P&L District: 14th & Main Site Proposal

[Long]

i am not saying save the lot. i am saying, with that lot and that building on that block, it seems to be easier to just redo the whole block versus saving that one building, which is not THAT great

It is easier.  No one said it wouldn't be.

It's more a matter of principle.  People make all these arguments about why old buildings should be saved, preserving history, etc. etc. but ultimately it comes down to saving buildings that look a certain way because that is the "in" thing to do, while feeling indifferent to other styles.

[Long]

[KCN]

I am trying to see things from Long's perspective....I really am.  You make very good points.  But I still can't warm up to the idea of integrating this building into P&L no matter how hard I try.  The west side is kinda cool but the east and north sides are horrid and unacceptable in a soon-to-be busy pedestrian environment.  I will be watching it come down with a big grin on my face.

[Long]

I am trying to see things from Long's perspective....I really am.  You make very good points.  But I still can't warm up to the idea of integrating this building into P&L no matter how hard I try.  The west side is kinda cool but the east and north sides are horrid and unacceptable in a soon-to-be busy pedestrian environment.  I will be watching it come down with a big grin on my face.

The east and north sides would be covered by new buildings.  And I will be surprised if the south and west faces of whatever new building goes there are any more visually interesting than what is there.  I'm sure the new construction will be nicer and more friendly and anonymous.

Plus you're missing the point.  New buildings should be designed to work with existing context-- existing buildings shouldn't be "expected to conform" and then wiped out for not fitting in.  Sure, the new building will likely blend right in with the rest of the new construction on the block, and yes, this existing building would likely look out of place next to the new buildings, but that isn't the point. 

The east and south sides of the TWA building were pretty horrid too, but not too many people were worried about that.  In fact, the "back sides" of most of downtown's beloved buildings are equally as bad.  Have you looked at the west side of the P&L building lately?

[myxomatosis]

It is easier.  No one said it wouldn't be.

It's more a matter of principle.  People make all these arguments about why old buildings should be saved, preserving history, etc. etc. but ultimately it comes down to saving buildings that look a certain way because that is the "in" thing to do, while feeling indifferent to other styles.

Thanks for posting those pictures.

I’m curious to know if there were similar thoughts regarding the UMB bank building that came down in a blue puff of smoke to make way for the arena.  I’m sure it represented an architectural style valued by someone.

I do not advocate tearing down the employment office.  I appreciate that it represents a specific architectural style that other more discerning eyes find appealing.  Personally, I see no reason to wipe out a perfectly good functional building.  I think the Cordish people have the brains to find a way to work it into the new district.  The DMV, if they ever come back, could move there.  Maybe a grocery store?  That said, I do not find the building attractive no matter how many times I jog past it or read opinions, expert or otherwise, explaining the architectural style.  I believe it far more than just a “stretchâ€

[moderne]

  Look at the photos of the employment bldng and go back and look at  pics of the late oft lamented Law Bldng.  I think the employment bldng is much more architectually interesting than the plain box of the Law.  If all those projections and cantilevers of the employment bldng were covered in flashy glass I suspect many forumers would be raving about it. 

[myxomatosis]

   Look at the photos of the employment bldng and go back and look at  pics of the late oft lamented Law Bldng.  I think the employment bldng is much more architectually interesting than the plain box of the Law.  If all those projections and cantilevers of the employment bldng were covered in flashy glass I suspect many forumers would be raving about it. 

They could completely cover the employment building in shiny awe inspiring glass and I still wouldn't change my mind.  My simple tastes would require rare jewels.

[kcdcchef]

you are comparing this crochety ugly eyesore to the law building? are you crazy? this building is stupid, and seeing these pictures is reinforcing what i said, tear it down. but i guess that would mean it is ok to tear down the k, arrowhead, and 1kp too

[KCN]

Some pics from today (8/14).  Demolition barriers are indeed in place or ready to be placed, and it looks like a crane is waiting to be set up with a wrecking ball.







Work being done on Truman Rd just south of this block.

[kcdcchef]

so then us discussing it is moot. good. wreck it.

[Gladstoner]

Unlike the Law building, the Empire, and other similar buildings, the exterior architecture of the Missouri jobs (Mojo) building, to an extent, appears to be related to the position of interior features. For example, the angled portion of the exterior windows matches the escalator in the lobby, and the spacious lobby itself is sheathed with continuous windows. This may have been difficult to preserve with Cordish's plans. With enough modifications to the exterior to make it work, they would have been defeating the purpose of preserving the building in the first place. Besides, the building doesn't exactly scream out Cuban restaurant or upscale club, unless it was a Castro-run outfit.

Again, the real shame is that the Mojo wasn't originally placed near other buildings of like appearance and function. It would have fit in on the northeast corner of 12th & Cherry, or otherwise anywhere in the empty areas south of 11th street, or somewhere in the surface lots north of its big brother, the Longlines building. It would work much better if it was fronted by mildly austere but meticulously maintained public plaza or similar landscaping as other typical government and other modernist buildings are. The form and details of such buildings would be appreciated as one moves from one angle and distance to another. This is what will make the Bloch building next to the old Nelson work. Instead the Mojo is butt-up against two streets. It seems overbearing in that context. I actually appreciate what the architects were trying to convey, but I would like it more if it were in the right setting.

