KCRag Forum

Right, Dixie Bell was in the Rieger until 2000, and then the DB complex was across the street.

1822 was still Tootsies in 2002, at least that's how I remember it!

They recently had the place that moved to Broadway where UP/Down is now. that was a fun place.

voltopt wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2019 4:38 pm Right, Dixie Bell was in the Rieger until 2000, and then the DB complex was across the street.

They briefly operated at the same time because Dixie Belle (1924) had a 3am liquor license, while the DB Complexx (two X's, thank you very much) only had a 1:30am license.

Tootsie's used to be in Midtown. 1822 was a straight nightclub before that. I think it was called Industry or Industrial? Would have been early to mid-90s.

There's permits for a Windjammer Lounge or Windjammer Bar and Restaurant 1987-1993ish. There's not much permit movement in the mid 90s, so if it changed names/hands they didn't do any work.

Ugh, 3 story office on top of 3 level parking garage podium. Seems stupid right on the streetcar line.

moderne wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2019 9:16 am Ugh, 3 story office on top of 3 level parking garage podium. Seems stupid right on the streetcar line.

120 parking spaces (3 floor garage) - 45,000 SF (3 office floors)
40-50 jobs per floor - .8 to 1 spot per job

Great, I hate it.

I hate it and the 25 year TIF.

shinatoo wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2019 9:55 am I hate it and the 25 year TIF.

TIF to move from KC to KC. No new urban core jobs. No new KCMO jobs. No new regional jobs.

langosta wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2019 9:56 am

shinatoo wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2019 9:55 am I hate it and the 25 year TIF.

TIF to move from KC to KC. No new urban core jobs. No new KCMO jobs. No new regional jobs.

No taking advantage of a great location on the streetcar line to build a significant building. This reaks of backroom politics.

FWIW there are no parking minimums here. The developer is building based on what the market is asking for. I wish it had 0 parking, but it is what it is...

grecobs wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2019 10:24 am FWIW there are no parking minimums here. The developer is building based on what the market is asking for. I wish it had 0 parking, but it is what it is...

There should at least be no driveway on Main. There is an alley behind the building, put the entrance there just like 1924 Main.

normalthings wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2019 9:35 am

moderne wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2019 9:16 am Ugh, 3 story office on top of 3 level parking garage podium. Seems stupid right on the streetcar line.

120 parking spaces (3 floor garage) - 45,000 SF (3 office floors)
40-50 jobs per floor - .8 to 1 spot per job

And the article mentions they reduced parking spaces as a result of being on the streetcar line

kcjak wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2019 10:33 am

normalthings wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2019 9:35 am

moderne wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2019 9:16 am Ugh, 3 story office on top of 3 level parking garage podium. Seems stupid right on the streetcar line.

120 parking spaces (3 floor garage) - 45,000 SF (3 office floors)
40-50 jobs per floor - .8 to 1 spot per job

And the article mentions they reduced parking spaces as a result of being on the streetcar line

The parking spot per job ratio is significantly higher than that of Strata. The market is calling for less parking in other projects - no reason why it wouldn’t here.

The least they could do is use the alley for the garage entrance.

R.I.P. bank facade

langosta wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2019 10:43 am The least they could do is use the alley for the garage entrance.

This isn't baked yet, just incentives approved. They still have to go through City Planning...

That is likely the most pathetic rendering I have ever seen. Looks like a blind 3rd grader made it. If that is any indication of the quality we will see on this project, it will be bleak.
And there's a good chance someone is going to fall off of that balcony. I hope it is the person who did the rendering.

Holy 2001 block monoliths!!!

taxi wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2019 11:20 am That is likely the most pathetic rendering I have ever seen. Looks like a blind 3rd grader made it. If that is any indication of the quality we will see on this project, it will be bleak.
And there's a good chance someone is going to fall off of that balcony. I hope it is the person who did the rendering.

Not necessarily. Remember that renderings cost money because someone needs to prepare the environment. Notice there's no neighboring buildings. A company that negotiates down their fee is going to get less quality in places it's easy to cut, like this.

And a company running software so old this is the default is going to be cheap to hire. Doesn't mean they're not skilled, it's more is a reflection on their software age. With the number of programs moving to the subscription model they may be using really old software on purpose.

A developer is also going to care more on elevation guides and the site layout since they need both to get approvals and permits. This is just about showing the massing. Who cares if it's detailed.