Upping The Bar, Architecturally

[Midtownkid]

Ok, so Kansas City has some amazing architecture from pre-WWII throughout the urban core.

Luckily we have not demolished it all. We are getting smarter about re-using these great building.

When it comes to new construction, we are just satisfied if it isn't horrible. We seem to not even think anything better is possible. That is sad.

Look at this amazing little building they recently completed in NYC.



Now I know that NYC can ask $20 million for an apartment and we can't. But still, if this is possible, why can't we do it here!? This building is incredible. It would fit right into our city. Imagine this in lieu of what they built next to the Power & Light Building.

We should revisit terra cotta. We have a great wealth of terra cotta buildings, why not add to the collection? I'm sure you could do some very modern things with terra cotta too. (IMO the historic look is unbeatable)



I think that if someone stepped up and built a place of this caliber, other developers would follow.

I can dream at least, right?!

[FangKC]

I am in complete agreement with you MidtownKid.

It doesn't even have to be terra cotta. You can do a lot of interesting design work by using different colors of simple bricks on a facade to create dynamic contrast and patterns.

[AlbertHammond]

... "in traditional architecture, with its decorative details. Ornaments liberate us from the tyranny of the useful and satisfy our need for harmony. In a strange way, they make us feel at home. They remind us that we have more than practical needs. We’re not just governed by animal appetites like eating and sleeping. We have spiritual and moral needs too. And if those needs go unsatisfied, so do we."
– Why Beauty Matters, by Roger Scruton

[shinatoo]

You can do about anything with foam and Drivit now. No need for terra cotta and no one can tell the difference.

[Midtownkid]

You can do about anything with foam and Drivit now. No need for terra cotta and no one can tell the difference.

And I guess that's what is wrong with our architecture these days. All the products are fake versions of the 'real thing'.

Anyone could tell the difference!

[shinatoo]

You can do about anything with foam and Drivit now. No need for terra cotta and no one can tell the difference.

And I guess that's what is wrong with our architecture these days. All the products are fake versions of the 'real thing'.

You say not one can tell the difference, but we can.

Um, no you can't. Unless it's done poorly.

Also, it's not "fake" just because it's a different medium. It's still a molded and covered product, and it's just as durable.

[flyingember]

And I guess that's what is wrong with our architecture these days. All the products are fake versions of the 'real thing'.

I'm going to challenge you to insulate your next home by nailing up newspapers like they used to.

[taxi]

Fake news.

[kboish]

Sad!

[pash]

.

[shinatoo]

Um, no you can't. Unless it's done poorly.

Show us a building done in Dryvit that looks anything like the building Midtownkid posted in the OP, shinatoo.

Just to be clear you want me to find a Drivit building in the suburbs that looks as good as a rendering Midtownkid posted that isn't terra cotta.

[pash]

.

[shinatoo]

I agree with you with the exception that you would never mold anything out of dryvit. You would use a polyfoam sub-strait molded or cut, and then finish it with Dryvit for a stone look. You can also paint it with a high gloss to get the glazed look of fired Terra cotta. Much lighter, cheaper, easier to work with and easier to repair and replace. I misspoke on calling it Dryvit.

There could be many more architecturally interesting buildings that could use polyfoam where they don't have the budget for terra cotta.

I also agree that Dryvit has a bad name because of the association with the endless, bland beigeing of exurban America. I certainly don't want to see that kind of low minded, cheap implementation in the urban core. But that's not Dryvit's fault.

Sorry for getting your hair up.

[pash]

.

[taxi]

Yes, Dryvit over molded foam is what I meant by molded Dryvit.

And that's kind of the point of this thread. There seem to be few—make that zero—developers in this town who care enough to put up high-quality buildings. I know it's all the more difficult in a low-rent market like KC, but I still get the impression that developers here just don't give a damn about good architecture.

2nd and Delaware. You might argue the architectural merits of the design, but it is made to last 100 years. I hope with all my heart that this project is successful and changes the local game, which is dominated by developers who get excited because they can now go 5 stories with sticks and could care less what happens to it – not only in 25 years, but in 5 years.

[flyingember]

Part of the problem is the cost of leasing space vs the cost of building in KC. Being a low cost market for housing comes with drawbacks.

Construction costs going up ~4% annually. Renting costs aren't. You can see how only the projects planned to be premium are working with good materials of any type.

Couple that with a build and plan to make money up front with enough cash flow to sell being the main goal and you have a situation where building cheap dominates.

City incentives should probably come with ownership requirements. Sell and they drop off. Reduce the number of speculate and dump builders looking for a quick buck.