KCRag Forum

An infill apartment building with 23 units is being planned on the NW corner of 37th and Gillham. The lot has already been cleared. An adjacent historic residence will also be renovated.

Local developer John Hoffman is planning a $3 million apartment building at 37th Street and Gillham Road in Kansas City that’s intended to offer a contemporary alternative to the historic rehab projects nearby on Armour Boulevard.

The 23-unit Gillham Park Row development is planned for a site across from Hyde Park once occupied by the Outrigger apartments, a bland building dating from the 1960s that was demolished in 2011. Hoffman said the project would be the first new development in the Old Hyde Park neighborhood in 30 years.

...

The redevelopment plan also calls for restoring an adjoining home at 3614 Gillham Road that dates to 1897.

http://tinyurl.com/kb5rcgp

This is the only rendering I could find. It's the developer's website. I don't know if it's the most up-to-date.




Aerial of site (gray building has already been demolished).

http://tinyurl.com/l98lhgo

The Outrigger Apartments building that was demolished.

http://tinyurl.com/mygpluy

Not at all impressed with the design. I mean, it's really not even much different from the old, hideous building that they tore down. Regardless, good news. Love to see infill, and it could always be worse. Also, the renovation of the house next door is excellent news.

My suggestion for this architect, and most others for that matter: Step Up Your Game.

I worry this design will not age well.

I like this design. I think it will be a great addition to Gillham. A mix of styles demonstrates the continued vitality of the area.

FangKC wrote:I worry this design will not age well.

No it will not. It already looks dated and hasn't even been built. What materials do you imagine this building will be made of? Looks like concrete or stucco or something equally appalling. It irritates me because in your freshman architecture studio you are taught to think more about a site when creating your work of art. Was the architect not moved by this site? Look at the beautiful park across the street! Seriously one of the most beautiful parks I've ever seen. And yet this is what he/ she comes up with. This building is serviceable, but really plain. This architect is seriously lacking in creativity.

At least use better materials.

This building is essentially the same as all the suburban apartments littering Old Hyde Park.

I'm not crazy about this rendering, but it really concerns me that buildings like this and the MAC/Hufft proposal on Armour have become proxy arguments against building contemporary architecture in historic settings. Europe is littered with amazing combinations of old and new, yet Kansas City seems to be stuck in the mentality that if there is a historic area, only ersatz historic buildings will work as infill. That is a complete failure of imagination. Worse are the local neighborhoods working on a "I'll know it when I see it" approach to acceptable development design. In two cases, OHP has rejected a design, then rejected the new design that addressed their concerns. If you're a neighborhood leader and have an opinion about the character of development, do the world a favor and create a zoning overlay district for your neighborhood. That way developers and architects will know what you consider acceptable, instead of trying to guess what you're thinking. Or, in this case, guess what the "appropriate look and feel" should be.

Demosthenes wrote:

FangKC wrote:I worry this design will not age well.

No it will not. It already looks dated and hasn't even been built. What materials do you imagine this building will be made of? Looks like concrete or stucco or something equally appalling. It irritates me because in your freshman architecture studio you are taught to think more about a site when creating your work of art. Was the architect not moved by this site? Look at the beautiful park across the street! Seriously one of the most beautiful parks I've ever seen. And yet this is what he/ she comes up with. This building is serviceable, but really plain. This architect is seriously lacking in creativity.

At least use better materials.

DRAW Architecture are the design architects. You may not care for their work, but they are not without creativity: http://www.drawarch.com/.

As for the materials, I would guess that they won't be using concrete. Perhaps stucco, which is used on a huge number of older buildings in the city, including the 1923 house I grew up in and the 1909 house I currently own.

Are there specific improvements you would make? I would like to see larger porches and a better color palette. Less gray, specifically. If the wood porches weather into gray, the building would be pretty drab. The overhangs could be bigger - they look a little timid to me. But the facade of the building moves in and out, which to my eye had more of a relation to historic buildings than postwar buildings.

I was going to start this post off incredibly snarky as I knew there would be complaints to this rendering, but I'll remain polite. After living adjacent from the Outrigger for two years, I'm all for this project. I like its massing and perspective. Let's be honest, anything is better than the building that was there and the empty lot that dominates the corner now. No building is without critique, but in my humble opinion I see nothing wrong with this one from the current state of the lot now. I'm happy to see this in my old neighborhood and hope that maybe North Terrace Property Mgmt (whom I rented from on Warwick and still do now) will take some aesthetic cues and update their drab properties that currently litter that specific block.

chaglang wrote: Are there specific improvements you would make? I would like to see larger porches and a better color palette. Less gray, specifically. If the wood porches weather into gray, the building would be pretty drab. The overhangs could be bigger - they look a little timid to me. But the facade of the building moves in and out, which to my eye had more of a relation to historic buildings than postwar buildings.

Definitely lose the gray. That bothers me a lot too and reminds me way too much of the old building. Also, materials. I'm also thinking it will be stucco, but can't tell for sure. This is a personal thing for sure, but I really dislike stucco for the most part. May just be a poor rendering but it makes the materials look really cheap. I also am not sure about the wood porches. Don't think it fits the rest of the building. I'm curious how wrought iron would look, or maybe some sleek steel. The landscaping and stoops are uninspired. Being across the street from the park landscaping shouldn't be necessary, but keeping with the setback of the other houses on this block it leaves plenty of space to do some special landscaping. I love the idea of incorporating ivy on the buildings, especially if they are going to be ugly lol.

