As far as the building size and location fit, one of the possible solutions is to re-work the street grid in that part of downtown. Combine and create bigger "super" blocks and get rid of Cherry Street completely. Sort of like what was done when the Bolling Federal Building was constructed. This will create bigger footprint blocks so the building can sit further back from the street and be massed differently.
Move Charlotte further east and make it an access street from the east loop freeway and combine those half-blocks next to the freeway with the middle blocks between where Charlotte and Holmes are now. Take out Cherry and make bigger blocks between Locust and Holmes. These city blocks were designed when the city was building smaller buildings on individual lots bought by private parties. City blocks nowadays need to be bigger because the projects are. Expanding the size of the blocks will allow larger underground parking garages, and placement of above-ground garages in the middle of the block with buildings constructed around the edge -- hiding them in mid-block.
To increase security, put the GSA building up on a pedestal by piling earth around it behind a low wall sloped up to the building itself, or do terraces and steps that trucks can't climb. Or create a terraced garden around it with big, thickly-spaced trees to provide a natural blast barrier. The south side of the City Hall block is terraced this way. Another example is the Financial Holding Corp. building on the NW corner of W. 11th and Central. It sits up on an embankment with a low wall skirting it.
One could also create one larger building, and then have an smaller annex building across the street. A skywalk spanning the steet between the buildings could be placed high enough that a bomb would have less affect on it (say floors 6-8).
The GSA could take one entire block and also build two smaller buildings on the half-blocks across the street. The loss of those blocks for residential housing in the neighborhood could be made up by building taller apartment buildings on the remaining blocks instead of building just 5-8 story structures. There is nothing wrong with 15-story apartment buildings. We see ones nearly that big on the Plaza and Armour Boulevard.
In addition, the East Village redevelopment district borders could be widened so that additional high-rise buildings could be built on Admiral Boulevard directly east and west of The View; the block west of the new US Federal Courthouse; the vacant lot east of the Professional Building; the block bounded by Admiral, Walnut, McGee, and W. 8th Street (north of the old Federal Courthouse); the block south of the current Federal Reserve Bank on Grand; and the block-and-a-half north of the AT&T Longlines Building. There is also a small parcel of land on the NE corner of Admiral and Charlotte, among others.
Last edited by FangKC on Tue Nov 28, 2006 7:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
Man, you cover all the bases! I can see it both ways. If GSA went to the River, can't KC give some development guidelines in terms of parking. What about the prospect of a new Paseo bridge? Light rail crossing the river? These are just a few points that could be impacted by placing the GSA along the river. I see the riverfront as another potential development node helping connect downtown with NKC and the Northland. Either way is a win for KCMO.
FangKC racks his brain day and night analyzing, and contemplating, the impact and long-term advantages and disadvantages, so others don't have to. He also employs an army of consultant slaves and other minions, who work tirelessly, to help determine and conclude the absolute best options, scenarios, proposals, plans, and crackpot schemes.
Here's two possible building solutions for the GSA building in the East Village:
pittsburghparoyal wrote:
I can't believe anyone wants to build anything on the Riverfront. It's a very "gross" river as it is, with zero attractions around it - and worse, there are factories all across the river from the city.
Guess you have not been to the riverfront in St. Louis. They have to look east across the river to beautiful East St. Louis.
That hasn't hurt riverfront development in St. Louis or just about any other city along a river.
I may be right. I may be wrong. But there is a lot of gray area in-between.
aknowledgeableperson wrote:
Guess you have not been to the riverfront in St. Louis. They have to look east across the river to beautiful East St. Louis.
That hasn't hurt riverfront development in St. Louis or just about any other city along a river.
huh?
Been to StL lately? The riverfront is nothing more than a parking lot and with all the riverboats and casinos gone, it's rarely used for that.
They did build a casino in EStL and one is going up north of the landing, but for the most part, StL's riverfront is nothing to get excited about.
Yet there are far more reasons to get excited about their riverfront than ours. The Mississippi is truly a grand, massive river, with real barge traffic and massive bridges spanning it. The terrain in StL puts the river much closer to the city or at least makes it feel and appear more accessable.
I could go on and on.
