Westport

[earthling]

"Finally, in Kansas City, Timsah Group recently sold 11 buildings on five contiguous acres in Westport to Opus Development."

Will all be torn down, which buildings are they? I saw that 303/Ragazza would stay but does that otherwise add up to 11 buildings? I really like all aspects of the project, and grocery even more enticing, but is it worth tearing down this much of Old Westport (more than just BOA, also apparently stretch to 303/Ragazza, worse than I thought) when there are already large lots and crappy buildings in area to develop? Worth reiterating a goal for a compromise and build taller with the large empty lot they already have to work with. If this moves forward without a fight (or compromise), this may set a precedent to tear down more of Old Westport despite plenty of open spaces to develop. Now the Freebird's srtipmall can go and would be great for a project like this with streetfront retail.

[kcjak]

The article mentions there is already 44,000 sq/ft that will be kept and redeveloped, maybe the contiguous strip will remain.

[aknowledgeableperson]

"when there are already large lots and crappy buildings in area to develop?"

Of course those owners either need to sell to developers or develop the lots themselves. Can't force them to do either.

[flyingember]

"when there are already large lots and crappy buildings in area to develop?"

Of course those owners either need to sell to developers or develop the lots themselves. Can't force them to do either.

A lot of people completely miss this point. You can only build/renovate what you own.

[earthling]

The point is that it's pathetic when developers buy 100+ year old buildings with intent to tear down, especially in the oldest part of city. The lot next to bank is in itself large enough to build a major residential building.

[aknowledgeableperson]

But if the developer can't get his/her hand on the vacant/parking lots then he/she will develop what becomes available.

[earthling]

And the 'save Westport' fight against developers has (justifiably) begun...

http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/n ... j=77698681

"Our goal is to protect the existing historic character and historic structures in the Westport district while allowing for appropriate infill development," Joan Adam, president of Historic Kansas City and part of the Help Save Old Westport effort, said in the release. "

Completely agree with this goal. Am pro development but as a 64111 resident am opposed to tearing down the fabric of Westport, specifically 100+ year old buildings when there are so many surface lots and crap buildings available to redevelop. I hope developers buying up large portions of Westport will be willing to compromise and incorporate the older buildings.

Is great that Midtown/Westport is finally drawing attention to developers but there is definitely a line that needs to be drawn.

[chingon]

"Growing concern about the pace and scale of redevelopment"

"Danger of rapid change"

=

Anti-density NIMBY dog-whistle. Westport was literally founded and built on the premise of rapid change of pace and scale.

[AlbertHammond]

Many preservationists argue for saving buildings on behalf of narratives that trace the aesthetic, historical, technological and moral roles of architecture as the primary rationale for preserving buildings and other cultural artifacts, and that beauty is in the eye of the beholder anyway.

In cities and towns where most historic buildings have already been preserved, preservationists must concentrate on saving their settings by opposing unsympathetic interventions in historic districts and promoting new architecture that strengthens the beauty of those districts and serves as a model for the rest of the city.

Preservationists ask why we preserve because many preservationists, and especially those with jobs in preservation, have forgotten why we preserve. But it is not rocket science. We preserve because we love and respect beauty above all. Preservation was a hobby before 1950, dedicated to saving actual historic structures (“George Washington slept here”) over decades and even centuries when people tended to believe that a demolished building would naturally be replaced by a better building. When people started to believe, increasingly, after 1950 that a demolished building might well be replaced by something worse, preservation was swiftly transformed from a hobby into a mass movement. That’s the essential truth about preservation. And it is not difficult to understand why we preserve if we understand that truth.
- https://architecturehereandthere.com/20 ... harleston/

[chingon]

I strongly support preserving old buildings to the extent that they are useful/usable. I do not support arbitrarily deciding that tall buildings don't belong in old neighborhoods because of horseshit like "scale", which is what this group is up to. Preserving empty sky.

The historic "scale" of Westport is a couple clapboard shacks and some canvas tents in the middle of the fucking prairie.

[NorthOak]

The historical aspect of the bank building has already been victimized by the new facade.
This facade is not ever going to be removed now.
The Opus project is perfect and necessary for the corner or Broadway and Westport Rd.

[AlbertHammond]

I walked around the BofA building today. Its is great shape and the south and east walls are the original brick with lots of character. The north and west sides were re-visioned in the '70s, but in a very sympathetic way. The building may not be original all around, but it cannot be denied that it contributes strongly to the historic character of Westport. I feel its loss would be serious.

I still lean on the important role this BofA building fills by setting the aesthetic stage at this prominent location. It speaks strongly that this is a historic district. It may not be a perfect example of preservation, but is does a damn fine job of oozing a thoughtful historic look that relates to the local styles of Westport's history. The proposed building is OK looking, but could by anywhere USA and is very forgettable. I would prefer they wrap around the BofA building with the proposed building.

