KCRag Forum

Build it and when it opens don't invite Greitens.

I don't think Greitens is invited to KC period.

It's logical, he wants to shrink the size of the state government and it looks like has learned the Kansas lesson.

The goal appears to be to say that we shouldn't be paying for certain things at the state level.
It's not an illogical stance but the program the match comes from should be cut if that's the goal, not just veto a legitimate use of it

Hard to argue that education should not be paid for at the state level.

grovester wrote:Hard to argue that education should not be paid for at the state level.

Agreed. The saddest part to me is that even a Democrat, Jay Nixon, withheld funds that were meant for post-secondary education. In some ways, he was the best Republican governor Missouri has had (obvious joke).

To make the counterpoint there's a difference between funding education and funding a building.

The points that could be made is have they looked into leasing space in an existing building if they're in need? Is there a program that's not popular and cut be cut to fund a more popular one or clear up space needed? Have they looked to build in a cheaper part of town or to scale back the size of the building?

Remember, this isn't about funding education, this is about the perception this is a waste of money given other alternatives, that the project could be more conservative. That UMKC is coming for something fancy over funding teacher salaries or student opportunities.

He's not wrong, it's all about value perception and how we spend tax money.
I think the building provides value, he clearly doesn't.

So for the first time in ages K-12 education is fully funded at the state level. You have to make cuts somewhere and no one is ever happy. With our infrastructure crumbling I would be hard to convince me to build a new Arts campus for a university that already has an arts building 3 miles away.

I'm not saying that it's not worth funding, but it would certainly be on my "want to" list and not my "need to".

Oh right, that's what Grietens is going to spend it on, not unneeded tax cuts or faux jobs.

flyingember wrote: Remember, this isn't about funding education, this is about the perception this is a waste of money .

Um, that's not what this is about. It's about showing Ryan Silvey who runs shit.

Being adjacent to the Kauffman is an integral part of the plan. Other locations don't offer the same opportunities for leveraging existing facilities and don't give students the ready opportunity to practice and perform in world class rooms. From that standpoint, this location is really a conservative choice.

And wasn't the land donated?

I just can't wrap my head around the cost. What about this project says $96 million when i look at something like one light which cost about $17million less.

mister816 wrote:I just can't wrap my head around the cost. What about this project says $96 million when i look at something like one light which cost about $17million less.

I'm assuming this includes operating costs and other miscellaneous costs that a university facility would require and a luxury high rise would not.

Sound abatement would raise the cost over a usual classroom building. The cost may cover equipment such as performance and practice pianos. Perhaps an organ. Performance halls would require specialized architectural design. Those things may not make up the gap you see, but there are special requirements for a building used for music education.

For $96 million couldn't they have built out the third shell of the PAC?

Yea, I thought I remember it including an endowment for the building.

mister816 wrote:I just can't wrap my head around the cost. What about this project says $96 million when i look at something like one light which cost about $17million less.

Your $17 million less doesn't include the cost of the land it's on since the already owned it.

mister816 wrote:I just can't wrap my head around the cost. What about this project says $96 million when i look at something like one light which cost about $17million less.

JBmidtown wrote: I'm assuming this includes operating costs and other miscellaneous costs that a university facility would require and a luxury high rise would not.

missingkc wrote:Sound abatement would raise the cost over a usual classroom building. The cost may cover equipment such as performance and practice pianos. Perhaps an organ. Performance halls would require specialized architectural design. Those things may not make up the gap you see, but there are special requirements for a building used for music education.

kboish wrote:Yea, I thought I remember it including an endowment for the building.

flyingember wrote:Your $17 million less doesn't include the cost of the land it's on since the already owned it.

None of these excuses offered don't even come close to the huge gap in the cost of this thing.
One Light is a 25 floor luxury apartment building built in the heart of downtown built for roughly $80 million.
This is a 3 floor educational facility in a much lower density area with already cleared, also donated land.
Yes, we are all aware that there are acoustic and performance requirements and beautiful finishes used in the design which raise the cost substantially, and the funding endowment, but there is still a huge discrepancy in the actual cost of the building and the $96 million price tag. The total cost of grand pianos is a drop in the bucket. This project is priced to include a 25 floor student market housing project. But it doesn't.

North Oak, sounds like you're pretty sure those folks at UMKC are a bunch of hucksters. I'm putting my money on the fact that they're not.

I didn't call anyone a huckster, many others here have spewed hatred and called out Greitens in judgement.

I want the Conservatory to move downtown.
They want to build the very finest facilities in the country to call attention to UMKC's programs and to attract the best student and staff talent - I get that. I know that's not cheap, I just want to see more specs about the actual building that make it cost $96 million.
That price tag is outrageous - it's clearly been a snag in this process - now even causing the state to balk.
Again, I want to see this done, it will be a tremendous boon for downtown to get 600 performing art students in the heart of the city.

The state, in fact, did not balk. Grietens did, for reasons unrelated.

Comparing the 2 projects on lump sum dollar figures is pretty silly.