I guess I just don't get this love affair with the MO river. We have so many other issues to deal with first. Put an amphitheater down there or something, but don't put something down there that could and should be "downtown" if you have the chance.
The East Village might not be the only suitable location for GSA. Especially if its design would eat up too many parcels that could be used for residential housing. There are also other alternate locations for GSA downtown inside or on the periphery of the loop. They are:
The North Loop parcels owned by Tower Properties north of W. 9th Street, south of W. 6th St. between Central and Main. There are three full blocks and a half block between Main and Baltimore, W. 6th and 7th, and a quarter block north of John's Big Deck.
Advantages: Freeway access; would fill in surface parking lots; near mass transit. Disadvantages: There wouldn't probably be room for retail or housing in the GSA properties. I'd rather see residential go there.
South of Truman Road between Cherry and Charlotte streets to 17th Street.
Advantages: Freeway access; would fill in surface parking lots and replace industrial uses, and maybe reinvigorate the East Crossroads; Would support retail in Power & Light: already close to other federal properties (walking distance); near mass transit. Would take space less suitable for residential buildings because of nearby freeway intersection. Disadvantages: freeway would remain psychological barrier unless decks were installed over the freeway canyon or wider bridges made pedestrian activity more inviting.
West of Baltimore and south of Truman Road to 16th Street and Wyandotte
Advantages: Freeway access; would fill in surface parking lots; close to hotels; Would support retail in Power & Light: already close to other federal properties (walking distance); near mass transit. Disadvantages: freeway would remain psychological barrier unless decks were installed over the freeway canyon or wider bridges made pedestrian activity more inviting. Parking issues.
The three blocks east of Grand Avenue between 19th and 20th streets and Locust, and the Children's Mercy Hospital parking lot south of 20th St. between McGee and Cherry.
Advantages: Freeway access; would fill in surface parking lots; Would support retail in in the Crossroads and Crown Center, and P&L and Jazz district to a lesser extent: near mass transit, and future commuter rail lines stopping at Union Station. Disadvantages: not as close to other federal properties. More isolated. Outside the loop. Would require some building demolition and infastructure upgrades.
West of Pennsylvania and south of W. 12th Street
Advantages: Freeway access; would fill in surface parking lots; close to hotels; Would support retail in Power & Light: near mass transit. Disadvantages: not as close to other federal properties. Would take parcels better used for residential.
The three blocks around the old Federal courthouse on the east, north and northeast: The blocks of E. 9th, E. 8th, McGee, and Oak; E. 8th, Admiral Boulevard, Grand and McGee; E. 8th, Admiral, McGee, and Oak.
Advantages: Near other federal properties. Might encourage redevelopment of old Federal Courthouse office space for new federal uses; Freeway access; would fill in surface parking lots; near mass transit. Parking lot between two federal courthouse buildings already owned by federal government. Disadvantages: Harder to assemble large blocks needed to place buildings midblock with security perimeter. Street closings to combine blocks less workable. Parking issues. Would require some building demolition. Would require new parking be created for Children's Mercy employees.
Along Troost and Harrison Streets between I-70 and E. 9th Street
Advantages: Good freeway access; Near other federal properties (walking distance); mass transit; Prominent location, but easier to control perimeters, access to property; Barriers, setbacks, and other security designs have less impact on downtown street life; Doesn't displace residential. Would support Power & Light and maybe the Jazz district.Disadvantages: Freeway may create psychological barrier for pedestrian employees to cross into the loop unless overpass landscaped decks provide a bridge; less opportunity to share parking garages; may require demolition of buildings.
Old railyards north of Washington Square Park and east of Union Station (between Grand and Main)
Used as parking now. Advantages: Good freeway access. Near mass transit, future commuter rail to Union Station; Would support Union Station and retail at Crown Center, and P&L to a lesser extent. Site would provide ability to construct a lot of underground parking below the building; Building could be set back from the street and still have fairly large mass, yet low profile; Car traffic onto, and near, the site could be easily controlled. Disadvantages: Not as close to other federal properties. Shipping containers pass by the site, and it would be easier for terrorists to detonate an unchecked rail container full of explosives or fertilizer near the building. Outside the loop.
