Leawood's Park Place development
-
- City Center Square
- Posts: 12644
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm
Re: Leawood's Park Place development
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.
Sounds like a touch of jealousy to me.
Re: Leawood's Park Place development
"I would prefer something if it was improved in specific ways."
"YOU"RE JUST JEALOUS!"
Uh huh. 5th grade wants its ad hominem back.
"YOU"RE JUST JEALOUS!"
Uh huh. 5th grade wants its ad hominem back.
- FangKC
- City Hall
- Posts: 18205
- Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
- Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound
Re: Leawood's Park Place development
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.
Regardless, I'm always happy to see more New Urbansist development in the suburbs.“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.”
Re: Leawood's Park Place development
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!"“They have all the good aspects of the Plaza, with amenities of better parking, great security and drawing customers from a great area.”
-
- City Center Square
- Posts: 12644
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm
Re: Leawood's Park Place development
I take the quote as not as a dig to the Plaza but describing Plaza's good aspects: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.”
better parking
great security
drawing customers from a great area
All three do describe the Plaza.
Re: Leawood's Park Place development
.
Last edited by pash on Fri Feb 03, 2017 5:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Leawood's Park Place development
It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.
-
- City Center Square
- Posts: 12644
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm
Re: Leawood's Park Place development
Hope that doesn't hurt your head too much. Here is the whole quote from the article:
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.“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
-
- Alameda Tower
- Posts: 1367
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 1:51 pm
- Location: Martin City
Re: Leawood's Park Place development
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).
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.
- KCMax
- 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
Well for one thing, its basically like one street, right? The comparison is quite absurd.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).
Re: Leawood's Park Place development
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 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).
-
- Alameda Tower
- Posts: 1367
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 1:51 pm
- Location: Martin City
Re: Leawood's Park Place development
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.
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.
- KCMax
- 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
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.aknowledgeableperson wrote:I take the quote as not as a dig to the Plaza but describing Plaza's good aspects: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.”
better parking
great security
drawing customers from a great area
All three do describe the Plaza.
Re: Leawood's Park Place development
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.KCMax wrote:The Plaza doesn't draw customers from a "great area", they draw people from all over the metro.
- KCPowercat
- Ambassador
- Posts: 34010
- Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
- Location: Quality Hill
- Contact:
Re: Leawood's Park Place development
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.
What a joke of an article though. I imagine collison really didn't want to write that fluff.
Re: Leawood's Park Place development
The article should've been titled: A Half-Ass Attempt at Urbanizing the Burbs
- KCMax
- 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
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 wrote:The article should've been titled: A Half-Ass Attempt at Urbanizing the Burbs
Re: Leawood's Park Place development
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.KCMax wrote: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 wrote:The article should've been titled: A Half-Ass Attempt at Urbanizing the Burbs
- Highlander
- City Center Square
- Posts: 10208
- Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 1:40 pm
- Location: Houston
Re: Leawood's Park Place development
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.
- Highlander
- City Center Square
- Posts: 10208
- Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 1:40 pm
- Location: Houston
Re: Leawood's Park Place development
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