Ecos on Delaware: New Green Condo Building in the RM

[ComandanteCero]

Anyone know anything about this?

http://greencondoskc.com/ECOS/ecos_on_d ... _home.html

It looks like it's planned for the thin strip of grass next to Pacific House. I don't know how this has slipped through the cracks.

nice find bigchuck.  Ditto on the surprise, they're apparently taking reservations, so i assume they must be marketing this on some level.... beyond a website. 

Images from the website:

this is what it looks like:


here's where it would go:


this is what it would look like from the east (the back):


anyone have a picture of the space as it looks right now?

(i know Toss won't be happy  )

[TheBigChuckbowski]

I'll take a pic tomorrow during daylight.

I actually found this through craigslist which isn't a good sign if that's all the marketing they're doing.

They had the Live and Work (storefront with loft in the back) listed at $380,000 which is the only price I saw.

[ShowMeKC]

So is this north or south of the Pacific House?

[scooterj]

This looks like it will take up most of the existing "4th Street" pedestrian walkway.

So what would happen to the windows of the people already living on the north side of Pacific House, and how will the people with ground-level entrances on that side of Pacific House get in or out of their homes?

[TheBigChuckbowski]

This looks like it will take up most of the existing "4th Street" pedestrian walkway.

So what would happen to the windows of the people already living on the north side of Pacific House, and how will the people with ground-level entrances on that side of Pacific House get in or out of their homes?

So is this north or south of the Pacific House?

It's on the southside. It's not the pedestrian walkway, it's the patch of grass on the other side of pacific house where the mailboxes are. It's basically attached to the building that has bricks painted white.

[phna]

It's on the southside. It's not the pedestrian walkway, it's the patch of grass on the other side of pacific house where the mailboxes are. It's basically attached to the building that has bricks painted white.

That's right, it is that last patch of undeveloped real estate on the street. It's very narrow too.

This design sucks for the area, just like the 5th and Delaware and the HOK sore thumbs. The historical area has buildings primarily composed of brick while this design looks modern with shiny facade and steel, glass and concrete (great building materials no doubt) that has no place along this stretch of historic buildings. I hope it never materializes.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

That's right, it is that last patch of undeveloped real estate on the street. It's very narrow too.

This design sucks for the area, just like the 5th and Delaware and the HOK sore thumbs. The historical area has buildings primarily composed of brick while this design looks modern with shiny facade and steel, glass and concrete (great building materials no doubt) that has no place along this stretch of historic buildings. I hope it never materializes.

Would you rather leave it undeveloped? I don't see how bricks would make a bulding fit in anymore. Anything built today is just going to look like a fake if it's made to look like something that's built in the 1800s. I like the modern design in historical neighborhoods, it's a beautiful contrast. The HOK building isn't my favorite but I love 5 Delaware. There are places all over the world where modern design fits in well with historical design.

[Czar]

fantastic project.  really looking forward this.

[warwickland]

i'd rather see this than poorly executed historicism. modern design is adding a dynamism to the RM sometimes lacking in midwestern urban neighborhoods. i like the way its all crammed in there as some fogeys say.

in any case, it's added urban minded density!

[TheBigChuckbowski]

More plans...



Live Work unit (retail space on the left)


Delaware House unit




Market 1 Bedroom Lower unit


Market 1 Bedroom Upper unit


Market House unit

[FangKC]

It's not on 4th Street near the Pacific House, but further south midblock in an infill space that has a pedestrian sidewalk running between Delaware and the alley to the east. The adjacent building's north wall is all brick. It appears no windows will be blocked.

I don't accept the argument that it's this design, and asking for anything else creates risk that the parcel goes undeveloped.

I'm all for infill developments, but I also side with the notion that the new building should attempt to respect the existing environment, buildings, and streetscape.  That is one of the reasons we create protected historic districts, and that many subdivisions  have design convenants. It can be a more modern building, but red brick would be more appropriate.  It doesn't have to be an exact replication, but should acknowledge the context. This isn't just any ordinary street or district in the city. There are plenty of other locations for new forms of architecture. Even in the River Market.

