OFFICIAL: Law Building

Highlander · Post by **Highlander** » Thu Jan 13, 2005 3:41 pm

KCPowercat wrote:nobody knows what's going in either spot. National garage was an eyesore that was a risk to walk beside....it almost had to be destroyed. What will replace it might very well not be very sexy.

The law building spot is still up for debate as to what is going to happen to it.

With so much going on downtown, I have become a bit confused regarding the limits of the power and Light District. I thought the Soakies Building was included in the area defined by the development plan (Soakies, by the way, was a true KC institution although the building was indeed kaput).

Tosspot · Post by **Tosspot** » Thu Jan 13, 2005 3:44 pm

ignatius wrote:Not surprised. I don't understand this garage craze. We have more downtown parking per sq. ft of office space than most any Midwestern city, over 40K spots. And 40K is plenty for night time/weekends, even with the arena and possible ballpark.

Also, all garages should be required to have streetfront retail with the garage well hidden, especially if there are any tax breaks or public financing. I was really disappointed that the Library garage had no retail at ground level. Total waste of opportunity for retail to serve the nearby residents.

Re: parking--

There seems to be a die-hard and lingering suburbadroid-esque fixation with parking, especially concerning downtown. People forget that cheap/free parking is no God-given right in an urban area-- again, it's a suburban mentality applied to an urban area.

And I must second your comment about ground-level retail anchoring parking garages-- otherwise it's a giant dead spot that does nothing for the urbanity of the area.

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Thu Jan 13, 2005 3:49 pm

yes the soakies building is part of the P&L district plan.....12th & Baltimore block.

ComandanteCero · Post by **ComandanteCero** » Thu Jan 13, 2005 3:56 pm

hehehe, i said i "think", no hard evidence or knowledge supporting this, it was more of a guess. But it seems if they are tearing down the building because the market wasn't working interms of renovating it into lofts/retail I highly doubt they'll build a brand new mixed use building, nor do i think they'll build an office building since the office market is very soft right now, so my best guess with no other information is that it'll be a garage (i'm sure the P+L district and Arena's proximity would be a profitable parking source) (or maybe it'll be a surface lot waiting to see how the P+L district works out). Then again who knows what secret machinations are happening, it's all speculation at this point.

FangKC · Post by **FangKC** » Thu Jan 13, 2005 4:10 pm

Yes, Jane Flynn is getting old. That's why I said she has lost her steam.

However, Jonathan Kemper is a member of Historic KC Foundation, and has been (or still may be) a board member on the National Trust for Historic Preservation.

I don't recall ever hearing him make a public comment on historic preservation issues (instead of Jane Flynn). He's certainly not what I'd call "outspoken" on the issue. However, in the case of the old Commerce Trust building, Commerce did partake of public historic preservation funds to restore its building on Walnut.

This is a BANK for land's sake! With all the old buildings that need historic funds, you would think a family as rich as the Kempers could have paid for their own building's restoration. It is a profitable company after all.

I will grant J. Kemper some credit though. He does serve on board of the KC Public Library, and they did restore the old First National Bank building as the new downtown library.

My complaint with him has to do with the lack of public leadership on preservation issues. The guy has a lot of influence and wealth. He certainly has enough money to last him a lifetime, and could afford to spend some political capital advocating for saving old buildings. It's not like he's going to piss developers off and go broke as a result. What's the point of him being on the board of the National Trust, or a member of Historic KC Foundation, is he doesn't speak up and demonstrate some leadership on these issues?

If I had his power, money, and influence, I'd certainly be using it to rattle some cages, and be the biggest advocate for historic preservation issues in this city.

Now, I admit I could be completely wrong about him. If someone can provide me with a list of buildings that have been saved recently as a result of his advocacy--other than the one I've stated, I certainly welcome any information that will present a more accurate picture. The same goes for past remarks he's made in the media that demonstrate his commitment.

