KCRag Forum

I would be ok with this project if they made another pass to make it more compatible to the aesthetics of "Historic Westport". What that means, is different to each person, but there is no attempt at all to make this building look "Westporty". It looks like any ol' place in the U.S. It's ok looking, but does not speak "Westport" in the slightest. This site is simply too critical to waste this opportunity to build on the physical Westport brand.

do we even have a westport brand other than "entertainment district with covered wagon"?

I'd actually prefer new developments just go more modern. The idea that getting a developer to slap some brick on the side of their building to make it 'fit with the neighborhood' doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Westport is a mosh mash. We should just be pushing for higher end finishes and walkabikity than trying to make a uniform look.

The opposition to this project has fuck-all to do with bricks. It is 100% an objection to increased traffic, decreased parking, and the height of the building/how many people might live there.

chingon wrote:The opposition to this project has fuck-all to do with bricks. It is 100% an objection to increased traffic, decreased parking, and the height of the building/how many people might live there.

Bingo!

beautyfromashes wrote:I'd actually prefer new developments just go more modern. The idea that getting a developer to slap some brick on the side of their building to make it 'fit with the neighborhood' doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Westport is a mosh mash. We should just be pushing for higher end finishes and walkabikity than trying to make a uniform look.

Agreed. I'd hate for it to be an Old-Timey Disneyland building.

chingon wrote:The opposition to this project has fuck-all to do with bricks. It is 100% an objection to increased traffic, decreased parking, and the height of the building/how many people might live there.

Yes, was more responding to AlbertHammod above. Actually, probably has more to do with entrenched neighborhood/don't change vs. building something new.

It can be modern and still speak to the "Westport brand". Yes, Westport is a mish-mash of styles, but it has an overall feel that hints at a theme. Is "brick" part of the brand?...probably, but not necessarily. Is "walkability" and "pedestrian scale" part of the brand?...hell yes.

To think that "old-timey" is what it takes to enhance the "Westport brand", is shallow thought.

Westport feels a lot like a small town downtown where some older buildings are mixed with mid century properties.

Go to downtown Sedalia, Smithville, Clinton, Liberty, Parkville and that's what Westport is.

Meanwhile places like Liberty and Sedalia and Parkville have put a lot of money into walkability of their downtown. If someone went to Liberty and wanted to put this project downtown I bet it would be a bit smaller but approved.

Project was approved yesterday by a 3-2 vote.

kcjak wrote:Project was approved yesterday by a 3-2 vote.

for someone that doesn't want to read back, this was the zoning change, not project approval.

I thought zoning was 5-0 and out of committee 3-2

grovester wrote:I thought zoning was 5-0 and out of committee 3-2

you could be right, still doesn't mean the project is approved

You don't say.

It was passed out of Planning and heading to Council committee.

TheBigChuckbowski wrote:It was passed out of Planning and heading to Council committee.

The Council is supposed to vote on this development tomorrow, and the lady from the Midtown Post/Save Westport is hitting up social media asking folks to oppose the development by contacting the council members and to show up at the meeting tomorrow.

I emailed the council members just now (in support of the development), as I believe the Save Westport group's concerns are unfounded.

Passed Council committee 3-1.

Passed 8-2. Shields and Wagner were "no".

kcjak wrote:

TheBigChuckbowski wrote:I emailed the council members just now (in support of the development), as I believe the Save Westport group's concerns are unfounded.

Well there are also those of us in between. Do the project even taller but save the bank building. Let's hope this doesn't set a precedence for developers coming in and tearing down more of the oldest buildings that define Westport. Overall glad to see more residential going in but not at the expense of tearing down the oldest buildings.

I don't think you could have scripted a better photo of more curmudgeonly NIMBY stereotypes than this pic from the star: