OFFICIAL - Waddell & Reed - 14th & Baltimore

[smh]

Important to keep in mind as well that the majority of the floors you're seeing lit up are simply parking decks. It may be that this is what we get with this project, but we shouldn't be happy or count this as a win (at least from an urban planning/design perspective). Certainly, I will welcome the jobs, but not the 900 parking stalls or blank walls.

They are going to have to light their garage so as long as they promise and stick with putting a glass facade on it I think it will look similar to this.

The black part of the parking garage while ugly will probably look cool at night. We need to ensure that 14th street remains well lit at night.

But the night lighted rendering from the south shows full glass transparency on the facade. The first 10 floors are parking. The remaining 8 are office. Will we be treated to a nightly view of a well-lit empty parking garage?

[TheLastGentleman]

But the night lighted rendering from the south shows full glass transparency on the facade. The first 10 floors are parking. The remaining 8 are office. Will we be treated to a nightly view of a well-lit empty parking garage?

I've seen a lot of renderings that show the glass being transparent, and then the real building ends up with reflective glass.

[normalthings]

I took a shot at "rethinking" the ground floor of WR.

Overview:


Corner of 14th and Baltimore. A fountain has been added with wooden benches. To the west of the fountain is a small triangle of vegetation followed by an area for street vendors to sell food. Developer to provide utility hookups for vendors.


Food Vendor Example


14th & Wyandotte. A few parking stalls have been converted to kitchen space with a small takeout counter. Seating is located outdoors in the public ROW. Garage to be designed for future conversion of additional spaces to a second take out restaurant. Garden space to the north could be converted to additional seating in the future.


Think Town Topic type of establishment.

[TheLastGentleman]

I took a shot at "rethinking" the ground floor of WR.

B&M should hire you

[Chris Stritzel]

I took a shot at "rethinking" the ground floor of WR.

B&M should hire you

Not a bad plan shown in NormalThings post. Would make a improvement at the street level.

Unfortunately, I suppose that’s too common sense for this project. From what we’ve all seen, they don’t really give a care about the first floor

[Eon Blue]

DNA tried every angle to get a change from them in their meetings with the neighborhood. This has been one of the most frustrating development processes, aside from maybe the Convention Hotel, since downtown started booming. Having incentives in hand before the development process started really deflated things.

[DaveKCMO]

That gray human on the bench will never materialize. They'll end up installing hostile architecture to keep the homeless from hanging out. Lighting, trees, and art are not a consolation for the lack of street-level activity.

[KCPowercat]

At least the lobby is clear glass to 14th? I was honestly not expecting anything to change so my bar was very low.

[smh]

The (perhaps) last thing I would add here is that all of the generous landscaping shown in the rendering contemplates KCMO giving up street parking on this block so that this can be constructed in the ROW. There is every chance that, like with B&M's project in the Crossroads, this landscaping will evaporate as construction progresses. But even assuming it does not evaporate, on-street parking has value to the neighborhood, so this is yet another cost of the project that is little scrutinized.

[kboish]

Yeah. It’s completely lost on me why the city would give ROW for parklets in either case.

The fact that B&M pulled a bait and switch on the last one makes me give them zero benefit of the doubt.

[normalthings]

Yeah. It’s completely lost on me why the city would give ROW for parklets in either case.

The fact that B&M pulled a bait and switch on the last one makes me give them zero benefit of the doubt.

Have we confirmed it was BM who did it or did the owner, Copaken, decide that it wasn’t worth the money.

[kboish]

Yeah. It’s completely lost on me why the city would give ROW for parklets in either case.

The fact that B&M pulled a bait and switch on the last one makes me give them zero benefit of the doubt.

Have we confirmed it was BM who did it or did the owner, Copaken, decide that it wasn’t worth the money.

I do not know for sure who made the actual final change decision. But, I still don't get why B&M proposed taking the ROW in both their projects though. Seems odd and unnecessary given both ROW are directly adjacent to a parking garage. What is necessitating this?