There is certainly a difference between being cheesy and creating a new building that pays homage to past styles, and fits among them.

I think in the long run it's ill-advised to take our MOST historic block of architecture, and plop modern buildings down that have no context to their environment.

There are new townhouses in the Kirkwood development on the Plaza that are more fitting complimentary styles than what is proposed.

Just because a new structure replicates the style and architecture of a past era doesn't make it fake either.  Architects have been replicating past architecture for centuries.  Almost all of the federal buildings in Washington DC are newer versions of Greek and Roman architecture, and the Washington monument is a modern replication of an Egyptian obelisk.

The newer apartment buildings on Quality Hill aren't Victorian per se, but they are red brick, and acknowledge Victorian elements which still being modern structures.

The Midland Theater is French Renaissance, the Madrid Theater is Spanish Colonial, and the Folly has elements of Neo-Palladian style.  There are numerous, old, local buildings with elements of many past styles.  Many of our churches built 100 years ago are imitations of the earlier English Gothic.  The Kansas City Club (Clubhouse Lofts) is an update of late English Gothic and Tudor.  The Siegrist Engraving Building at 924-26 Oak is Eqyptian Revival. The First National Bank (KC Library) replicates earlier Greek and Roman temple architecture. The entire Plaza is Spanish (which elements of Moorish) architecture, and it's development is approaching the century mark.  People are still building Spanish Colonial tract houses in the suburbs. Victorian style elements are used in many of our newer homes around the city (the high-peaked roof, and grand porches).

I'm actually surprised that 5 Delaware, HOK, and Eon have gotten past the Landmarks Commission, since Delaware Street is part of the Old Town national historic district.  But then again, our Landmarks Commmission appears to be quite useless.

Is the South Plaza district including Armour Hills and Brookside fake?  The neighborhoods are filled with English Gothic and Tudor, Georgian, French Chateau, Cape Cod, and Colonial architecture.

Is One Kansas City Place fake because it is a post-modern version of art deco streamline design?  It's design was meant to mimic the setbacks on the Power & Light Building.

If one is going to complain about fake architecture, then the vast majority of our suburbs are completely fake.

I think it's approprite in a federal historic district to have some formal guidelines that new structures meet some basic design criteria. After all, there are really only a few historic districts in our city.

We make requirements about buildings all the time. Many subdivisions have design guidelines.  Some mandate that all houses have shaker-shingle style roofs for example. One cannot build a shotgun shack out of tin panels in many neighborhoods even if it meets basic code requirements.

[Czar]

National districts have no authority over local development. 

[FangKC]

Cities do have the ability to enact local ordinances, or zoning laws, about development within specified historic districts. For example, having design criteria for new buildings that are constructed within the boundaries of the specified district. The building must pass through a review process, and developers must meet certain design guidelines before the building is approved.  If there is will within a community, this can be done.

Under federal designations for historic buildings and district guidelines, developers of existing protected buildings must adhere to the National Trust guidelines if they accept any sort of federal or state historic tax credits to restore the building.  This applied to the Cold Storage Building, and is why the developer had to get approval to knock out openings for windows.

In many cases, a city benefits from having these rules. Historic district design guidelines and restrictions, as well as subdivision covenants that regulate design for new buildings, often result in those neighborhoods retaining their integrity because of the design criteria.  There are many subdivisions where one cannot build just what one wants.  The purpose is to avoid hotch-potch development.  Subdivisions and neighborhoods can establish design criteria using private real estate covenants and deed restrictions as well.

Design criteria in St. Louis under city ordinance

http://stlouis.missouri.org/citygov/pla ... regory.pdf

Design criteria for the Compton Heights neighborhood in St. Louis.

http://www.chnba.org/textonly.asp?Dept_ ... 05&Main=01

Cities already do this: St. Louis, Nashville, Savannah, Charleston, and New Orleans.

