StrangerThings wrote:You know what happens when a mid-sized city goes decades in between building high rise buildings? Massive changes in popular design. This “glass wall” argument is exhausting and frutile.
Is it Cordish’s responsibility and financial burden to go out of their way to build drastically different buildings to maintain how it looks from a certain vantage point? Shouldn’t we be looking at the fact that this city’s most iconic high rise buildings have all been built in clusters during certain decades?
The early 1900’s,commerce and others. The 30’s, 909 walnut, PNL and others. The 80’s, OKCP, Town pavilion, AT&T. Now, 1-4 Light, 30 years after the most recent serious high rise downtown construction. So is it shocking that designs and preferred finishes have changed in the last 30 years? You’ll notice all those iconic buildings are very similar in style if built within the same decade. I’m sure shit was talked in the 80’s when ground was broke on one KC place and Town Pavilion about how they were going to ruin the beautiful skyline with all that glass which would block the Art Deco decor of the buildings constructed 50 years prior. :/
I totally understand where you are coming from. All I'm saying is I hope that Cordish will do what they can to make the buildings look attractive when all lined up next to each other along a barrier (the freeway). Hopefully over time new buildings will go up and the skyline will continue to evolve, but why not try to address the glass wall thing as much as possible rather than blowing it off? I have supported everything about the Cordish towers from day one, including the incentives, but I also don't see what the big deal is about trying to improve how they will look in the landscape of the city either. The cowboy sign, the huge one light two light three light etc. The city should have more control over some of the aesthetics otherwise cordish (or any other private company) will do what they want.