KCRag Forum

Posted: **Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:56 am**

chaglang wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 6:01 am Also this project is blocks from Harrison Boulevard, where the most vocal group of the NIMBYs live. So they may not care because it doesn’t bring the deep, existential threat of a renter parking directly in front of their house.

I actually think there are more NIMBYs around this project. Since the previous discussions focussed heavily on Armour and Troost, this project was more of an afterthought and the neighbors weren't too noisy.

Shortly after the Newbern was re-opened by MAC, there were some neighbors in that area angry over traffic/parking (it seems like some people on Kenwood were the worst). Being more centrally located in the neighborhood, this will have a larger pool of residents to draw complaints from. Even people on Janssen Place have expressed concern.

Hopefully, this will fly under the radar and make it through before the NIMBYs can organize. It may make it through CPC, but then does it have to go to BZA and/or full council?

My guess is that MAC may need to proved at least the number of currently required parking spaces (94, vs the 77 they have proposed). That doesn't even factor in the displaced Newbern parking (I bet some neighbors would want 94 in addition to what is already there). Although, I hope I'm wrong.

Posted: **Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:07 am**

Wow, potential plan for 520 E Armour looks great. Can't tell from those images if ground floor retail is planned but I certainly hope so - that stretch of Armour desperately needs additional retail to really come alive, IMO, even with the planned space at Armour/Troost.

Love the scale and what looks like a solid, conservative design. Wish more infill throughout the city and especially near Plaza shared a similar size and aesthetic. Here's hoping it passes with flying colors.

Posted: **Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:36 am**

rxlexi wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:07 am Wow, potential plan for 520 E Armour looks great. Can't tell from those images if ground floor retail is planned but I certainly hope so - that stretch of Armour desperately needs additional retail to really come alive, IMO, even with the planned space at Armour/Troost.

Love the scale and what looks like a solid, conservative design. Wish more infill throughout the city and especially near Plaza shared a similar size and aesthetic. Here's hoping it passes with flying colors.

No retail. Only a small entry vestibule. The rest is covered parking.

Posted: **Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:53 am**

Looks very classy and like a great addition to Armour.

I really want to know what they are planning for the Troost/Armour intersection. More traditional or modern? I'd love to see a little of both.

Posted: **Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:10 pm**

It is unfortunate that there won't be retail with this building. I think it would be great to have some commercial space on Armour between Gillham and Troost, and this was probably the best opportunity for that. I don't know if MAC thought that it would be even harder to get zoning approval for mixed-use, or if residential is just more comfortable and profitable for them.

MAC did say at one point that the buildings at Armour and Troost would be modern architecturally. A few neighbors latched onto this as a way to generate fear that we would get 4 buildings like the one at 34th and Main. I do think most neighbors are fine with modern, but I wouldn't be surprised if they do stay conservative/traditional with at least some of the designs.

MAC has always said they would use 4 different architects for each building to avoid a uniform look. I assume that is still the case. I have heard that they are currently working on getting drawings for the buildings before going to BZA and that is one of the main reasons for the hold up.

Posted: **Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:04 pm**

chaglang wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 6:01 am They may be able to get this through CPC. Armour and Troost passed 5-0, with the Central Hyde Parkers drawing a lecture from Commission members on parking and urbanism.

Is there video of this lecturing?

Posted: **Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:12 pm**

KCtoBrooklyn wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:10 pm ...I think it would be great to have some commercial space on Armour between Gillham and Troost, and this was probably the best opportunity for that. I don't know if MAC thought that it would be even harder to get zoning approval for mixed-use, or if residential is just more comfortable and profitable for them.

Wouldn't commercial space potentially require even more parking?

MAC did say at one point that the buildings at Armour and Troost would be modern architecturally. A few neighbors latched onto this as a way to generate fear that we would get 4 buildings like the one at 34th and Main. I do think most neighbors are fine with modern, but I wouldn't be surprised if they do stay conservative/traditional with at least some of the designs.

As opposed to concrete block strip mall buildings?

https://tinyurl.com/y8h6v2ha

They could have had traditional had they fought to have the former "supermarket" building included in the design of the SW corner.

MAC has always said they would use 4 different architects for each building to avoid a uniform look.

This is a good idea. I wish more developers did this.

Posted: **Wed Oct 10, 2018 4:25 pm**

Then how did Cordish get a uniform look by using different architects?

Posted: **Wed Oct 10, 2018 6:16 pm**

Cordish got the same result because the architects were all given the same parameters and told to make them look like a family of buildings. If you are given the same canvas and paint as another artist, and told to make your painting look like it is from the same collection, it will look pretty similar to the first artists painting. Hopefully Mac doesn't do the same thing.

Posted: **Wed Oct 10, 2018 7:24 pm**

FangKC wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:04 pm
chaglang wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 6:01 am They may be able to get this through CPC. Armour and Troost passed 5-0, with the Central Hyde Parkers drawing a lecture from Commission members on parking and urbanism.
Is there video of this lecturing?

Maybe, but good luck finding it on OpenData.

Posted: **Wed Oct 10, 2018 7:32 pm**

KCtoBrooklyn wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:10 pm It is unfortunate that there won't be retail with this building. I think it would be great to have some commercial space on Armour between Gillham and Troost, and this was probably the best opportunity for that. I don't know if MAC thought that it would be even harder to get zoning approval for mixed-use, or if residential is just more comfortable and profitable for them.