I think the relation I am making with post war apartments in this neighborhood is the long and squat shape of it. I do not like large buildings that sit in the middle of several urban lots like this. I much prefer tall and narrow, but that doesn't even mean this building couldn't be long. I just want more of a "several narrow, attached buildings" sorta look. Or they could really even be detached. I say stick to the original urban lots though. I think this looks much better.

And I agree completely that we should not rule out modernism and other contemporary architectural styles in the core. I would almost prefer this too because most faux-old fashioned designs don't look right. What we need though is architecture that is inspired. We need to stick to small urban lots and density.

All this being said, I'm pumped that we have another infill announcement. This lot needs built on!

This developer is known for using only quality materials and he consistently employs the finest craftsmen, regardless of price.

FangKC wrote:I worry this design will not age well.

Architecture and design are much like clothing styles - they go in and out with the times. Wide ties - narrow ties. Hem lengths on dresses and skirts. And so on.

I quite like the design, and I think this is an excellent project.

The rendering makes me suspect a poor attempt at modern design, but DRAW appears to do some very good work judging from the website. Hopefully this is an early rendering that will be updated.

Kansas City does some great modern design (Hufft, El Dorado, BNIM, KIM, etc.), I hope to see more of it around town.

I'm predisposed to reject attempts to build new buildings that look like old buildings...it usually doesn't work. We're better off trying to do the best of what's new. Juxtaposing old and new architecture makes for some of the most interesting neighborhoods imo, ala Westside.

John Hoffman's responsible for most of the development on the east side of Gillham in the Crown Center/Martini Corner area, as well as in just about any other urban infill neighborhood in town. Everything he has built is high quality and well planned. He's one of the long-term good guys as far as development in the Core, putting down lots of his own money to revitalize neighborhoods that he has a life-long connection with. He's more than proved his urban bona fides, and it would be nice if you could give him the benefit of the doubt.

http://www.urbancoeur.com/

http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/p ... l?page=all

my favorite neighborhoods in KC are the combination of old and new.

as long as the new structure works for what it is there's nothing wrong with putting new in a neighborhood. new with hints of what's historic in the shapes works well over and over. it's not like hyde park doesn't have ugly mid century housing and weird modernist designs already in it

heatherkay wrote:John Hoffman's responsible for most of the development on the east side of Gillham in the Crown Center/Martini Corner area, as well as in just about any other urban infill neighborhood in town. Everything he has built is high quality and well planned. He's one of the long-term good guys as far as development in the Core, putting down lots of his own money to revitalize neighborhoods that he has a life-long connection with. He's more than proved his urban bona fides, and it would be nice if you could give him the benefit of the doubt.

http://www.urbancoeur.com/

http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/p ... l?page=all

Is there any progress on the apartments he is developing on the east side of Gilliham at 29th? His website says construction will start in Oct 2013, but I haven't seen any movement there. Does anyone know what the hold up is?

heatherkay wrote:John Hoffman's responsible for most of the development on the east side of Gillham in the Crown Center/Martini Corner area, as well as in just about any other urban infill neighborhood in town. Everything he has built is high quality and well planned. He's one of the long-term good guys as far as development in the Core, putting down lots of his own money to revitalize neighborhoods that he has a life-long connection with. He's more than proved his urban bona fides, and it would be nice if you could give him the benefit of the doubt.

http://www.urbancoeur.com/

http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/p ... l?page=all

Have you spoken to anyone who lives at 16th and Summit?

kboish wrote:

heatherkay wrote:John Hoffman's responsible for most of the development on the east side of Gillham in the Crown Center/Martini Corner area, as well as in just about any other urban infill neighborhood in town. Everything he has built is high quality and well planned. He's one of the long-term good guys as far as development in the Core, putting down lots of his own money to revitalize neighborhoods that he has a life-long connection with. He's more than proved his urban bona fides, and it would be nice if you could give him the benefit of the doubt.

http://www.urbancoeur.com/

http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/p ... l?page=all

Is there any progress on the apartments he is developing on the east side of Gilliham at 29th? His website says construction will start in Oct 2013, but I haven't seen any movement there. Does anyone know what the hold up is?

I wouldn't be surprised if it was something related to this

"He said the city had agreed to take possession of a retaining wall on the vacant project site that collapsed due to drainage from a nearby city-owned alley. Preliminary estimates indicate that the situation will cost $100,000 to $500,000 to fix through installation of a gravity wall, said Brad Satterwhite, a principal with Urban Coeur's architecture firm, Kem Studio."

taxi wrote:Have you spoken to anyone who lives at 16th and Summit?

No. I have a vague recollection that there was a lawsuit. And I know they had to replace a bunch of the stucco. I'm not saying all the Urban Coeur buildings were winners-- variety of architects, variety of builders -- or that they were all attractive. I was just responding to the people who seemed to think that this was an attempt to do suburban-type development by someone who didn't understand the neighborhood or how to develop in midtown/downtown.

I think the design looks fine. Could be better, but could definitely be much worse.

As for the Old Hyde Park board wanting the design to mimic historic architecture, I think that is a mistake and it rarely turns out well. Plus, it's not as if he is plopping this down on Janssen Place - unfortunately much of the historic character of the surrounding area has been lost so a modern building won't look terribly out of place.

John Hoffman is also behind the new single family housing currently being build in Beacon Hill and Longfellow, although those are designed by a different architect, Randy Kietzman. I think the Beacon Hill homes are looking quite nice, but the way the Longfellow houses presently look concerns me.