KCRag Forum

loftguy wrote:

atticus23 wrote:That pool will be a complete shit show...

I have really missed the semi-nude drunken mayhem in Cosentino's that the pool pagans provide.

It will no longer be open to the public so hopefully it won't be as bad.

It will no longer be open to the public so hopefully it won't be as bad.

So we can confirm that this will no longer be the "Jones" pool, i.e. open to the public for a small fee?

On a side note, I actually quite like the One Light lettering at night.

rxlexi wrote:

It will no longer be open to the public so hopefully it won't be as bad.

So we can confirm that this will no longer be the "Jones" pool, i.e. open to the public for a small fee?

On a side note, I actually quite like the One Light lettering at night.

That's subjective.

rxlexi wrote:

It will no longer be open to the public so hopefully it won't be as bad.

So we can confirm that this will no longer be the "Jones" pool, i.e. open to the public for a small fee?

On a side note, I actually quite like the One Light lettering at night.

According to the people at One Life Fitness, the pool will be open for residents of One Light and One Life members only.

The illuminated "One Light" will be quite noxious when it is repeated across 3 blocks of the center of the skyline.

moderne wrote:The illuminated "One Light" will be quite noxious when it is repeated across 3 blocks of the center of the skyline.

compared to what? the not completely dark skyline today?

H&R Block puts moving text, P&L will have a lighted top, Marriott does light displays, One KC Place lights up the top, Commerce has their lighted sign, city hall lights the top of the building, the President has lighted text, the Stinson sign is lighted up on 1200 Walnut, the Town Pavillion sign lights up, the Bartle Hall pylons are lit, the Crown Plaza sign is lit.

There's so many lighted things today I don't think people will care.

flyingember wrote:

moderne wrote:The illuminated "One Light" will be quite noxious when it is repeated across 3 blocks of the center of the skyline.

compared to what? the not completely dark skyline today?

H&R Block puts moving text, P&L will have a lighted top, Marriott does light displays, One KC Place lights up the top, Commerce has their lighted sign, city hall lights the top of the building, the President has lighted text, the Stinson sign is lighted up on 1200 Walnut, the Town Pavillion sign lights up, the Bartle Hall pylons are lit, the Crown Plaza sign is lit.

There's so many lighted things today I don't think people will care.

I think Moderne's point is that having ONE LIGHT, TWO LIGHT, THREE LIGHT, and FOUR LIGHT sitting front and center in our skyline will look tacky. Not that the light itself isn't needed. Would you like seeing STINSON on every building top downtown?

The "Kansas City Learned How to Count!" jokes write themselves.

I see your point on being tacky.

If tacky is part of the price to get 1000+ units of residential that's not all four story buildings I'll take it.

Let's embrace the jokes that will come.

.

pash wrote:I've heard a rumor that for the third building Cordish is exploring the possibility of going with an Acapulco theme under the name TRES LUZ.

So there's hope for the skyline yet.

Four Light should be La Finale

flyingember wrote:I see your point on being tacky.

If tacky is part of the price to get 1000+ units of residential that's not all four story buildings I'll take it.

Let's embrace the jokes that will come.

Wait. I said these signs were "tacky" posts back and you said it was subjective? Pretty sure these stupid signs weren't the price to pay for the units they will make money on.

.

pash wrote:People spend way too much time focused on the skyline. What matters most is on the street, since that is what actually defines a great city.

Street level result is higher priority but critiquing building aesthetics has its place, especially when in context to others. Take for example Oklahoma City's absurdly large building in context to rest of downtown.

My point about the signage is not the signage itself. It is fine on the present building. But the same bright sign in the same font at exactly the same height spread across the most familiar skyline view is too repetitous. It will become the most dominant feature to the eye and look like giant airport gate signs. Yes street level makes a great city but skyline can brand a great city. That is why most European cities strictly control what is erected and where and why the recent "look at me, I'm different" high rises in the center of London are highly controversial. Aesthetics(and beauty) should be an important part of any city's planning and are indeed what gave KC its unique brand a century ago with the city beautiful movement.

moderne wrote:My point about the signage is not the signage itself. It is fine on the present building. But the same bright sign in the same font at exactly the same height spread across the most familiar skyline view is too repetitous. It will become the most dominant feature to the eye and look like giant airport gate signs. Yes street level makes a great city but skyline can brand a great city. That is why most European cities strictly control what is erected and where and why the recent "look at me, I'm different" high rises in the center of London are highly controversial. Aesthetics(and beauty) should be an important part of any city's planning and are indeed what gave KC its unique brand a century ago with the city beautiful movement.

With the lots being three different shapes we know for certain that at most two buildings could be exactly the same. #2 and #3 are the only candidates that could be this.

In fact, it's already provable that there will not be a series of signs facing the same direction
Two Light shows the sign facing the other direction, towards one light. At this point the best guess is the signs will all be facing into the district.

http://kcrag.com/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=19707&start=60
here's the Truman side rendering with no sign

I was going on previous aerial renderings that show the signage. This latest one of #2 south side is not clear to me on the south side, as the extreme view upward makes what is visible on that shed roof not so visible. As for lighting on the tops of residential buildings, I like the ephemeral blue on top of the Sulgrave.

.

pash wrote:People spend way too much time focused on the skyline. What matters most is on the street, since that is what actually defines a great city.

The skyline is what attracts those outside the urban core to the urban core

Nobody's going to come if it looks too trashy, or trendy. Happy medium's attract. Extreme's do not.

pash wrote:People spend way too much time focused on the skyline. What matters most is on the street, since that is what actually defines a great city.

True, but this is a forum full of people who do things like obsess over the built height and number of floors a proposed hotel has based on renderings that don't even match the actual proposal. The skyline gets even more emphasis here than it would elsewhere, and it gets plenty of emphasis even in groups of people who aren't completely obsessed with it.