My first impressions of the Valentine neighborhood were ones of nostalgia for a time I never knew. Seeing what’s left of the structures of yesterday, still housing activity, seems to keep a link between now and the past. Though many of the original structures of the Valentine neighborhood weren’t as lucky in their circumstances, the many structures that still stand today serve to remind us of the city that once was. This feeling of nostalgia was, unfortunately, evanescent once the scars of wounds inflicted by a past culture were evident in the built environment.

Now introducing the Kansas City Life Insurance Company. KC Life isn’t particularly special in their role within the 20th century cultural phenomenon of suburbanization and real estate redevelopment, but they are an interesting actor within the context of the Valentine neighborhood. The reason they are interesting is that they started purchasing and demolishing structures in their neighborhood of Valentine in the mid 20th century, this was standard operations for the time, but unlike many other mid-century re-development projects, use Crown Center as an example, the KC Life redevelopment plan in Valentine never came to fruition. Most of the mid-century redevelopment projects started at the same time as the KC Life project have either been completed or abandoned by 2026, but KC Life has resiliency and determination as they just recently, in 2025, demolished 16 more structures on properties they owned. KC Life owns 83 total properties in the Valentine neighborhood, though not all improvements have been demolished, renting out the units in structures that are still habitable and standing. As KC Life continues to remove structures in the Valentine neighborhood, they still only have vague concepts of plans for what will eventually be built on those many empty lots.

As I mentioned, neither the Kansas City Life Insurance Company nor the Valentine neighborhood are unique in their relationship via their shared built environments, but their respective cultural evolution, or lack there of, leads to increasing more cultural dissonance within the neighborhood as one entity, presumably, refuses to grow, while the other is more in line with the contemporary cultural shifts, which have almost completely move the Overton Window on what it means to be a member in a community and a neighbor.

The Valentine neighborhood is overflowing with history from, seemingly, endless cultures and changes in the built environment. While it is rich with culture, it seems locked in a state of cultural paradigm shifts, struggling to grow. While growing pains are difficult and sometimes take a while to recede, that is all in the effort to build a community, not just an area where people live. These are the efforts I have recognized from the Valentine neighborhood and its neighborhood association.

I visited the Valentine Neighborhood for the first time this week on a chilly Tuesday afternoon after I was done with my classes for the day. I walked from the Armour streetcar stop to the KC Life building and began my journey wandering around this cozy KC neighborhood. The first thing I noticed was how quiet it was in comparison to the busy streets of Broadway and Southwest Trafficway that surrounded it. I could immediately tell when I entered the neighborhood because everything seemed to slow down. Cars drove carefully over speed bumps and people were out leisurely walking their dogs. The character of the neighborhood also stood out as I walked past historical bungalows and colonnades that were bright and colorful. I could see evidence of the neighborhood organizers as I passed the community garden, a little free library, crime watch signs, and yard signs opposing KC Life Insurance. It was very clear that the neighborhood was active and involved in making their corner of KC a special place. 

The second time I visited the Valentine Neighborhood I was able to meet these organizers at their monthly neighborhood association meeting. A group of UMKC students attended their Wednesday night meeting and we were met with a friendly welcome as well as curiosity to being a part of our class project. The agenda for the meeting included a speaker from KC Life providing updates on a development project, a vote on budget and bylaw amendments, and other neighborhood updates for the community. After that, the meeting became an engaging group discussion with new members of the neighborhood introducing themselves, and long-time residents introducing some of the work they do. When a new member introduced themself and what house they lived in, the older residents would respond with “Oh! You live in so-and-so’s house”. At first I thought it was said in a way that implied they had replaced someone, but later I realized that “so-and-so’s house” was simply how these residents understood the identity of that building. Rather than an address or some title a company gives the structure, the memory of a previous resident is how that house is known by the community. I think that’s a really special quality that can only happen in a strong and connected community and I was honored to get to experience that community in the Valentine Neighborhood.