...or, adjust the proposed building's design and materials to speak directly to our city's past. I know that's taboo for an architect to imagine, but what if this was made to look like it was built in the 1890s? At that point, it would look like a great conversion of an old multi-story KC warehouse. Everyone loves those!

[chaglang]

"Growing concern about the pace and scale of redevelopment"

"Danger of rapid change"

=

Anti-density NIMBY dog-whistle. Westport was literally founded and built on the premise of rapid change of pace and scale.

If wanting to manage development in a way that increases density without destroying neighborhood character is NIMBYism, then I guess I'm a NIMBY. Gosh. Oh well.

I would encourage anyone genuinely interested in this, in a non internet message board kind of way, to give HKC a call.

[DaveKCMO]

I strongly support preserving old buildings to the extent that they are useful/usable. I do not support arbitrarily deciding that tall buildings don't belong in old neighborhoods because of horseshit like "scale", which is what this group is up to. Preserving empty sky.

if people want to fight to save the bank building by working with the developer on an adaptive reuse that still consumes the shit-ton of surface parking brought to you by "old westport" cronies, then let's do that!

but, yeah, i'm with you on the dog whistle. create an overlay that's focused on form and be done with it.

The historic "scale" of Westport is a couple clapboard shacks and some canvas tents in the middle of the fucking prairie.

snarky as hell, but you win the internet today.

[FangKC]

I have mixed feelings about this BOA project. I want to see density increased where it can be. I have no problem with newer buildings being mixed next to historic buildings. That is what makes cities dynamic. You can have 10-story buildings next to one-and-two story buildings. That's less of a problem for me. Westport is a node of activity with transit service, so it's an obvious place to increase density.

Historic buildings are often ones that have been modified over time, so that's less a problem for me too. To renovate one doesn't necessarily mean you have to take it back to its' original state, or make it so "historically accurate" that it loses its' ability to function in the modern world. That is simply a museum. Just update it with some respect. To me it's more important that it's functional.

One of the major draws of Westport is that it is a historic place, and we need to respect that and preserve as many of the older buildings as possible to retain that distinction.

The BOA building is functional, so it seems to me there is really no reason to tear it down. We really do need to be more sensitive to the fact that demolishing perfectly good buildings is wasteful, and sends building materials to landfill unnecessarily. Building debris is a major percentage of landfills. We also need to be aware that there are still carbon gases floating around in our atmosphere from the manufacture of the bricks used to build the BOA building decades ago. This constant need to be tearing down perfectly serviceable structures needs to be scrutinized more now that we are living in a time of obvious climate change--when the prairies west of our metro are literally on fire.

It seems to me that the solution is to leave the BOA structure and build new on the surface parking lot. That parcel is large enough to incorporate a garage for the residential tenants underneath a fairly large building. The developer could also add another small retail building along Westport Road to the east of the current BOA structure where the drive in window is located.

[Midtownkid]

I'm also concerned with this project being a success and the developers moving to demolish more of the block...and other blocks around Westport.

One thing that brings me to Westport are the local shops and restaurants. When new buildings go up, it seems local tenants often do not set up business inside. Rents go up. Boring chains open. Westport loses its draw.

I also don't really like the design.

The most frustrating thing is that there are empty lots nearby. A lot of them! I wish the city would create an incentive to develop empty land/parking lots. Also, maybe make tearing down existing, attractive buildings a little harder so developers don't want to mess with it.

[DaveKCMO]

I'm also concerned with this project being a success and the developers moving to demolish more of the block...and other blocks around Westport...

Halting this project won't change that.

[brewcrew1000]

^Nutterville is going to have to be demolished if Westport wants to be vibrant self sustaining neighborhood. Its a huge piece to Westport East's growth

[taxi]

^Nutterville is going to have to be demolished if Westport wants to be vibrant self sustaining neighborhood. Its a huge piece to Westport East's growth

Are you being serious? If so, you should seek professional help.

[KCtoBrooklyn]

^Nutterville is going to have to be demolished if Westport wants to be vibrant self sustaining neighborhood. Its a huge piece to Westport East's growth

Are you being serious? If so, you should seek professional help.

I'm guessing this was a sarcastic statement, but Nutterville and the surrounding area is a problem desperately in need of help. There is way too much surface parking and disconnected spaces, although I don't think the worse offenders belong to Nutter.

Ideally, I would love to see all of the tenants in Nutterville, plus the Nutter office buildings consolidated into a mid-rise tower at the Berbiglia site at 43rd and Main. The houses in Nutterville could be converted back to residential. The surface lots and ugly squatty office buildings could be redeveloped into apartments/mixed use.