Leawood's Park Place development

Find out what's going on in the Sunflower State's portions of the Metro here.
aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12644
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: Leawood's Park Place development

Post by aknowledgeableperson »

There was development surrounding the vacant land that became Park Place and it had been awhile since it was a "cornfield".

Sounds like a touch of jealousy to me.
mean
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 11238
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 9:00 am
Location: Historic Northeast

Re: Leawood's Park Place development

Post by mean »

"I would prefer something if it was improved in specific ways."

"YOU"RE JUST JEALOUS!"

Uh huh. 5th grade wants its ad hominem back.
User avatar
FangKC
City Hall
City Hall
Posts: 18205
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound

Re: Leawood's Park Place development

Post by FangKC »

I take this as a dig against the Plaza--especially the security comment. I still can't believe people from Johnson County think the Plaza has a parking problem. I have never had a problem finding parking on the Plaza.
“It’s the Country Club Plaza of the suburbs, the closest thing you can get in Johnson County,” said Ken Block, a respected Kansas City commercial real estate professional.

“They have all the good aspects of the Plaza, with amenities of better parking, great security and drawing customers from a great area.”
Regardless, I'm always happy to see more New Urbansist development in the suburbs.
mean
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 11238
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 9:00 am
Location: Historic Northeast

Re: Leawood's Park Place development

Post by mean »

“They have all the good aspects of the Plaza, with amenities of better parking, great security and drawing customers from a great area.
My lord, the guy might as well have said, "They have all the good aspects of the Plaza, with amenities of better parking, great security, and fewer minorities!"
aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12644
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: Leawood's Park Place development

Post by aknowledgeableperson »

FangKC wrote:I take this as a dig against the Plaza--especially the security comment. I still can't believe people from Johnson County think the Plaza has a parking problem. I have never had a problem finding parking on the Plaza.
“They have all the good aspects of the Plaza, with amenities of better parking, great security and drawing customers from a great area.”
I take the quote as not as a dig to the Plaza but describing Plaza's good aspects:
better parking
great security
drawing customers from a great area

All three do describe the Plaza.
pash
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3800
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 2:47 am

Re: Leawood's Park Place development

Post by pash »

.
Last edited by pash on Fri Feb 03, 2017 5:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
kcmetro
One Park Place
One Park Place
Posts: 6687
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 6:19 pm

Re: Leawood's Park Place development

Post by kcmetro »

It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.

Image
aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12644
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: Leawood's Park Place development

Post by aknowledgeableperson »

Hope that doesn't hurt your head too much. Here is the whole quote from the article:
“It’s the Country Club Plaza of the suburbs, the closest thing you can get in Johnson County,” said Ken Block, a respected Kansas City commercial real estate professional.

“They have all the good aspects of the Plaza, with amenities of better parking, great security and drawing customers from a great area.”

Read more here: http://joco913.com/news/the-best-card-i ... rylink=cpy
Block has his corporate office on the Plaza so I doubt he fits into FANG's "people from Johnson County" and doubt he would "dig" where his office is located.
knucklehead
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1367
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 1:51 pm
Location: Martin City

Re: Leawood's Park Place development

Post by knucklehead »

My office is currently in Park Place. No one but a JOCO propagandist would compare Park Place to the plaza. It is even a big step below Zona Rosa.

It is a nice development but parking for office employees is somewhat of a hassle. They have what we refer to as the parking Nazi's that are always trying to find office tenant's parking in spaces meant for customers. They restrict office employees to the fifth floor of the parking garage unless they pay $50 a month to park on a lower level.

I didn't read the article, but I am assuming they made a big deal out of the ludircus incentives AMC got to move to park place (basically free rent for 12 years).
Last edited by knucklehead on Thu Jan 19, 2012 10:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
KCMax
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 24051
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 3:31 pm
Location: The basement of a Ross Dress for Less
Contact:

Re: Leawood's Park Place development

Post by KCMax »

knucklehead wrote:My office is currently in Park Place. Noone but a propagandists would compare Park Place to the plaza. It is a nice development but parking for office employees is somewhat of a hassle. They have what we refer to as the parking Nazi's that are always trying to find office tenant's parking in spaces meant for customers. They also restrict office employees to the fifth floor of the parking garage unless they pay $50 a month to park on a lower level.

I didn't read the article, but I am assuming they made a big deal out of the ludircus incentives AMC got to move to park place (basically free rent for 12 years).
Well for one thing, its basically like one street, right? The comparison is quite absurd.
kcjak
Penntower
Penntower
Posts: 2434
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 3:02 pm

Re: Leawood's Park Place development

Post by kcjak »

knucklehead wrote:I didn't read the article, but I am assuming they made a big deal out of the ludircus incentives AMC got to move to park place (basically free rent for 12 years).
Hmmm maybe the P&L tenants or Cordish should look into subsidizing new business development or current business retention with the thinking that people working downtown will end up spending money at their establishments.
knucklehead
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1367
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 1:51 pm
Location: Martin City

Re: Leawood's Park Place development

Post by knucklehead »

Shopping is basically one street about three blocks long.

Most of the shops are women's clothing and stuff like that which I am not interested in. My guess is they all have fairly high prices. There is a learning store and an acquirium store. I haven't been in either. My window overlooks the big barber shop. I don't understand how it is staying in business. I see very few customers at that place.

For resturants you have Ingrediant which is my go to carryout place for lunch (it is less than 50 feet from my office). But they are raising prices and cutting portions (Now $11 for a turkey burger with one small side once you pay the tax).