In the beginning pages of Daltons paper, she discusses five essential planning factors for campus planning. These factors include the following – land use, design, sustainability, economic development and collaboration. Land use is promoting a sense of community, walkability on campus, livability, and safety. Design are the physical components of the space that improve the overall image of the campus. The sustainability component is planning for impact of the campus on the overall ecosystem, and how the campus can relate to common goals of the community. Economic development and collaboration are directly relationship to surrounding neighborhoods and communities while engaging in socioeconomic built environment. The new university master plan addresses many of these components in the 2021 addition with several of their additions made to face challenges on both campuses.  

Scholars in the Dalton paper suggest that land use planning can be achieved through “vibrant and safe social environment to address the evolving needs of higher education institutions” The campus master plan introduces the concept of a renovated historic quad that would provide more gathering spaces, and the new space for the campus heart that would close 51^st street providing space for events and interactions. Similarly, Dalton suggests that sustainability on the campus can be directly correlated with transportation infrastructure. UMKC has proposed adding housing on campus that would significantly reduce of traffic counts incoming to campus as well implementing bicycle and pedestrian methods of transportation for students that would reduce the need for cars. The highlight on pedestrian safety specifically along Troost Avenue, 51^st Street, and Rockhill Road specifically with the widening of pedestrian walkways will also reduce the traffic crimes. The connection of campus to the rest of Kansas city is important, so the UMKC master plan suggest that the street car extension will further the connection as well bicycle lanes that will also connect to existing bicycle networks throughout the rest of the city. Collaboration was established with several stakeholders as addressed at the beginning of the UMKC master plan.  

I chose this single family home because of its character and modernity. This is a home built in 1923, but feels like a more modern version because of its color pallet and because of how well the property is maintained. This home also fits the existing, historic character of the neighborhood around Troost Park due to its architectural design, so it brings vibrancy to the area without looking like it’s out-of-place.

I chose the site due to its relation to the rest of the existing neighborhood. The north and east sides of the park are surrounded by single-family housing, so this was an ideal location for a new home. Additionally, this land is currently vacant and in need of a use. There is an alley that runs behind the church to the west which can be easily extended for a driveway or detached garage. Having the auto-related uses in the back of the unit gives the home a direct connection to the park through the front door.

The floor area ratio on the current site is .15 with a density of 5.8 dwelling units per acre. On the new site, the floor area ratio is .21 with a density of 8.0 dwelling units per acre

I chose these townhomes due to their relation to the street and their suburban feel. These homes’ sidewalks lead right to the front door in order to give the streetscape a human scale. I think this could be very valuable at a human-oriented space like Troost Park.

I chose this site because the long and narrow parcels are very similar to the original parcels these homes came from. It can be challenging to create a cohesive development in areas that have empty parcels shaped like these. I think a townhome development with a suburban feel would fit right into the character of the neighborhood while making use of currently vacant space. This string of parcels is also makes up the entire west side of Troost Park, so adding infill here would help the enclose the park to make it feel more like a destination. Parks surrounded by vacant lots can feel like there is no official end to the area, and it can burden the efforts of place-making.

The floor area ratio on the current site is .65 with a density of 14 dwelling units per acre. On the new site, the floor area ratio is .28 with a density of 6 dwelling units per acre.

I chose this building because of its unique character and sense of place. This is a 8 unit apartment building which is constructed of all brick and wrought iron fencing. This building features a lush garden in the front which gives a strong sense of community and care from the residents.

I chose this site for the building because of the architecture, the proximity to the park, and the ample space for parking. This building’s architecture fits very well with the other uses behind it, but it feels much more residential while the others feel industrial. Having a residential feeling building in an area like this will give a southern edge to Troost Park instead of an ocean of empty parking lots. The space to the east of the building could be filled with amenities for the residents or other buildings of this same type. This would leave plenty of parking in the rear of the buildings which would be ideal for both the residents and the users of the park.

The dwelling units per acre on the current site is 57. On the new site it is 22 dwelling units per acre.