Proposed tower on Plaza

Discuss items in the urban core outside of Downtown as described above. Everything in the core including the east side (18th & Vine area), Northeast, Plaza, Westport, Brookside, Valentine, Waldo, 39th street, & the entire midtown area.
User avatar
GRID
City Hall
City Hall
Posts: 17159
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 12:20 pm
Contact:

Proposed tower on Plaza

Post by GRID »

I'm not sure I even like this plan. The rendering doesn't look all that great and I really do wish KC would keep the historic church and build this some place else. It's buildings like that church that give an area urban character. It seems like places like Boston and Philly don't have to tear down every structure to make room for new buildings. Why does KC when it has so much underused land?

But if it has to go...

https://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/ ... rsion.html

For the love of god, the press and residents are all against this for all the wrong reasons. It's time to let the "bowl" concept go and allow the Plaza area to develop. A 12 story building totally fits that area just fine and scales nearly perfectly. I kind of like the idea of taller buildings on the perimeter, but this building actually fits the bowl concept and will fill in the streetscape on 47th. I can't believe they even mention the word "skyscraper" let alone call this proposed 12 story building a skyscraper.

Let the Plaza be a dense urban district. If you want what's left of the retail to survive, they have got to bring in more office, residential and hotel space to the core of the plaza. Things don't stay the same forever. The plaza needs to continue to evolve and if the midtown master plan is keeping that from happening, the city needs to throw it out and start over with a more modern and urban oriented plan.
User avatar
alejandro46
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1353
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2018 11:24 pm
Location: King in the North(Land)

Re: Proposed tower on Plaza

Post by alejandro46 »

Agreed. Other surface lots available for this type of project in equitable locations. Ex. former medical building at 46th and Wornall that got shot down previously.
User avatar
WSPanic
Supporter
Posts: 3817
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: Proposed tower on Plaza

Post by WSPanic »

I would be all for "saving" this church if there were some sort of outcry/communication from the church itself. Do they want to stay? And if they do, how "utilized" is the building? These guys have services on Sunday and Wednesday - how many people attend? Is there any utilization of the building other days of the week?

I get wanting to save cool buildings, and I think this is a cool Plaza building. But, it's hard to get behind a "save this church" campaign if the congregation is 20 people and they barely use the building.

Besides - they do plan on including a Church in the new structure. Is this church being offered a similar amount of space at a similar cost in the new structure? I think these are all important questions that should be considered.

I LOVED my place of worship growing up - the building itself. But, it was actually the 3rd location for that synagogue, and it isn't there any more. As populations move, so do the places of worship. It's more about the people/congregation than it is the building.
herrfrank
Western Auto Lofts
Western Auto Lofts
Posts: 644
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 2:12 pm

Re: Proposed tower on Plaza

Post by herrfrank »

GRID wrote: Tue Dec 11, 2018 4:05 pm https://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/ ... rsion.html

For the love of god, the press and residents are all against this for all the wrong reasons. It's time to let the "bowl" concept go and allow the Plaza area to develop. A 12 story building totally fits that area just fine and scales nearly perfectly. I kind of like the idea of taller buildings on the perimeter, but this building actually fits the bowl concept and will fill in the streetscape on 47th. I can't believe they even mention the word "skyscraper" let alone call this proposed 12 story building a skyscraper.
Buildings taller than 10 stories are commonly termed "high-rise" in the trade, because they are costly/ unfeasible to build as masonry construction above that height. (See Chicago's Monadnock building for an exception and for more explanation). Shorter buildings are "low-rise."

I don't think there's any standard agreement on the height of a "skyscraper," but a building would probably need to be taller than 200 feet, maybe even 300 feet to warrant that term.

BTW, I oppose this plan. That church is historic (I think my grandmother went there in her brief Christian Science phase), and there are other nearby empty parcels to choose.
User avatar
DaveKCMO
Ambassador
Posts: 20062
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:22 pm
Location: Crossroads
Contact:

Re: Proposed tower on Plaza

Post by DaveKCMO »

No more car holes on 47th!
User avatar
smh
Supporter
Posts: 4312
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 10:40 pm
Location: Central Loop

Re: Proposed tower on Plaza

Post by smh »

DaveKCMO wrote: Tue Dec 11, 2018 4:56 pm No more car holes on 47th!
I don't think this project includes any parking.

EDIT: Because it uses the garage behind it as part of the larger tower.
flyingember
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9862
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: Proposed tower on Plaza

Post by flyingember »

Here's the pre-thread content on this

viewtopic.php?f=18&t=196&start=3760#p585897
User avatar
KCtoBrooklyn
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1261
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 4:01 pm

Re: Proposed tower on Plaza

Post by KCtoBrooklyn »

DaveKCMO wrote: Tue Dec 11, 2018 4:56 pm No more car holes on 47th!
Yeah, I see how that looks like a driveway in the rendering, but those are steps.
User avatar
Steve52
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1015
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 7:26 pm

Re: Proposed tower on Plaza

Post by Steve52 »