27th Street between Gillham Road and Grand
Advantages: Good freeway access. Near mass transit, future commuter rail to Union Station; Would support Union Station and retail at Crown Center, and P&L to a lesser extent. Site would provide ability to use combined parking facilities; Building could be set back from the street and still have fairly large mass, yet low profile; Disadvantages: Not as close to other federal properties. Outside the loop.
Hospital Hill site north of E. 22nd St. and between Gillham Road and 71 Highway
Advantages: Good freeway access. Near mass transit, future commuter rail to Union Station; Would support Union Station and retail at Crown Center, Jazz District, Crossroads and P&L to a lesser extent. Site would provide ability to use combined parking facilities with Truman Medical Center, Children's Mercy Hospital, Western Missouri Mental Health, UMKC medical school; Building could be set back from the street and still have fairly large mass, yet low profile; Siting on the bluff would minimize any threat of attacks using nearby rail lines; Might help Beacon Hill development by providing a stable work force wanting to live close to work. Any parking garages would have less impact on street-life. Disadvantages: Not as close to other federal properties. Outside the loop. More isolated. Less pedestrian-oriented. Would probably require more building demolition and site preparation.
Last edited by FangKC on Sat Dec 02, 2006 8:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
GRID:
It hasn't been that long since I have been through DT St Louie but mostly it was on the highway passing through. Compared to the MO side of the river the IL side east of DT St. Louie is industrial, and not very pretty. I have heard about the casino but was unsure of its location on the IL side. But basically my posting concerned a comment about building along a river with ugly industrial across from it.
Anyway, the Federal building does not have to be DT. To me it is not downtown first and the rest of the city or metro area comes in second. DT KCMO is part of the whole area. And if a development happens to come about that helps to get an underdeveloped area developed then bring it on. DT doesn't get first dibs on everything with the rest of the area getting leftovers.
Come to think about it, maybe GSA should tear down part of the Bannister complex and locate the new building there. Or even locate it in the Marion Park development. Close to highways, mass transit, and help in the rebirth of that area.
I may be right. I may be wrong. But there is a lot of gray area in-between.
akp, don't you read the articles? They said they've narrowed their choices down to the Loop or the Riverfront. That means no other locations will be looked at. Stop being like a negative, old, paranoid KC suburbanite.
While it is true that the GSA doesn't have to be downtown, there are many reasons why it should. Good ones. The primary one is that it would have more impact there than almost anywhere else. Kansas City doesn't have endless resources or advantages, so it has to make count what it does.
One of the long-standing problems that Kansas City has faced is that it's one of the last cities to benefit from reinterest in urban living and renewal, and the resurgence of urban downtown business districts. Compared to a lot of cities, Kansas City is really behind the trend. Way behind. Sorry, but true.
Downtown business districts in most cities are the engines that fuels the entire regions economically. I read all the time that business done in downtown KC is responsible for about 30 percent of the metro economy. It used to be much higher though. I have read repeatedly -- by countless experts--that the stronger a downtown business district is the better the regional economy is.
Even so, there is other evidence to indicate that Kansas City's lackluster downtown has held us back. I recall hearing on KC Week in Review on PBS one of the commentators citing that many big companies like Cerner and H&R Block have difficulty attracting new talent from out of town, or holding on to that they already have. It's because Kansas City, MO, doesn't have a vibrant enough city life and a dead downtown. When potential candidates see this, they place more weight on cities that do. Especially the young.
Those seeking a more exciting urban life downtown are turned off by the fact that even though they'd like to live in a loft, or downtown apartment, there still aren't services like grocery stores and a variety of other services like drug stores and plentiful restaurants. As a result, many young people just move to other cities. I have lived downtown for 4.5 years, and sometimes I still think I'm living in a small town like St. Joseph.
Having lived in other large cities like New York and Phoenix, it frustrates me that I can't walk somewhere in the neighborhood after 7 pm and buy simple items like bread, milk, cola, or a magazine, or get something quick to eat someplace other than a bar atmosphere. I have to drive more than 30 blocks to go to a decent grocery store that has things I want. Before I had a car here, going to the grocery store took at least 3 hours to accomplish. I had to go once at week because I couldn't carry enough. With a car, I can go two or more weeks between trips.