I'm sure he's a lovely man, but I just wish he was more of a force to be reckoned with on this issue.

moderne · Post by **moderne** » Thu Jan 13, 2005 5:16 pm

East side of Law Bldng coming down today.

KC Kropf · Post by **KC Kropf** » Thu Jan 13, 2005 6:58 pm

Pictures from 01.13.05

GRID · Post by **GRID** » Thu Jan 13, 2005 8:27 pm

I saw that today. I couldn't believe it was already coming down. Wow.

FangKC · Post by **FangKC** » Fri Jan 14, 2005 8:54 pm

Ok, I've written Mayor Barnes, and council members Rowland, Nash, and Nace.

On the issue of the Law Building, I wrote:

"It was reported in last Tuesday's Kansas City Star that the Law Building is going to be demolished. This is a building that I believe is already on the National Register for Historic Places. It is true Mr. Abbott failed to get financing to convert the building into residential lofts and street-level retail. However, we are now seeing that other old properties are being bought up in other parts of downtown for conversion, so the market was certainly there for someone who could complete the renovation.

"While we don't know the new owner yet, it was reported that they are New York-based. The building must be demolished as part of the sale agreement. This is being done without any stated plan for what will happen with that property. Is the new owner tearing down a listed historic structure just for speculation purposes?

"That demolition is happening so fast that the public has had no time to respond. A demolition permit was issued January 7, and reported in the news on January 11. By January 12, the upper story was already being dismantled. Shouldn't the public have some idea of what will replace the Law Building, a designated historic structure, before it is knocked down? Is it the case that outside developers can come into Kansas City, purchase a historic property, and have demolition begin before the public even knows who they are and what they intend to do?"

GRID · Post by **GRID** » Fri Jan 14, 2005 9:19 pm

Nice job Fang.

Long · Post by **Long** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 1:11 am

I'm pretty sure I have never before seen construction vehicles in use on the roof of a building they are working to tear down. There is also a bobcat or something rolling around on the first level down from the top.

I don't have a lot of confidence in the crew doing this work though. Sunday afternoon as they were working, bricks and other random chunks of building were falling into 12th street outside the fence. I'd think a brick falling from that height could do some decent damage to a passing car or pedestrian.

FangKC · Post by **FangKC** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 3:19 am

That building must be built like a brick #%*@-house for them to be able to demolish it that way.

Re: the falling brick. They're in a big hurry to knock it down before anyone complains.

Long · Post by **Long** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 9:13 pm

Whoops.

Long · Post by **Long** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 7:02 pm

Hmmm.

Beltonhawk · Post by **Beltonhawk** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:28 am

Nice shots Long...doesn't inspire a whole lot of faith in the guys doing this demo. Can you imagine if that wall had fallen on the woman and her two kids? or if they were hit by some of the debris?

FangKC · Post by **FangKC** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 6:30 pm

It appears that in the haste to knock the building down that the demolition company is not placing public safety first.

missingkc · Post by **missingkc** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 6:51 pm

fangkc wrote:

It appears that in the haste to knock the building down that the demolition company is not placing public safety first.

seller+requirement to demolish before sale = lowest bidder

FangKC · Post by **FangKC** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 7:02 pm

missingkc wrote:seller+requirement to demolish before sale = lowest bidder

lowest bidder = failure to take safety precautions = dead people = big lawsuit = punitive and emotional damages = no profit on sale = bankruptcy.

Highlander · Post by **Highlander** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 7:08 pm

missingkc wrote:fangkc wrote:

It appears that in the haste to knock the building down that the demolition company is not placing public safety first.

seller+requirement to demolish before sale = lowest bidder

Judging from the pictures, this is a really poor operation. Doesn't look good for DT to have some fly-by-nights taking this building out and and creating a public hazard at the same time. Isn't there any city oversight to demolitions? That fence at street level looks like a barely half hearted attempt to create only the slightest appearance of safety.

GRID · Post by **GRID** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 7:23 pm

Are all the wrecking balls tied up or something?