coalition neighborhood, the latter funded in part through CDBG grants. The City hopes to attract private investment into sites like the northwest corner of 31st and Prospect. However, city officials are keen that such investment is applied towards development that is supported by community residents. This is particularly the case for development proposals that will require one or more forms of public assistance, whether direct subsidy or assistance in land assembly through the use of eminent domain. Despite recent development activity and prospective activity, many challenges remain to cultivating a healthy, sustainable development climate in Key Coalition. Sustained, focused, collaborative efforts are needed, including a shared

vision and initiative amongst city, community, private and civic actors in order to make community development work in the current climate.

THREE KEY DILEMMAS

Key Coalition and Santa Fe face both a host of challenges and a complicated set of potential opportunities in fostering community revitalization. In developing this report, KCDC saw three dilemmas as critical to community revitalization that will be sustainable in the long term.

likely lead to lower density than its historical precedent. To recapture historic population levels that supported community vitality in Key Coalition and Santa Fe, it may therefore be necessary to introduce new types of infill development that support higher densities where appropriate.

First, a concentration of people are needed to make all of the interdependent the social and economic functions of a community in its schools, parks, shops and restaurants, truly work. Populations in Key Coalition and Santa Fe have declined by 81 and 62 percent respectively from their peak after World War II. The neighborhoods are burdened by a vicious cycle in which businesses and schools close due to the decline in the residential population that supports them, which contributes to further population decline as the communities have fewer amenities to attract residents. Key Coalition and Santa Fe need new residents, yet rebuilding their urban fabric in the manner in which they were first constructed is unlikely to be sufficient. Household sizes are smaller than they were when the neighborhoods were first platted. Further a handful of trends -- residents tend to desire single family housing in neighborhoods even where historically they may have incorporated more of a mix of uses; single family houses built today tend to be larger on larger lots than what was built in previous years; and the economics of land development lead to land assembly and replatting to wider, larger parcels -- converge together such that even where communities and developers come together to support a vision for context sensitive development, that vision will

Second, the market does not generally support private development in the neighborhoods. Pervasive vacancy, particularly in Key Coalition, leads to lower property values throughout the community. In the Key Coalition Target Area Neighborhood Design Plan DRAW Architects estimate that there is a gap of 50% between what new development costs and what it will sell for. This gap is problematic for existing homeownership as well as new development because it acts as an implicit disincentive to home maintenance, repair, and general upkeep. Although redlining is now illegal and is no longer practiced overtly, there is anecdotal evidence that the neighborhoods continue to struggle to get private financing for housing as generally low property values generate too little margin to make underwriting home loans feasible and the standard practice of using of local comparisons creates a negative feedback loop amplifying perceived risk of individual mortgages. Viable infill development in the short term will likely need to rely on direct subsidy or other forms of public assistance. Careful consideration of per unit costs of different types of infill development may also help close the financing gap, and alternative models of development that rely less exclusively on private development and financing may be worth considering.

Finally, a number of disparate public, private, and civic initiatives to revitalize Key Coalition, Santa Fe, and similar communities in Kansas Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s urban core are underway. This holds tremendous promise, but it also means that shared visions for development, coordination amongst actors and activities, and cogent strategy to marshall disparate efforts and maximize their impact are all significant parts of the equation. Efforts like Neighborhood Prospects: Sustainable Communities by Design need to address these dilemmas, supporting and building upon the full range of efforts that precede and follow them.

CHAPTER 4 COMMUNITY RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS

The Kansas City Design Center is a joint collaboration between the College of Architecture, Planning and Design at Kansas State University and the School of Architecture and Design and the University of Kansas. KCDC engaged a 5th-year Master of Architecture design studio in developing design strategies as a part of this Neighborhood Prospects Revitalization Study. Students engaged community stakeholders, business leaders, developers, and City agencies in order to understand the dilemmas of a community that has suffered from decades of disinvestment but is also on the cusp of revitalization. The work presented here was driven by five public community meetings as well as advisory committee meetings and numerous discussions with neighborhood stakeholders. The Neighborhood Prospects team has held more than one hundred such meetings with individual neighborhood leaders, City staff, planning professionals, and additional stakeholders concerning the project and related initiatives within the project study area. This interaction allowed the students to become aware of what stakeholders valued in their neighborhoods. They were able to experience first-hand, the stories and struggles of community members advocating for their community. The story they heard was consistent: long-time residents love their historic neighborhood and want to see it protected.

Several investment opportunities have now presented themselves to the community. From sidewalk repair to the $53 million Prospect MAX transit infrastructure project and everything in between. We hope this report can provide community members some of the tools needed to evaluate, prioritize, and coordinate these investments.