Grouping business, governmental, and professional services together does have a synergistic effect on urban economies. That is one reason why New York City remained strong even during the darkest days for urban centers that lost population. The mixing of intellect and talent produces all sorts of new ideas and byproducts. It also allows people to change jobs and accept new challenges without having to uproot themselves.
To compete with other cities, and keep a healthy urban economy, Kansas City really needs to have about 50,000 people living downtown, and 70,000 people working in or near downtown. The City must continually replace lost tenants and jobs to make up for those lost in the 1960s-2000--just to get back to the way it was decades ago. It's got to do it every opportunity it can. It has no other choice because nothing else its done has worked. And it has worked for other cities as well already.
Kansas City must also deal with the effects on sprawl. It's a time-bomb for this city that most people don't recognize; and it's one of the reasons the City has a hard time now paying to rebuild its infastructure like water pipes and sewers. The continuing spread of population diffuses the density needed to support and pay for existing infastructure. Kansas City must repopulate the center city and delay the growth of its spreading neighborhoods. You cannot have a population of around 450,000 and double the city's borders in a 50-year period without it stretching the tax and expenditure burden to the breaking point.
So a healthy downtown is good for the rest of Kansas City as well. It's not that downtown is being put first, it's just that downtown has to be a priority now because it's important as the economic engine for the entire city. Increasing jobs, population, and street activity downtown will eventually have a positive effect on central city neighborhoods. The demand for housing near downtown will increase. New homes will need to be built. Older homes will be renovated. Sparsely-populated neighborhoods will fill back up with people. The City will have more money to rebuilt the inner city infastructure, and stop creating new neighborhoods that will only put the city on thinner ice in the future. 450,000 people can only pay taxes to maintain so many streets, lights, sidewalks, parks, sewers, fire and police stations. That is why so many residents in central areas are constantly complaining that no money ever gets spent in their neighborhoods, and some of them keep moving away as a result.
If downtown is vibrant and strong again, it will have a beneficial effect image-wise, and hopefully new business won't be so hesitant to locate here. It will give Kansas City a more competitive edge with suburban office parks in Overland Park for example, and the city won't be losing tax revenue needed to maintain what it already has.
Making Kansas City, MO, and Jackson County more populous will bring back needed revenue to support "big-city" items that everyone enjoys, but the suburban communities seem loathe to contribute. We are all reminded the the problem of stadium maintenance and expansion, and the constant threat of losing teams because of problems financing it. I could care less about stadiums, but they are important to many people. Jackson County needs to be able to go it alone on this issue, and others like mass transit, because the suburban communities don't appear to be willing. This hesitance hurts the entire region because the lack of good mass transit does affect the perception of the city by outsiders considering jobs here. It also contributes to loss of young people, whose talent is needed to help our economy.
We have recently seen difficulties in raising enough money to build the new performing arts center. Kansas City doesn't have enough money to do everything, so it counts on a few wealthy people. However, one of Kansas City's problems is that it just doesn't have enough wealthy people to build these types of amenities. The kind that keep and attract residents who want them. The same wealthy people and companies are hit up again and again. I'm not saying we don't have them in the region, but some of the wealthy aren't willing to contribute to anything in Kansas City, MO. That's why you get competing plans for arenas, sports complexes, amphitheaters, theater and arts groups, etc. popping up in Overland Park, Olathe, and Johnson County. While they have the right to do it there, they don't understand the problem with diluting these types of things. Even the biggest cities can't support many of them. My point is that Kansas City needs to add population, but it also needs to have wealthy people living within the physical borders of KCMO who are willing to help fund these things.
Two of our wealthiest businessmen, Lamar Hunt and David Glass, don't even live in Kansas City, so they have less impulse to contribute to urban amenities or help solve problems.
So it's not that downtown must have GSA or other jobs instead of other parts of the city. It's just that we are at a disadvantage by not making the most of knowledge learned and exhibited by other cities that have done these things, and seen the benefit of doing so.