Honestly? The Plaza/Westport area is already a serious freaking hell hole of traffic, cars, honking horns, speeders, hostile drivers, screaming motorcycles, trucks, exhaust pollution and the QT super block nearby isn't exactly going to help fix that either. Lost cause in my opinion. Barring some kind miracle which I am not counting on at this point.
User avatar
DaveKCMO
Ambassador
Posts: 20062
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:22 pm
Location: Crossroads
Contact:

Re: Proposed tower on Plaza

Post by DaveKCMO »

Steve52 wrote: Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:06 pm Honestly? The Plaza/Westport area is already a serious freaking hell hole of traffic, cars, honking horns, speeders, hostile drivers, screaming motorcycles, trucks, exhaust pollution and the QT super block nearby isn't exactly going to help fix that either. Lost cause in my opinion. Barring some kind miracle which I am not counting on at this point.
Have you been to other cities? It's fucking cupcakeland by comparison.
User avatar
FangKC
City Hall
City Hall
Posts: 18191
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound

Re: Proposed tower on Plaza

Post by FangKC »

I'm laughing too.
User avatar
Steve52
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1015
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 7:26 pm

Re: Proposed tower on Plaza

Post by Steve52 »

Dave yes I've lived in New York, L.A. and agree but it's still a growing mess in the Nelson/Westport/Plaza area. I'd love to come up with a solution and be hailed as a hero and groundbreaking thinker but I'm not coming up with anything. Yet anyway.
flyingember
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9862
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: Proposed tower on Plaza

Post by flyingember »

Steve52 wrote: Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:06 pm Honestly? The Plaza/Westport area is already a serious freaking hell hole of traffic, cars, honking horns, speeders, hostile drivers, screaming motorcycles, trucks, exhaust pollution and the QT super block nearby isn't exactly going to help fix that either. Lost cause in my opinion. Barring some kind miracle which I am not counting on at this point.
A federal road (US 56) runs down the middle of the Plaza, it's supposed to be a car-centric area.

Summit was designed back in the 1940s to help traffic go between downtown and Johnson County quickly

and so on.

It's not bad design for people, the streets in this area are designed the way they are on purpose
User avatar
WSPanic
Supporter
Posts: 3817
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: Proposed tower on Plaza

Post by WSPanic »

Outside of the intersection at Westport Rd/SW Trafficway - and the speeds on the Trafficway, I really don't see any persistent or growing problems. Sure, there's more traffic, but there are exponentially more things to do. It's kind of why we wanted all of this stuff to happen, right?
kcjak
Penntower
Penntower
Posts: 2434
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 3:02 pm

Re: Proposed tower on Plaza

Post by kcjak »

Interesting article on the historic designation that Historic KC is fighting for - the church board says they are happy with the redevelopment and have never considered their church to be historic. They question the motives behind the designation of the church as historic and allude to the folks behind the Block building just to the north as behind the attempts to squash the development of the church site.

https://cityscenekc.com/new-plaza-prese ... partments/
User avatar
TheLastGentleman
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2927
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:27 pm

Re: Proposed tower on Plaza

Post by TheLastGentleman »

kcjak wrote: Wed Dec 12, 2018 10:40 amthe church board says they are happy with the redevelopment and have never considered their church to be historic.
This is the same city that got the flashcube on the register, amongst other modern buildings barely over 50 years old. Of course a traditionalist church building 70+ years old is considered historic
snigglefritz
Strip mall
Strip mall
Posts: 111
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:17 am

Re: Proposed tower on Plaza

Post by snigglefritz »

Regardless of ACTUAL historical nature of the church, don't the landowners need to either consent or object to a third party's petition for historic status? At least w/ regard to the National Register, the committee is not allowed to designate over the owner's protests. Does this type of limitation also apply to the KCMO historic registration process?
User avatar
chaglang
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 4132
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:44 pm

Re: Proposed tower on Plaza

Post by chaglang »

^A few things about the NR process. It may sound like semantics, but the semantics matter:

The city didn't put the Flashcube on the NR, the building owners did.
50 years has long been the age that buildings become individually eligible for the NR.
Buildings younger than 50 years can be listed if they are important examples of a style or if something important happened there.
Being 50+ years old doesn't mean a building will automatically make it on the NR. It has to have significance.
Historic and significant aren't synonyms or interchangeable.

So: the Flashcube is not over 50 but it's significant for architecture and is on the NR. And there are a lot of 100 year old buildings in KC that wouldn't be eligible because they aren't significant and will never be individually listed on the NR. "Historic" in the context you used sounds like shorthand for the NR. But it's not as simple as "building X is this style and this age and is on the NR; building Y is older and of a different style, therefore building Y must be eligible".
moderne
Oak Tower
Oak Tower
Posts: 5518
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 2:50 pm
Location: Mount Hope

Re: Proposed tower on Plaza

Post by moderne »

If the church is not a good candidate for adaptive reuse than nothing is. If the garden space cannot be used as courtyard dining/entertainment then the footprint of the building could be extended to the sidewalk on 47th. I would like to see this project more across the street from Winstead's.
User avatar
chaglang
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 4132
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:44 pm

Re: Proposed tower on Plaza

Post by chaglang »

If not a restaurant, how would you reuse it?
Post Reply