EXISTING CONDITIONS - CHARACTER AND IDENTITY

The Key Coalition and Santa Fe Neighborhoods are rich in history and character. We value such neighborhoods not only for their finely detailed individual structures but also for how the structures work together to form a fabric that is distinct. One must study and understand the character of these neighborhoods in order to construct sensitive infill projects that reinforce the historic fabric while responding to the market forces of today. Key to understanding the character of a neighborhood is the ability to identify distinct patterns of form, mass, and scale. These characteristics include such elements as: • • • • • • • • •

building height roof form proportion fenestration porch configuration setbacks location of parking materials configuration of non-building areas (streetscape,

landscape, and open space)

A clear identification of these characteristics across all the various housing typologies (single family, duplex, multifamily, etc.) is necessary for both stabilizing dilapidated housing stock and also introducing new housing prototypes that can contribute the cohesive identity of a neighborhood.

Ultimately, successful infill developments should not simply mimic the established character of a place but rather, must find a compatibility. Contemporary buildings should not be confused with their historic context. They must be clearly recognized as current construction. Compatibility is particularly important when real estate market forces or zoning changes support structures much larger than the surrounding context. For example, a new building that is wider than was historically typical should incorporate design features that divide it into smaller modules to suggest the underlying lot pattern, changes in height, materials, and offsets to allow a larger building to fit into the surrounding historic context.

IDENTITY & CHARACTER IDENTITY & CHARACTER

values in comparison to to ehousing low housing values in comparison

ER 50% 0% houses in Key

n Key on and Santa Santa re built in the

BUILT YEARYEAR BUILT

1990 Census Source:Source: 1990 Census

1940-491940-49 Period of Construction

Period of Construction

Pre-1940 Pre-1940

1950-591950-59 1960-69 1960-69 1970-79 1970-79

Prospect Corridor Percent of Housing Units Prospect Corridor Percent of Housing Units Metro Area Metro Area

over 25% over of the25% houses in Key

of the houses in and Key Santa Coalition Coalition and built Santa Fe were between

60%

60% 50%

50% 40%

40% 30%

30% 20%

20% 10%

10% 0%

1980-90 1980-90

EXISTING CONDITIONS - NEIGHBORHOOD FABRIC

Studying the historic fabric of the neighborhood and its evolution provides insights to the use of streets,sidewalks, front yard, and alleys. These configurations and the resulting lot widths and development patterns are some of the most important defining characteristics of neighborhoods. These patterns must be preserved and reinforced as new development patterns are introduced. Adaptations such as the enlargement of a carriage house to fit a modern vehicle or the improvements to side streets to allow emergency vehicle access are necessary. However, such interventions should be sensitive to preserve the integrity of historically defining characteristics. The Sanborn insurance maps are one of the most valuable resources we have today in understanding the historic patterning of land parcels. They provide the blueprint for understanding the structure upon which an historic neighborhood evolved. This is particularly important to neighborhoods like Key Coalition and Santa Fe where depopulation and disinvestment has led to the deterioration and eventual removal of historic structures. These maps also provide clues for understanding how density might be reintroduced to the neighborhood. The historic neighborhood pattern reveals that density, typically

measured in dwelling units per acre, consistently increases as one moves towards Prospect Avenue. Larger homes on larger lots typically occur on corner parcels. And, consistent setbacks provide a uniform buffer area separating the sidewalks from front porches. Students kept these patterns in mind as they developed infill prototypes that attempt to fit comfortably within the constraints of historic blocks. The increased density that occurs towards Prospect is also significant in supporting the notion of Transit Oriented Development patterns along the planned Prospect MAX development.

60’

IDENTITY & CHARACTER IDENTITY & CHARACTER IDENTITY & CHARACTER

15’

60’

15’

60’ 15’

15’

15’ 60’

15’

60’

15’

60’

15’

60’

15’

60’

15’

60’ 8.25’

8.25’

8.25’ 8.25’

8.25’

Typical parcel size

Typical parcel size 120’

1909 Sanborn Map

OVEROVER 50% 50% OVER 50% of the historic of thehomes historic homes

of the historic homes were lost in the Key were lost in the Key were lost inand the Key Fe Coalition and Santa FeSanta Coalition Coalition and Santa Fe neighborhoods neighborhoods neighborhoods

25% 25% 25% of the land is now of the land is now

120’

30’

120’

120’ 40’

40’

90’

40’

50’

2017 ArcGIS 2017Map ArcGIS Map 2017 ArcGIS Map

30’

. Shapefiles provided by theprovid Kans . Shapefiles Missouri Office Missouri of Planning andof Development Office Planning and Development . Shapefiles provided by