To have a healthy mass transit system, you simply must have higher density populations living on or near the lines. Not having a good transit system contributes to some outsiders deciding not to live here because they don't see Kansas City as meeting their idea of a good place to live. It's a simple as "what do I do if my car breaks down. How will I get to work?" When I lived in Phoenix, I worried about that all the time because the Phoenix transit system also sucks (they didn't have light rail, and there was no plan for it, when I lived there.) One of the things I most miss about New York is the fact I didn't have to have a car.
To keep and attract young people, and other new workers, cities must have a culture and lifestyle that meets with their goals and aspirations.
The MAIN and best solution to Kansas City's long-standing problems is to increase the population and jobs within the central city. Any city leader that thinks growing the Northland portion of KCMO will solve these problems is a fool.
Locating the GSA anywhere but inside, or near, the loop would be stupid at best. There are just too many good reasons to do it.
The Feds will probably also be more apt to grant us federal mass transit matching funds for our light rail, and expanded transit system, if they have federal employees that would benefit from it.
Last edited by FangKC on Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
FANG:
I am not saying I agree with you, nor do I disagree with you. But there are two sides to every story, and in many instances three or more. Sometimes it depends on which points one will more important or less important compared to others.
You say GSA will have a more impact DT than almost any place else. And the points you make are worthwhile. But you used the word "almost" and that would imply that there is at least one other place that it would have a greater impact. And for me that could be the riverfront or even the Bannister -I435 area. (Yes, Devin, I know the GSA has limited the location to two areas but sometimes a rabbit can be pulled out of a hat.)
Downtown already is on the upswing, late but it is going strong. The riverfront has been stuck in the blocks for many years. And this project could be the one to get it going. Is it too early to branch out? For you, and others, it is. For me now is the time. You do not get a development like this very often and when one is thrown in you lap you got to get the biggest bang you can.
As a side note, just imagine putting the building where the Bannister Mall building is and then develop the fringe area along Bannister and Hillcrest Roads. This could be the shot in the arm to turn this area around, an area that needs a bigger shot in the arm more than DT. Almost all of the infrastructure is already there and the land already accumulated. It could get built quicker there than DT.
Another thing to remember: if this building is built then when agencies leave the office buildings they already are in what will be the affect on the remaining office buildings?
I may be right. I may be wrong. But there is a lot of gray area in-between.
The GSA currently has 12 billion in construction planned nationwide, however their lead architects recently appointed are moving from modern to traditional.
There is a saying about a chain only being as strong as its weakest link so to paraphrase:
A city is only as great as its weakest neighborhood. Or one can say it is only as rich as its poorest neighborhood.
A true city is made up of more than its downtown. For KCMO to be a great city is also has to have a great Hickman Mills area. A great Prospect neighborhood. A great Malbrough Heights neighborhood. And so on and so on.
You can say these neighborhoods are surviving but they are surviving by means of life support. And people visit more than just downtown. They visit their friends and relatives in these neighborhoods and they do remember them and how they reflect on our city. Long time ago residents come back and visit their old neighborhoods and see how they have decayed. And it might just be a safe bet that more people visit this city without going to or having a need to go see downtown than visitors who visit downtown. And no matter what develops downtown that will not change.
So to answer a few questions.
Yes, I do grasp what makes a great city and it is more than just a great downtown, much more.
I do have a civic pride (and shame) in my entire city which is more than just pride of a downtown.
A true city is more than high buildings downtown. It is also it's people, no matter who they are or where they are. Downtown centric people remind me of the KCMO School District many years back. As long as Southwest High and its feeder schools had the best, brightest, and newest it leaders felt they had a great school district. No matter that some of the other schools in the district got books second hand, their best teachers transferred, and the buildings not keep up-to-date.
I may be right. I may be wrong. But there is a lot of gray area in-between.
Since it looks very unlikely that JE Dunn will be anchoring Village East perhaps the GSA complex could replace it. After all federal employment is easier to predict and usually expands over time.
aknowledgeableperson wrote:
There is a saying about a chain only being as strong as its weakest link so to paraphrase:
A city is only as great as its weakest neighborhood. Or one can say it is only as rich as its poorest neighborhood.
A true city is made up of more than its downtown. For KCMO to be a great city is also has to have a great Hickman Mills area. A great Prospect neighborhood. A great Malbrough Heights neighborhood. And so on and so on.
