KCRag Forum

There is already an official "Avenue of the Arts." That is Central.

moderne wrote:There is already an official "Avenue of the Arts." That is Central.

That was designated back when the Lyric was there, now it's on 18th & Holmes!
What's left...the Folly?
It's no big deal to me either way, but surely it can be changed.
Designate 18th street something else arts related.... whatever.
The Lyric, several dance companies, music studios, Crossroads music Stage, jazz clubs on Grand and so much more are all on or near 18th. If the Conservatory goes in and connects the Crossroads with 18th & Vine, 18th Street is truly the Avenue of the arts in KC.

The Lyric Opera, as well as the KC Symphony and KC Ballet, performs at the Kauffman Center for the Performing Arts, which is where Central dead-ends on W. 16th Street. In addition to the Folly Theater, the Quality Hill Playhouse is on the corner of W. 10th and Central, and The Music Hall, which hosts concerts and Broadway shows is on the corner of W. 13th and Central.

anonkcmo wrote:Westport High School would be a terrible location. I thought the whole idea was to get the Conservatory downtown near the epicenter of the Arts community? And Westport High has the lowest visibility of any location [other than 63rd.].

Great that the school district sold Westport High to a group who apparently have no firm plans on what to do with it.

Agree that Westport High would be a poor location for the Conservatory. Either build on UMKC campus, or in a location where potential synergy with various performing arts stakeholders can occur (i.e. downtown). Period.

I've really come around on the Barney Allis Plaza location if it was planned creatively and turned into an arts/media hub with some amount of public space. So moving KCUR and perhaps some visual arts programs in addition to Conservatory.

The most ideal locations remain those immediately around the PAC, however. Denny's location would certainly provide the most dramatic site, and I'm assuming would enable a more wild design than the rather subdued initial renderings for the site on 17/Broadway. Also might provide an impetus for traffic calming or large crosswalk/light Broadway.

rxlexi wrote:Denny's location would certainly provide the most dramatic site, and I'm assuming would enable a more wild design than the rather subdued initial renderings for the site on 17/Broadway. Also might provide an impetus for traffic calming or large crosswalk/light Broadway.

The Denny's Conservatory of Pancakes is an integral part of the convention district. I can't believe you'd want it replaced with something as lowly as a college campus

There is so much wasted space around the PAC. Why don't they build on some of that space? Why does it have to be this fortress structure with no walkable connection to the neighborhoods around it?

There is so much wasted space around the PAC. Why don't they build on some of that space? Why does it have to be this fortress structure with no walkable connection to the neighborhoods around it?

Surely, development is coming. I would imagine the complexity of the Conservatory deal has held things up in the area to some degree.

However, if we don't start seeing plans for those parcels in the relatively near future, I agree 100%.

beautyfromashes wrote:There is so much wasted space around the PAC. Why don't they build on some of that space? Why does it have to be this fortress structure with no walkable connection to the neighborhoods around it?

Because "they" is a private organization that only had the money and legal basis to build the PAC. "They" can't just build on someone else's land.

You're not wrong about the need for development but you always have to remember that the owner of land downtown has the full legal right for it to be an empty grassy field if they want and there being a big project doesn't mean that the land owners own everything around. It's why so much development is piecemeal and why you have parking lots with no sign of development because a building owner uses the parking lot.

flyingember wrote:

beautyfromashes wrote:There is so much wasted space around the PAC. Why don't they build on some of that space? Why does it have to be this fortress structure with no walkable connection to the neighborhoods around it?

Because "they" is a private organization that only had the money and legal basis to build the PAC. "They" can't just build on someone else's land.

You're not wrong about the need for development but you always have to remember that the owner of land downtown has the full legal right for it to be an empty grassy field if they want and there being a big project doesn't mean that the land owners own everything around. It's why so much development is piecemeal and why you have parking lots with no sign of development because a building owner uses the parking lot.

Lets be honest, the "they" in this case are all the same people...both the PAC and the arts community that wants the conservatory downtown. A few, generous, wealthy people control it all. If the PAC and, more importantly, their benefactors see a mutual benefit to put the conservatory on top of the existing garage that is now wasted space, it would happen.

Was the garage designed to support a building on top?

Before you can talk about hypothetical interest it needs to be a feasible idea.
My guess is the idea can't be entertained without building new support columns through the garage and that's way too expensive.

flyingember wrote:Was the garage designed to support a building on top?

Yep.

beautyfromashes wrote:

flyingember wrote:Was the garage designed to support a building on top?

Yep.

Doesn’t it not matter since they already have to build a new garage.

beautyfromashes wrote:There is so much wasted space around the PAC. Why don't they build on some of that space? Why does it have to be this fortress structure with no walkable connection to the neighborhoods around it?

"Because Kansas City is NOT Toronto."
~Julia Irene Kauffman

Just kidding. I'll never forget her chiding everyone about how no developer should ever be able to build and block the views from the KCPA. She wanted height regulations in place that would never block her view of Liberty Memorial and answered one person that way. Apparently she has a 2nd home in Toronto. I agree that the immediate area around the Kauffman is mostly dead space and needs some development. I'm still holding out that these babies grow up, check all their egos, all recommit to the original sight and get this thing moving.

^ Like father, like daughter?

normalthings wrote:

beautyfromashes wrote:

flyingember wrote:Was the garage designed to support a building on top?

Yep.

Doesn’t it not matter since they already have to build a new garage.

That underground garage is in terrible shape, has been for years if not decades. It would not be wise to build on top of the existing garage.

aknowledgeableperson wrote:

normalthings wrote:

beautyfromashes wrote: Yep.

Doesn’t it not matter since they already have to build a new garage.

That underground garage is in terrible shape, has been for years if not decades. It would not be wise to build on top of the existing garage.

This is talking about the Kauffman Center garage.

flyingember wrote:

aknowledgeableperson wrote:

normalthings wrote: Doesn’t it not matter since they already have to build a new garage.

That underground garage is in terrible shape, has been for years if not decades. It would not be wise to build on top of the existing garage.

This is talking about the Kauffman Center garage.

I stand corrected. Didn't research completely. Thought about the APG.


Building above the Kauffman Center garage, forget about it. At least not with the present people in charge around.

beautyfromashes wrote:

flyingember wrote:Was the garage designed to support a building on top?

Yep.

Doesn't matter because there's a height restriction and a protected view shed that would prevent anything from being built on it. Until that plan is modified, it will remain grass.

DaveKCMO wrote:

beautyfromashes wrote:

flyingember wrote:Was the garage designed to support a building on top?

Yep.

Doesn't matter because there's a height restriction and a protected view shed that would prevent anything from being built on it. Until that plan is modified, it will remain grass.

Put in place largely by the people that built the PAC. I’m not saying this is going to happen, just that that is where it should be in order to build synergy within the arts groups. It also would be better urban build than having grass on a space that no one will ever benefit from.