Westport
Re: Westport's fate post-P&L
Looks like this is Opus Group. Same dev. group behind the Faultless Linen Crossroads apt. project. They are all of the sudden getting active!
The irony of this development group; the site leader in KC is Dan Coffey's daughter (Citizen's for Responsible Gov't). https://www.opus-group.com/Expertise/Devon-Coffey
The irony of this development group; the site leader in KC is Dan Coffey's daughter (Citizen's for Responsible Gov't). https://www.opus-group.com/Expertise/Devon-Coffey
Re: Westport's fate post-P&L
Oh my god I hope they ask for an abatement. That would be TOO good.hartliss wrote:Looks like this is Opus Group. Same dev. group behind the Faultless Linen Crossroads apt. project. They are all of the sudden getting active!
The irony of this development group; the site leader in KC is Dan Coffey's daughter (Citizen's for Responsible Gov't). https://www.opus-group.com/Expertise/Devon-Coffey
Re: Westport's fate post-P&L
https://kansascity.craigslist.org/apa/6018533323.html
$1500 for a one-bed on Broadway with street-parking? "West Portlandia?" I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
$1500 for a one-bed on Broadway with street-parking? "West Portlandia?" I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
- KCtoBrooklyn
- Alameda Tower
- Posts: 1260
- Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 4:01 pm
Re: Westport's fate post-P&L
The proposed building looks to be wider than the BOA building, so it could actually wrap around it. But now that I see how the facade of the bank building is no longer original, I'm fine with losing it.NorthOak wrote:
Re: Westport's fate post-P&L
I haven't heard anything that makes me think this building is particularly historic and do not think we should be interested in preserving what amounts to the structural footprint of an old building.
This is an E-W connector for Westport and a N-S connector for plaza to downtown. In other words its a major node that is massively underutilized given its current parking and drive-thru configuration. The proposed building looks to be a great replacement and fit for the context.
This is an E-W connector for Westport and a N-S connector for plaza to downtown. In other words its a major node that is massively underutilized given its current parking and drive-thru configuration. The proposed building looks to be a great replacement and fit for the context.
- KCtoBrooklyn
- Alameda Tower
- Posts: 1260
- Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 4:01 pm
Re: Westport's fate post-P&L
Oh good lord. They have actually named the building West Portlandia? I thought you just said that tongue-in-cheek.chrizow wrote:https://kansascity.craigslist.org/apa/6018533323.html
$1500 for a one-bed on Broadway with street-parking? "West Portlandia?" I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
It really bothers me that they painted the brick on that building. It looks so much worse than before (although the new balcony railings are much better than the fences that used to be there).
These were renovated by Pulse Development, the group behind the 12 story proposal on Pennsylvania.
Re: Westport's fate post-P&L
FTFY!rxlexi wrote:Great to see more residential proposed for Westport. It may actually become a real urban neighborhood someday soon.
Re: Westport's fate post-P&L
Jesus, you're such a Brooksider. Maybe you didn't see they have been "newly re-envisioned"? These are some of the wokest apartments you can find. SMH.chrizow wrote:https://kansascity.craigslist.org/apa/6018533323.html
$1500 for a one-bed on Broadway with street-parking? "West Portlandia?" I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
Re: Westport's fate post-P&L
But Kansas City is east of Portland, OR...
Re: Westport's fate post-P&L
The name is stupid, the painted brick is ugly, and I never understand why people paint over wood molding (why not paint the hardwood floors while you're at it, ya lemon?) but other than that they look fairly nice.
But Westport is its own landia... I guess...? I can't defend it.JBmidtown wrote:But Kansas City is east of Portland, OR...
-
- Mark Twain Tower
- Posts: 8514
- Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:27 pm
- Location: milky way, orion arm
Re: Westport's fate post-P&L
There is a case for concern on tearing down Westport Bank building that's probably 100 years old... it could set precedence to tear down more buidings in Westport and Old Westport becomes no more, or a fragment.. Westport is about the oldest significantly built up area in the metro. Should only a few 'substantial' historical buildings be saved? The SW corner was already town down (likely over 100 years old), which was not a huge loss and replaced with something good enough but at what point does anyone care?
Re: Westport's fate post-P&L
if we were having this argument about a teardown for surface parking or strip mall, take it to the streets. to build MORE density and with decent urban form, though...earthling wrote:There is a case for concern on tearing down Westport Bank building that's probably 100 years old... it could set precedence to tear down more buidings in Westport and Old Westport becomes no more, or a fragment.. Westport is about the oldest significantly built up area in the metro. Should only a few 'substantial' historical buildings be saved? The SW corner was already town down (likely over 100 years old), which was not a huge loss and replaced with something good enough but at what point does anyone care?
-
- Mark Twain Tower
- Posts: 8514
- Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:27 pm
- Location: milky way, orion arm
Re: Westport's fate post-P&L
They can build more density and urban form with the huge lot next to Westport Bank, it's extends back a block to Central St. The building doesn't have to be torn down to accomplish better urbanity. I'm not completely opposed as the project should give area a needed boost but there are so many surface lots of various sizes around Westport you don't have to tear down 100 year old buildings to accomplish it.
Not tree hugging this one, but if no one cares, developers may tear down a lot more of Westport.
Not tree hugging this one, but if no one cares, developers may tear down a lot more of Westport.