[jasty5]

Yeah. It’s completely lost on me why the city would give ROW for parklets in either case.

The fact that B&M pulled a bait and switch on the last one makes me give them zero benefit of the doubt.

Have we confirmed it was BM who did it or did the owner, Copaken, decide that it wasn’t worth the money.

I'm a homer here since i work there (and also I have no knowledge of the particulars around this), but usually this type of stuff is directed by the owner. In this case I would assume it is likely either the end tenant or the developer that is driving restrictions around the use of these 1st floor spaces. The designer/contractor then has to fit within the parameters that are set by the owner/developer.

[smh]

Yeah. It’s completely lost on me why the city would give ROW for parklets in either case.

The fact that B&M pulled a bait and switch on the last one makes me give them zero benefit of the doubt.

Have we confirmed it was BM who did it or did the owner, Copaken, decide that it wasn’t worth the money.

I'm a homer here since i work there (and also I have no knowledge of the particulars around this), but usually this type of stuff is directed by the owner. In this case I would assume it is likely either the end tenant or the developer that is driving restrictions around the use of these 1st floor spaces. The designer/contractor then has to fit within the parameters that are set by the owner/developer.

You're totally right in the case of Waddell. B&M has said as much. However, again in the case of B&M, they are the owner. It is their building, W&R merely the tenant. So, unfortunately, I think the ire is appropriately directed at them for letting the tail wag the dog.

[normalthings]

Have we confirmed it was BM who did it or did the owner, Copaken, decide that it wasn’t worth the money.

I'm a homer here since i work there (and also I have no knowledge of the particulars around this), but usually this type of stuff is directed by the owner. In this case I would assume it is likely either the end tenant or the developer that is driving restrictions around the use of these 1st floor spaces. The designer/contractor then has to fit within the parameters that are set by the owner/developer.

You're totally right in the case of Waddell. B&M has said as much. However, again in the case of B&M, they are the owner. It is their building, W&R merely the tenant. So, unfortunately, I think the ire is appropriately directed at them for letting the tail wag the dog.

That's true. I didn't even consider that. However, if the lease already promises WR a set amount of spaces it may be hard for B&M to go back and remove spaces for retail or such.

[smh]

I'm a homer here since i work there (and also I have no knowledge of the particulars around this), but usually this type of stuff is directed by the owner. In this case I would assume it is likely either the end tenant or the developer that is driving restrictions around the use of these 1st floor spaces. The designer/contractor then has to fit within the parameters that are set by the owner/developer.

You're totally right in the case of Waddell. B&M has said as much. However, again in the case of B&M, they are the owner. It is their building, W&R merely the tenant. So, unfortunately, I think the ire is appropriately directed at them for letting the tail wag the dog.

That's true. I didn't even consider that. However, if the lease already promises WR a set amount of spaces it may be hard for B&M to go back and remove spaces for retail or such.

Which would be a shame for B&M, but no doubt something they should have considered prior to entering a lease for parking that hadn't yet been approved. (Understanding we're just speaking hypothetically.) We shouldn't be allowing generational development decisions based on B&M overcommitting.

[normalthings]

Planning told the council committee that the street experience has been fixed and the main complaint now is the size of the parking garage.

B&M says that parking count is in line with other market products and has already been promised in lender financing. Creating a garage that can be converted in the future would require constructing a podium garage instead of what is proposed now.

[TheLastGentleman]

Planning told the council committee that the street experience has been fixed

Does that mean they approved the design seen in the last renderings, or does it mean that it has been changed to a design we haven't seen yet?

[smh]

It is essentially a go. The conditions were toothless. A total thumb in the eye of the neighborhood.

[normalthings]

Planning told the council committee that the street experience has been fixed

Does that mean they approved the design seen in the last renderings, or does it mean that it has been changed to a design we haven't seen yet?

It goes to full council tomorrow so still time to write your council person