[kcdcchef]

i agree, anywhere near the courts would have looked fine.

[FangKC]

I drove by there today.  It would have been easy to incorporate the MODES Building simply by wrapping one of the apartment towers around it on two sides. It could have been done.  However, I think the unsaid reason it's being torn down is the need for lots of underground parking.  It's the land underneath the building that is too valuable to waste.

I don't like the building personally, but that's a matter of taste.  I just think perfectly sound, functional structures shouldn't be torn down if the site plan can accommodate them. In this case, it could have. There were several blocks of vacant space to work with. It wasn't like there was no other alternative because of a land shortage.  I'm just lamenting the practice this city has of automatically tearing down buildings when there's no reason to do so.  It's not like the entertainment district is going to be of the highest density anyway.  The apt. tower could have been wrapped around it, and any retail space that might have been displaced by keep the building could have been put elsewhere.

In addition to that, if all the buildings that were structurally sound had been kept, it might have forced the design team to have to work with what was there.  This might have kept them from designing a district that is too homogenous.

Actually, if I were the king of development, and had the say so, I probably would have had different architecture firms designing different blocks. This way, the final product wouldn't have looked like it was all built at the same time by the same developer.  Cordish could have set the space requirements for each block; what was to go where, etc.  That way, all five apartment buildings would not end up looking so similar, as with the current plan. The City could have also set up some design and zoning requirements.  For example, if I were doing it, I would have set it up so that the front of the apartment towers had to face the major streets: Grand, Main, Walnut. This would have kept some consistency in the streetscape and allowed the main arteries to feel more like urban canyons. 

I also would have insisted that more of the retail buildings have apartments built on the upper floors instead of the two- or three-story retail buildings.  This would have created a bit more mass against the streets than exists in the current plan.  For example, I would have liked to have seen a taller structure on the NW corner of 14th and Main.  My instinct has always been that there needs to be a bigger anchor on that corner than what will be there.  It wouldn't have to be a 20-story building--maybe around 5- to 8-stories.

[Tosspot]

Fang, I too am a tad dismayed over the decision of putting lowrise buildings in the heart of downtown; buildings several stories high with whatever, offices or homes, I don't care, could really add something that I think we're missing out on with one or two-story buildings.

[kcdcchef]

i hate most buildings that are low rise, so, i think that what will go there will add more than subtract, like this one does.

[KCN]

I disagree about the low rise buildings.  Actually there is only one block planned with no high rises anyway, the live block, and I think having that area kept lowrise surrounded with skyscrapers will add a cool element. 

[ComandanteCero]

i was really thinking i'd dislike that aspect (the lowrise thing) but it actually works alright on the Magnificent Mile (in Chicago).  There a couple of 3 story and mid-rise buildings on Michigan, and if you go into the area along Rush and State approaching Oak, you'll see a bunch of 1 and 2 story buildings on one block surrounded by highrises on adjacent blocks, and it actually works relatively well.  Of course, i think that in time they should definitely allow for redevelopment of these buildings into highrises as the market allows, wouldn't want to make it permanent.

Here are some pics of the mag mile (sorry about the bluriness, no tripod):

[kcdcchef]

some low rise is fine, the empire, the midland, but this low rise added nothing, and i want to see it go. if it brought something to the table like the aforementioned, fine, but it did not

[Long]

   Look at the photos of the employment bldng and go back and look at  pics of the late oft lamented Law Bldng.  I think the employment bldng is much more architectually interesting than the plain box of the Law.  If all those projections and cantilevers of the employment bldng were covered in flashy glass I suspect many forumers would be raving about it. 

No, not flashy glass, but some carefully placed terra cotta and brick work and forumites would be slobbering on their keyboards.

What is ironic is that this same "clear it out and start over" mentality is what caused so many "good" buildings to be wiped out during urban renewal.  Back then, the old buildings were perceived to be ugly, outdated, and contrary to the sleek new forms and shapes that represented the "future."  Urban renewal is when The Jetsons was on TV.  At that time, that is what people thought was the right thing to do, just as passionately as people think promoting historic preservation and being frightened of progressive architecture is the right thing to do now. 

Now, we are overcompensating for that by doing exactly the same thing.  In a few years, without some major shift in how people respond to new architecture, what we're going to end up with is some old buildings and some uninspired new buildings that are so anonymous that no one pays attention to them.  Of course, society will probably be in a coma by then, completely sedated by all the safe unthreatening mediocrity, so no one will care.

[kcdcchef]

yeah, because they wont have the music hall, municipal auditorium, the empire, the midland, the prez, the phillips, the old muehlbach, the old kc club, the ny life building, the entire fucken west bottoms, the old holiday inn citi centre, the hotel savoy and savoy grill, that big tall building that lights up at night - - the p& l building, they wont have any of those to look at, silly me, we should save every building, even if it means holding up progress of this district