Re: Westport's fate post-P&L
There are plenty of legit preservation candidates quietly crumbling in Westport, but this one probably lacks the historic integrity to even be considered as a contributing structure to a NR district. Someone called it a historic foundation, and that's pretty accurate.
I'm guessing the 100+ y.o. building you mention on the SW corner is the one that was demolished before the old Starbucks/Peachwave building went in. The building that was recently demolished was maybe 50 years old.
I'm guessing the 100+ y.o. building you mention on the SW corner is the one that was demolished before the old Starbucks/Peachwave building went in. The building that was recently demolished was maybe 50 years old.
-
- Mark Twain Tower
- Posts: 8514
- Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:27 pm
- Location: milky way, orion arm
Re: Westport's fate post-P&L
The old Starbucks now HopCat appeared at least 100 years old looking at pictures that were posted here showing window structure style of the back walls. Was that old world Irish style window frame.
I guess my point is... fill up surface lots before tearing down old buildings that are still functional. The lot next to Westport Bank is massive and can still be a 500+ unit residential project w/out tearing down bank building.
Now the old Keith Coldsnow building a couple blocks E on Westport is a crappy not very old building that definitely should be torn down for a project like this.
I guess my point is... fill up surface lots before tearing down old buildings that are still functional. The lot next to Westport Bank is massive and can still be a 500+ unit residential project w/out tearing down bank building.
Now the old Keith Coldsnow building a couple blocks E on Westport is a crappy not very old building that definitely should be torn down for a project like this.
Re: Westport's fate post-P&L
I see the post you're referencing, thanks. The arched windows are an old style, but there's a reasonable chance they were stuck in a new building in order to be contextual. Three reasons I suspect that: one, the arched windows on the BOA are not original. They don't appear (AFAIK) on the 1940 photo. They were probably added in order to look old timely. Two, there were empty beam pockets in the wall the Starbucks shared with the building to the west. If the Starbucks were original, those beam pockets would probably have been used. And three, there are photos somewhere online of a 3-4 story building on that site.
This is a tangent, yes, but on the chance that the Starbucks was the remnant of a much taller building that had been drastically remade, the question would remain: what exactly are we preserving? Is it a 100 year old building or a 100 year old fragment? I'd say the former is worth fighting for. The latter isn't. For both of these buildings, it looks like the damage to the historic integrity was done decades ago.
Under all that EIFS on the Coldsnow building, there may be a decent old building underneath.
This is a tangent, yes, but on the chance that the Starbucks was the remnant of a much taller building that had been drastically remade, the question would remain: what exactly are we preserving? Is it a 100 year old building or a 100 year old fragment? I'd say the former is worth fighting for. The latter isn't. For both of these buildings, it looks like the damage to the historic integrity was done decades ago.
Under all that EIFS on the Coldsnow building, there may be a decent old building underneath.
-
- Mark Twain Tower
- Posts: 9862
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am
Re: Westport's fate post-P&L
The related question, is do we fight to save an old building that's hard to use with a ton of parking at the expense of a better overall neighborhood?
- AlbertHammond
- New York Life
- Posts: 355
- Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 9:52 am
Re: Westport's fate post-P&L
There goes my plan to put the metro's largest drive-up bank teller canopy on the historic preservation list.
-
- Mark Twain Tower
- Posts: 8514
- Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:27 pm
- Location: milky way, orion arm
Re: Westport's fate post-P&L
However you can save the building and build a massive 500+ unit in the large lots, as high as they want to go and turn the bank into a restaurant or something, exposing the brick walls. There can be a win-win scenario if they simply change the design. Maybe it's not worth saving and I personally wouldn't fight it but am more concerned about long term precedent it sets for developers that tearing down old buildings in Westport is OK. Is one of the oldest parts of the metro built up to that degree. The Old Westport aspect isn't just a few buildings, it's the built up area of that era. Tear down all but a few 'key' buildings and you no longer have Old Westport, you have a remnant of it.flyingember wrote:The related question, is do we fight to save an old building that's hard to use with a ton of parking at the expense of a better overall neighborhood?
-
- Mark Twain Tower
- Posts: 9862
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am
Re: Westport's fate post-P&L
Can you?
That idea looks good on paper but may not be practical. Height has additional costs as does historical preservation.
It's entirely possible they're being lazy and could do this, it's also possible they will need to drop the project and the lot gets used for parking for a decade.
At this point it's up to the city to find out which would be the case if they were to put back and require preservation.
The key point that needs to be made over and over is there are four options on the table with old buildings and only two are good ones
1. Maintain and build new around, on top of or such
2. Maintain and do nothing for who knows how long, the building could be empty for many years
3. The owners don't maintain and it needs to be torn down and becomes parking
4. Tear down and get a known project
The end goal isn't about historic preservation, it's about identifying the odds of the other three scenarios if we say no.
That idea looks good on paper but may not be practical. Height has additional costs as does historical preservation.
It's entirely possible they're being lazy and could do this, it's also possible they will need to drop the project and the lot gets used for parking for a decade.
At this point it's up to the city to find out which would be the case if they were to put back and require preservation.
The key point that needs to be made over and over is there are four options on the table with old buildings and only two are good ones
1. Maintain and build new around, on top of or such
2. Maintain and do nothing for who knows how long, the building could be empty for many years
3. The owners don't maintain and it needs to be torn down and becomes parking
4. Tear down and get a known project
The end goal isn't about historic preservation, it's about identifying the odds of the other three scenarios if we say no.