From the Whole Building Design Guide

RELEVANT CODES AND STANDARDS

Historical style is often controlled by codes and standards in two situations: Historic Preservation Guidelines and Neighborhood Covenants. In the case of historic districts and individual historically designated buildings, the codes both protect the existing architecture from demolition and control the amount and character of building alterations. Neighborhood Covenants also seek to control the exact physical characteristics of a neighborhood, often including stylistic restrictions and a host of specific details.

http://www.wbdg.org/design/style.php

Glendale, CA, historic district design guidelines

http://www.ci.glendale.ca.us/planning/p ... Infill.pdf

[Czar]

I was just pointing out that the Landmarks Commission only have control over local historic districts or buildings NOT national districts.  While it may be appropriate in some communities to have this oversight it can also lead to FAKE and CHEAP construction. A new DOWNTOWN building in Lee's Summit uses Styrofoam instead of stone for ornate building details.  Of course the FAKE historic moldings are already half torn off.

Are you still listening to your records or your 8-track?  I don't think so, architecture also changes due to many reasons.  Contemporary Architecture usually lets form follow function (not ornate for its own sake).  It also is responsive to craftsmanship (as in we don't really have true craftsman anymore).  Architecture also responds to changing desires. Now we dint have large families so the need for sf is reduced.  The baby boomer expansion is also changing the way buildings are designed with single level living.

If you really like all buildings in a neighborhood to look the same, there is some fantastic tract housing just east of Lee's Summit.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

I could understand this uproar if Delaware was the perfect historic district and this was the only parcel of undeveloped land, but it's not. They would be tearing out freestanding suburban mailboxes to put in this development. 5 Delaware, a very modern building, is just a couple spots down. There's a gigantic parking lot directly across the street. DE Lofts have added features to the outside of their historic buildings to make them look more modern.

Fang, I agree with you a lot of the time but I do think a lot of things you just mentioned are fake. They just have the advantage of not being next to the real thing. If you plopped down the White House into the middle of Rome, it would look fake. Put Brookside in the middle of London, fake. etc. etc. What you're saying is completely different from those examples, we'd be building something fake right next to the real thing.

There are great examples of modern architecture fitting in with historic buildings all over Europe. The Louvre in Paris. The London Eye. How about Gaudi's work in Barcelona? It looks nothing like the surrounding architecture but is it okay because he died more than 50 years ago? And, what about -gasp- the Bloch Building at the Nelson?

[phna]

I could understand this uproar if Delaware was the perfect historic district and this was the only parcel of undeveloped land, but it's not. They would be tearing out freestanding suburban mailboxes to put in this development. 5 Delaware, a very modern building, is just a couple spots down. There's a gigantic parking lot directly across the street. DE Lofts have added features to the outside of their historic buildings to make them look more modern.

Fang, I agree with you a lot of the time but I do think a lot of things you just mentioned are fake. They just have the advantage of not being next to the real thing. If you plopped down the White House into the middle of Rome, it would look fake. Put Brookside in the middle of London, fake. etc. etc. What you're saying is completely different from those examples, we'd be building something fake right next to the real thing.

There are great examples of modern architecture fitting in with historic buildings all over Europe. The Louvre in Paris. The London Eye. How about Gaudi's work in Barcelona? It looks nothing like the surrounding architecture but is it okay because he died more than 50 years ago? And, what about -gasp- the Bloch Building at the Nelson?

While I understand your argument, The Louvre is not a great Example. When the glass pyramid Main entrance was put in, there was quite an uproar over it for the very same reasons being mentioned here.

[anniewarbucks]

here is how the area looks with the 3d buildings turned on.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

While I understand your argument, The Louvre is not a great Example. When the glass pyramid Main entrance was put in, there was quite an uproar over it for the very same reasons being mentioned here.

There's always uproar. There was uproar over all of the things I mentioned. Then people realized they look good.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

Photos of the site...

[anniewarbucks]

That would look good there. I do like the modern look of the building in the middle of the two older buildings. It would bring the older look more to the forefront. This has always been a sticking point with all neighborhoods (how will a modern building hurt the feel of the historic feel of a neighborhood?). One question that has always been on my mind though is this. If you build an addition onto a historic building, when does the addition qualify for historic status? I saw a library in the small city of Seneca, KS that was housed in a old church have to add on to the church. To expand the space. this library had to connect the new building to the old one with a breezeway just to keep the historical society off of their tails.