KCRag Forum

I took too long with my reply. Everyone said what I said or would say on this. I think lack transit is not an excuse for the suburban mindset of large metro corporations. WE HAVE NEITHER A TRAFFIC NOR PARKING CRISES IN THIS CITY.

I think in the end it has a lot more to do with these companies gaming the disparate, state line separated communities in the metro into fighting for their presence through incentives. The Cerners and Garmins and Sprints of the metro don’t give a flying fuck about the intricate fabric or infrastructure or culture of the communities they decide to set up shop in. They only care about pitting towns against each other to maximize their incentives packages.

^Mostly true but the reality is that even though there is a lot of unused downtown parking, free parking in burbs vs. relatively expensive downtown parking is a factor in location decision making as well.

Non KC Based companies with offices here and small/young KC firms are our best bets.

earthling wrote:^Mostly true but the reality is that even though there is a lot of unused downtown parking, free parking in burbs vs. relatively expensive downtown parking is a factor in location decision making as well.

If they really cared they would be willing to make that sacrifice

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the UMB building at 11th and Walnut designed to have a tower built on top? Any chances of that ever happening?

Sprint has historic ties to the State of Kansas since it came out of a merging of several Kansas telephone exchanges.

earthling wrote:...The issue as always is free parking in burbs vs expensive parking downtown. Is why there will be very few companies over 1K moving downtown until there is metro transit many will use.

Sprint has 14 parking garages on its' campus. Parking garages are expensive to build, yet Sprint spent the money building them. In fact, Sprint doesn't have any vast surface parking lots for their employees on their campus. So cheap parking does not seem to be the reason.

Take a look.

https://tinyurl.com/yd7dechb

TheLastGentleman wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the UMB building at 11th and Walnut designed to have a tower built on top? Any chances of that ever happening?

Not for a long time. I think building completely new is probably cheaper and easier in KC.

The UMB tower was to go on 10th st to the north of the present low rise building. The building now apartments at 10th & Grand would have to be razed.

It would be easier for UMB to build a new tower across the street to the east, since that entire block is now cleared, and they own it.

Footings are already set for the UMB tower. Why wouldn't they use them first instead of going through the expensive of putting in new footings at another site?

shinatoo wrote:Footings are already set for the UMB tower. Why wouldn't they use them first instead of going through the expensive of putting in new footings at another site?

But moderne said there were apartments in the building on that site. Are we all talking about the same place?

shinatoo wrote:Footings are already set for the UMB tower. Why wouldn't they use them first instead of going through the expensive of putting in new footings at another site?

Just would seem easier to build a much bigger building on the entire cleared block across the street, than it would be to demolish a 17-story apartment building that was renovated recently. They could then sell the low-rise bank building to someone else.

FangKC wrote:

shinatoo wrote:Footings are already set for the UMB tower. Why wouldn't they use them first instead of going through the expensive of putting in new footings at another site?

Just would seem easier to build a much bigger building on the entire cleared block across the street, than it would be to demolish a 17-story apartment building that was renovated recently. They could then sell the low-rise bank building to someone else.

I guess I don't understand why they have to demolish the apartment building.

The tower was designed to take up the entire north end of the block, its orientation similar to that of the Commerce Bank bldng to the west. It would have had 45 degree angles instead of the 90 degree angles of Commerce. Same flame granite as the current low building.

moderne wrote:The tower was designed to take up the entire north end of the block, its orientation similar to that of the Commerce Bank bldng to the west. It would have had 45 degree angles instead of the 90 degree angles of Commerce. Same flame granite as the current low building.

If you are talking about the UMB tower, I remember when it was announced. The tower was really smart looking with the dark maroon granite and the 45 degree angle to the street. I think that would have been been the first tower built in KC with sides that were not parallel to the street. It would have added an interesting component to the skyline with that orientation. I really do not see any chance that this tower gets built. Kind of unfortunate as the present building without the tower seems squat and out of place.

After 30 years styles change and I doubt it would ever be built as expensively designed, but value engineered to the mediocrity of the Cordish buildlings. Yes the slab of the tower would have balanced ooooout the low rise portion. I still love the courtyard, has the monumentality of the forecourt of an egyptian temple.

Yes, I like that courtyard very much. I see the staircase of the Laurentian Library.