Missouri Ofﬁce of Planning and Development

of the land is now vacant in the Key vacant in the Key vacant in and theFeKey Coalition and Santa Coalition Santa Fe Coalitionneighborhoods and Santa Fe neighborhoods neighborhoods

120’

120’ 30’

2900th Block of Park Ave

Typical parcel size

50’

Sanborn 1909-1951 Sanborn 1909-1951 2900th Block of Park Ave Sanborn 1909-1951 1909-1951 Sanborn Map

2900th Block of Park Ave 2900th Block of Park Ave

90’

90’ 50’

2900th Block of Park Ave

50’

2900th Block of Park Ave 2900th Block of Park Ave 2900th Block of Park Ave

90’

90’ 50’

Sanborn 1909 Sanborn 2900th Block1909 of Park Ave Sanborn 1909

Typical parcel size

2900th Block of Park Ave

Typical parcel size Typical parcel size

EXISTING CONDITIONS - DEMOGRAPHICS/ZONING

The students next looked at demographic trends and zoning to understand whether shifts in development patterns has had a negative effect on the historic fabric seen in the Sanborn maps. For the most part, the historic patterning of single family homes is largely in-tact. Even on many blocks where homes have been demolished, the traces of consistent tree lawn and sidewalk remain even if in disrepair. The most telling result of studying the demographics of the area is the steep decline in owner-occupied housing. As families have moved out of the neighborhoods, there has not been a market demand for new housing. This has led to the numerous tear-downs that result when housing is left uninhabited and not maintained. The result is that empty lots spot the neighborhood where it doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t make sense to rebuild where a new structure may not command the sales price or rent needed for the project to be viable. Diagrams and analysis were also conducted to better understand the street hierarchy. Prospect Avenue remains the primary thoroughfare connecting the neighborhood to the Central Business District. Understanding the secondary and tertiary transportation routes helped the students to prioritize infill parcels that, if developed, could begin connecting neighborhood nodes to the Prospect MAX transit. This connectivity allows neighborhoods to increase their walkability and livability.

Understanding the zoning, demographic, and ownership patterns also allowed the studio to be more precise in selecting parcels for infill development that may have the most impact. Owner-occupied homes that have become dilapidated may be better candidates for rehabilitation grant funding while parcels owned by the City may be better suited for demolition and redevelopment.





















LOW

POPULATION DENSITY HIGH























  



















64 HISTORIC DISTRICTS























27TH ST

28TH ST

VICTOR ST

29TH ST

30TH ST

31ST ST

LINWOOD BLVD

33RD ST

ZONING 34TH ST

INDIANA AVE

WALROND AVE

BENTON BLVD

PROSPECT AVE

WABASH AVE

OLIVE ST

PARK AVE

BROOKLYN AVE

GARFIELD AVE

EUCLID AVE































































Defining main streets within the neighborhoods to allow for more density.





































Choosing lots in both neighborhoods which would allow for more options.





Understanding density of certain demographics within the neighborhoods: Children

























































































 



Understanding density of certain demographics within the neighborhoods: College

Understanding density of certain demographics within the neighborhoods: Aged in their 20’s

Understanding density of certain demographics within the neighborhoods: Aged from 30s to 60s

Well-maintained single family homes with front porches contribute to a walkable neighborhood.

Curb cuts are a barrier to walkable streets and should be minimized where there is no alley-access for parking and services.

Even with various roof forms and architectural styles, homes with similar site placement and setbacks contribute to the historic fabric of the neighborhood.

INFILL PROTOTYPING STUDIES

The studio then investigated a range of infill development scenarios for a range of vacant or underutilized parcels within the study area. We first assessed vacant parcels, based on a variety of factors, in order to identify parcels within the study area that have the most promise in terms of infill development supporting broader community revitalization. The graphic to the right represents a number of these factors, from proximity to key transit corridors to historic property status. They are graphically represented by an adjustable dial to indicate that the weighting of individual features can be changed and adjusted based on community input. Using these characteristics to inform site selection for infill development scenarios allows us to prioritize potential for impact over individual parcels most in need of help. This should help ensure that infill development and investment in broader revitalization can have a catalytic effect. We then created a number of infill development prototypes for selected parcels across the neighborhood. Students identified sixteen parcels to be studied further. Prototypes included designs for single family, duplex, fourplex, and multifamily housing models. Several of these designs are presented here. Each prototype uses the form, mass, scale and articulation of the surrounding context to inform infill design. Prototypes use contemporary construction materials and techniques while blending sensitively into neighborhood fabric and context. Each of the following

prototype designs includes an address, unit type, and square footage. Most indicate potential for accessory dwelling units, where zoning allows, as a way of increasing the density and broadening choices of available housing types while reinforcing historic neighborhood fabric.