Someone named Bridge from the KCATA has helpfully provided an explanation for the different designs of the planters along Troost. I am reposting her remarks for those who don't read comments to posts.As I hope I made clear in my earlier post, I was only speculating about the reason for the difference. Although this difference turns out to have no bureaucratic implications, as I speculated, I stand by the questions it lead me to ask. Would it help Troost to no have so many political boundaries running down the middle of the street?
With regard to the rain gardens along Troost shown in the photos - these are being installed as part of KCATA’s Troost MAX project and were designed to meet the hydraulic conditions of each side of the street. One of the pictures is of a rain garden and the other is a landscape bed. They require different designs and aesthetic looks. There are minor differences that relate to the different flow conditions, but have nothing to do with council district boundaries.
These rain gardens will receive landscaping that will be similar on both sides of the street – just like the MAX stations being developed so as to have a uniform look throughout the Troost corridor. Both sides were designed under a single effort that included representatives that live in both council districts.
I think once the construction and plantings are completed, Metro customers and area residents will appreciate the beauty of the landscaping on both sides of the street.
Posts
2 comments:
You are underestimating the continuing power of history. Troost is - and is likely to remain - a boundary line...socially, economically, and politically. It is a frame of reference. Moving political boundaries a block or two is likely to be very difficult to do for those reasons. However, it also forces cooperation between politicians and neighborhood leaders. It serves many purposes. Which do you want it to serve?
I'm going to have to start labeling speculation better so that people don't mistake them for firm opinions.
Post a Comment