Pizza Kitchen is ok. Gordon Birsch is ok but pretty pricy for a routine lunch. A cobb salad and tea runs about $18 with tip. The cajun place is not popular with our crowd. Menu is small and bland. There is a new Italian place that was giving out pretty big portions for lunch carryout last time I tried it. Nothing special.

The best place for lunch in the area is Herford House. It is pretty close but you have to drive to get there unless you are just killing time. They have a good Buffalo Chicken sandwich (with a side) for about $8 before tax and tip. Much better than what you get at Ingredient. The burgers are also good.

I understand the sushi place in the W hotel is packed at night but I haven't been there (to old to be into Suschi). My boss indicated it appears to be a hang out for 20 somethings at night , more of a bar atmosphere.

All in all I like it. It's better than being in Corporate Woods where were were before this. At least you can walk to lunch. But to compare it to the Plaza is just embarrassing.
User avatar
KCMax
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 24051
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 3:31 pm
Location: The basement of a Ross Dress for Less
Contact:

Re: Leawood's Park Place development

Post by KCMax »

aknowledgeableperson wrote:
FangKC wrote:I take this as a dig against the Plaza--especially the security comment. I still can't believe people from Johnson County think the Plaza has a parking problem. I have never had a problem finding parking on the Plaza.
“They have all the good aspects of the Plaza, with amenities of better parking, great security and drawing customers from a great area.”
I take the quote as not as a dig to the Plaza but describing Plaza's good aspects:
better parking
great security
drawing customers from a great area

All three do describe the Plaza.
That doesn't really describe the Plaza at all. The Plaza doesn't draw customers from a "great area", they draw people from all over the metro. Park Place only draws people who are within a 10-15 minute drive, south JoCoers.
mean
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 11238
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 9:00 am
Location: Historic Northeast

Re: Leawood's Park Place development

Post by mean »

KCMax wrote:The Plaza doesn't draw customers from a "great area", they draw people from all over the metro.
Of course, what the person in the article is pretty obviously referring to is that the plaza is relatively near a not-great-area known as the east side, where scary black people live, and those scary black people are known to occasionally visit the plaza. Sometimes even in large, unruly groups. And sometimes they commit crimes! Pretending that this subtext is not obvious is absurd.
User avatar
KCPowercat
Ambassador
Posts: 34010
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
Location: Quality Hill
Contact:

Re: Leawood's Park Place development

Post by KCPowercat »

I actually took it as AKP did. Those items were describing the plaza. Although it was phrased odd. By drawing from a great area I took that to mean regionally.

What a joke of an article though. I imagine collison really didn't want to write that fluff.
kcmetro
One Park Place
One Park Place
Posts: 6687
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 6:19 pm

Re: Leawood's Park Place development

Post by kcmetro »

The article should've been titled: A Half-Ass Attempt at Urbanizing the Burbs
User avatar
KCMax
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 24051
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 3:31 pm
Location: The basement of a Ross Dress for Less
Contact:

Re: Leawood's Park Place development

Post by KCMax »

kcmetro wrote:The article should've been titled: A Half-Ass Attempt at Urbanizing the Burbs
I can't recall what the original plan was and I don't feel like going back in this thread, but is that all they planned? Seems like it could be a really neat area if it wasn't just basically one street and then the strip mall parking gulag of Town Center.
kcmetro
One Park Place
One Park Place
Posts: 6687
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 6:19 pm

Re: Leawood's Park Place development

Post by kcmetro »

KCMax wrote:
kcmetro wrote:The article should've been titled: A Half-Ass Attempt at Urbanizing the Burbs
I can't recall what the original plan was and I don't feel like going back in this thread, but is that all they planned? Seems like it could be a really neat area if it wasn't just basically one street and then the strip mall parking gulag of Town Center.
Yeah I'm not sure, but it would've been cool if Town Center hadn't been built and they just made that entire area more of a Zona Rosa-like development, incorporating in the stores that already exist in TC.
User avatar
Highlander
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 10208
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 1:40 pm
Location: Houston

Re: Leawood's Park Place development

Post by Highlander »

God, that article was stupid. First and foremost, the biggest problem with new urbanism is that they are essentially inverted malls. There is a bit of walkability (malls have that too of course) but their footprint is about the size of a suburban mall and they are completely surrounded by major 3-4 lane roads cutting them off from the nearby neighborhoods that, themselves, are designed for car traffic and isolation with only one or two entry points. Absolutely no integration. Consequently, we aren't urbanizing anything. I suppose it's better than Town Center (or is it Centre) Plaza but only by a slim margin. I've been to Park Place and it's not very compelling. I don't find many new urbanism projects compelling, they should really be termed new suburbanism because that is what they are.
User avatar
Highlander
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 10208
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 1:40 pm
Location: Houston

Re: Leawood's Park Place development

Post by Highlander »

Highlander wrote:God, that article was stupid. First and foremost, the biggest problem with new urbanism is that they are essentially inverted malls. There is a bit of walkability (malls have that too of course) but their footprint is about the size of a suburban mall and they are completely surrounded by major 3-4 lane roads cutting them off from the nearby neighborhoods that, themselves, are designed for car traffic and isolation with only one or two entry points. Absolutely no integration. Consequently, we aren't urbanizing anything. I suppose it's better than Town Center (or is it Centre) Plaza but only by a slim margin. I've been to Park Place and it's not very compelling. I don't find many new urbanism projects compelling, they should really be termed new suburbanism because that is what they are. I'm not sure we can create new "urbanism" in the US...at least not where I've seen it attempted
Post Reply