MAC did say at one point that the buildings at Armour and Troost would be modern architecturally. A few neighbors latched onto this as a way to generate fear that we would get 4 buildings like the one at 34th and Main. I do think most neighbors are fine with modern, but I wouldn't be surprised if they do stay conservative/traditional with at least some of the designs.

MAC has always said they would use 4 different architects for each building to avoid a uniform look. I assume that is still the case. I have heard that they are currently working on getting drawings for the buildings before going to BZA and that is one of the main reasons for the hold up.

I remember MAC saying that they are primarily apartment guys, not retail guys. So my hunch is they defer to housing whenever they can. Not saying that's right or wrong, just giving some background.

The modern architecture thing on Troost is actually kind of a big deal. The current HPNA president has said that he will support the design guidelines in the Troost Overlay (also, he has to... because it's an ordinance), but he definitely referred to the Main building in unflattering terms and has gotten some of the HKC types riled up because of it.

I heard the same thing about the architects, but the wrinkle with that the BZA sidetracking is 100% Shields' doing. This dumb project would be under construction if Jim Glover had run even a reasonably competent campaign in 2015.

Posted: **Tue Nov 13, 2018 5:16 pm**

Rendering for the Armour and Cherry proposal:

Posted: **Tue Nov 13, 2018 5:23 pm**

Looks good. Sympathetic to Armour, but not a recreation. But is that real hand stacked brick or faux "brick panels?"

Posted: **Tue Nov 13, 2018 5:34 pm**

I assume it will be brick veneer. It seems that is all anyone uses anymore, due to costs.

It seems like that can look hit or miss. When it is done well, it can be hard to tell a difference.

Posted: **Tue Nov 13, 2018 5:44 pm**

It looks awful when the installation isn't perfect. At the hotel at 16th & Baltimore the panels are not all on the same plane and especially at night with the angle of the lighting it looks like the walls are bulging in and out.

Posted: **Tue Nov 13, 2018 7:53 pm**

It looks fine till you get to the roof. There should be a more ornate cap on that thing. All that work to match the neighborhood and you just slap 4” coping at the top? Weird move.

Posted: **Tue Nov 13, 2018 9:04 pm**

This forum had a vote and outlawed 'caps'...

Posted: **Tue Nov 13, 2018 9:30 pm**

loftguy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 13, 2018 9:04 pm This forum had a vote and outlawed 'caps'...

Cool...

I agree that most newer buildings constructed with “hats” look arbitrary or clunky. I’m arguing for capping the building; in this case it fits with the historical styling. Even just adding a 1ft band of light stone below the highest floor would help to ground this thing better. The right flank of the building grounds itself with the differen color brick, but then it’s like they sorta ran out of gas detailing the main body.

Overall it looks really nice and that’s why I’m nitpicking. It’s frustrating when a building is 95% right

Posted: **Tue Nov 13, 2018 9:36 pm**

I'm glad they at least made the top row of bays slightly different. So many modern buildings end abruptly at a seemingly arbitrary height.

Even miesian buildings knew to change things up at the top.

Posted: **Wed Nov 14, 2018 8:34 am**

KCtoBrooklyn wrote: ↑Tue Nov 13, 2018 5:34 pm I assume it will be brick veneer. It seems that is all anyone uses anymore, due to costs.

It seems like that can look hit or miss. When it is done well, it can be hard to tell a difference.

Brick veneer as in thin brick, or as in brick cavity wall? I've seen a few masonry cavity wall buildings go up recently. (Nobody does load-bearing masonry.) There is a thin brick grid attachment system out there that gets away from the pre-made panel construction. Those panels never look quite right, and I think it's because of the expansion joints. Expansion joint location goes a long way to disguising thin brick (good) or making full-size brick look like brick veneer (bad).

The parapet is abrupt but doesn't look all that different than a fair number or postwar brick buildings. There are good and bad examples of that all over town. If I had to guess, the overall design was largely driven by a desire to get the project through anti-modern contingent at the HPNA. Shrug.

KCRag Forum

Renovations of apartment buildings along Armour Blvd.

Re: Renovations of apartment buildings along Armour Blvd.

Re: Renovations of apartment buildings along Armour Blvd.

Re: Renovations of apartment buildings along Armour Blvd.

Re: Renovations of apartment buildings along Armour Blvd.

Re: Renovations of apartment buildings along Armour Blvd.

Re: Renovations of apartment buildings along Armour Blvd.

Re: Renovations of apartment buildings along Armour Blvd.

Re: Renovations of apartment buildings along Armour Blvd.

Re: Renovations of apartment buildings along Armour Blvd.

Re: Renovations of apartment buildings along Armour Blvd.

Re: Renovations of apartment buildings along Armour Blvd.

Re: Renovations of apartment buildings along Armour Blvd.

Re: Renovations of apartment buildings along Armour Blvd.

Re: Renovations of apartment buildings along Armour Blvd.

Re: Renovations of apartment buildings along Armour Blvd.

Re: Renovations of apartment buildings along Armour Blvd.

Re: Renovations of apartment buildings along Armour Blvd.

Re: Renovations of apartment buildings along Armour Blvd.

Re: Renovations of apartment buildings along Armour Blvd.

Re: Renovations of apartment buildings along Armour Blvd.