You can say these neighborhoods are surviving but they are surviving by means of life support. And people visit more than just downtown. They visit their friends and relatives in these neighborhoods and they do remember them and how they reflect on our city. Long time ago residents come back and visit their old neighborhoods and see how they have decayed. And it might just be a safe bet that more people visit this city without going to or having a need to go see downtown than visitors who visit downtown. And no matter what develops downtown that will not change.
So to answer a few questions.
Yes, I do grasp what makes a great city and it is more than just a great downtown, much more.
I do have a civic pride (and shame) in my entire city which is more than just pride of a downtown.
A true city is more than high buildings downtown. It is also it's people, no matter who they are or where they are. Downtown centric people remind me of the KCMO School District many years back. As long as Southwest High and its feeder schools had the best, brightest, and newest it leaders felt they had a great school district. No matter that some of the other schools in the district got books second hand, their best teachers transferred, and the buildings not keep up-to-date.
i am humbled by your wonderful essay. we should all take note.
A GSA replacing Dunn on Davis park could be a great architectural frame for the park, instead of something that would be small even in a suburban office park like the FAA and UMB. For security, it could even resemble the profile of city hall, with its podium and shaft. The podium, which is echoed in height by the parking garage and hinted at in the Whitaker Courthouse, could be the heavy duty blastproof section of the structure.
aknowledgeableperson wrote:
There is a saying about a chain only being as strong as its weakest link so to paraphrase:
A city is only as great as its weakest neighborhood. Or one can say it is only as rich as its poorest neighborhood.
A true city is made up of more than its downtown. For KCMO to be a great city is also has to have a great Hickman Mills area. A great Prospect neighborhood. A great Malbrough Heights neighborhood. And so on and so on.
You can say these neighborhoods are surviving but they are surviving by means of life support. And people visit more than just downtown. They visit their friends and relatives in these neighborhoods and they do remember them and how they reflect on our city. Long time ago residents come back and visit their old neighborhoods and see how they have decayed. And it might just be a safe bet that more people visit this city without going to or having a need to go see downtown than visitors who visit downtown. And no matter what develops downtown that will not change.
So to answer a few questions.
Yes, I do grasp what makes a great city and it is more than just a great downtown, much more.
I do have a civic pride (and shame) in my entire city which is more than just pride of a downtown.
A true city is more than high buildings downtown. It is also it's people, no matter who they are or where they are. Downtown centric people remind me of the KCMO School District many years back. As long as Southwest High and its feeder schools had the best, brightest, and newest it leaders felt they had a great school district. No matter that some of the other schools in the district got books second hand, their best teachers transferred, and the buildings not keep up-to-date.
You fail to grasp the absolute importance of having a strong central business district and urban core to the health of a city. A strong core benefits everyone....the Kansas suburbs, KC north, Belton as well as those in the city itself. That is the showcase of a city. It's great to have strong individual neighborhoods but these will always go through generational cycles; sometimes up, sometimes down. We simply cannot afford to allow reinvestment in the core to dwindle. That has to be a top priority for any city as it is the part of city that is most identified with the city. Let the core fall apart and a city's ability to attract and retain business dwindles (a la Kansas City).
One way to avoid a declining core is to simply concentrate civic and business assets there. Our core imploded as a result of several factors but the dispersal of civic and other assets (urbanicide) certainly did not help. KC currently has a chance to make downtown into something special; in KC, downtown is still more approachable than it is in many other cities like Dallas and Houston so I think the momentum will easily swing in its directon once critical mass is achieved. But we need that critical mass....the success of the P&L District is not assured, it depends on its ability to bring people downtown. It probably doesn't have the ability on its own....but it will with the arena, new business's, PAC and more residential all coming to the area. We are just going to make it that much tougher on ourselves if we keep taking assets like the fed reserve, the GSA etc.... and use them to try to make a downtrodden area of town healthier. That just isn't going to happen. Gateway did not improve the West Bottoms and nor will Sprint (although I suppose its better having them there than in the burbs), the stadiums did nothing to help the area they are in....absolutely nothing and putting the GSA on the river is simply not going to do anything but put GSA on the river. Nothing else will come of it.
