3rd & Grand to be redeveloped as TOD

[Anthony_Hugo98]

Ground floor continues to be a complete flop
https://twitter.com/joshboehm/status/16 ... nuHX7uYY9A

I feel like I'm becoming the new GRID (a compliment) but I am dismayed that this is allowed to happen. Does KC have an actual interest in becoming a walkable dense place? Where is the weak link in the process today? Is it the Planning department? Council? This is a key location and the parking garage entrances front 3rd and there is limited ground floor activation.

I’d say we shouldn’t let perfect be the enemy of good at this point, you can retrofit commercial space in the future, but apartments above what is now a borderline useless parking lot is a win in my book. Should it be better with street-front activation? 100%. I’m definitely supportive of units going here though, regardless of the situation with the street-front. This just shows we need to advocate much hard for new projects, and hopefully have the city write some regulations around ground floor commercial/activation along the SC and in our denser neighborhoods.

[KCPowercat]

No standards to hold people to do staff is powerless to push back cheap bad design.

My guess

[GRID]

No standards to hold people to do staff is powerless to push back cheap bad design.

My guess

But doesn't this project involve a lot of incentives? It seems like if any project would have city input or requirements, it would be this one. I'm sure the developer is getting a pretty sweet deal on the land and getting incentives on top of that. This is a very high profile location in the rivermaket district at what will likely be a busy stop for the streetcar. The ground floor of this building is terrible and a waste of such a development.

Developers are getting pretty good at completely concealing garages and wrapping them with other uses. I think this design is fine for a location that is not near the heart of the River Market like over near the Broadway Bridge or something. But this location absolutely should have a fully activated ground floor at least on the south and west sides.

[TheLastGentleman]

I’ve said it before, but we really need to get away from these projects that insist on consuming an entire city block for just a single five-over-one. They have all the urbanism and vitality of a dormitory. This site could easily be like five separate buildings with five separate uses. The more buildings per city block the better!

[DaveKCMO]

It's an expensive site to develop for a few reasons:

1) massive utility impacts
2) city requirements

[TheUrbanRoo]

Dave what's your overall thoughts on this project? Good or bad?

[smh]

I’ve said it before, but we really need to get away from these projects that insist on consuming an entire city block for just a single five-over-one. They have all the urbanism and vitality of a dormitory. This site could easily be like five separate buildings with five separate uses. The more buildings per city block the better!

Hear hear.

[smh]

How is this proposed project any different from Centropolis, which is universally agreed (at least on this forum) to be a poor project. What progress have we made since that property was developed?

[TheLastGentleman]

How is this proposed project any different from Centropolis, which is universally agreed (at least on this forum) to be a poor project. What progress have we made since that property was developed?

I think centropolis is pretty good actually. The materials aren’t great but otherwise I think it’s strong urbanism. It doesn’t occupy the entire city block, for one

[smh]

How is this proposed project any different from Centropolis, which is universally agreed (at least on this forum) to be a poor project. What progress have we made since that property was developed?

I think centropolis is pretty good actually. The materials aren’t great but otherwise I think it’s strong urbanism. It doesn’t occupy the entire city block, for one

It lacks a ground floor which is a dealbreaker, imho. A place to be hustled past.

[dukuboy1]

agreed on some lvl that commercial with Apartments on top would be nice. However, I think Centropolis is like this, you have a very active Commercial area right across the street from this building. An area of entertainment, restaurants, bars, and retail (City Market). I don't think it would be too hampered by not having commercial and certainly would not be a building to "hustle past". True if you did not live there there would not be much reason to linger. But I think the buildings serve their purpose well as accommodating to residents and letting them engage in the commercial aspects right across the street. But maybe I am missing something bigger picture, IDK

[FlippantCitizen]

Yeah in a city with the density of KC currently and the foreseeable future, not every building or even most buildings can support ground floor retail. The customers simply are not there. The key corner this building will occupy should have ground floor activation though and is a disappointment in my book.

Totally agree TLG. Projects that take up a whole block are generally terrible urbanism. I understand the economics of why most developments will go for max assemblage and floor plate but I hate it and wish more thought was going into making it otherwise.

[earthling]

^There can still be requirements for retail spots (or any space with separate outside entry) for any project involving public aid that doesn't necessarily need to be filled with retail in the near term. It can be used for storage, common area or other internal building purposes until market conditions are right for a publicly accessible space, which helps create street vibe. In the 50+ year big picture, it would be a lost opportunity if properties are built as isolated islands especially if not easy to retrofit later. Seattle had similar requirements before it took off and it paid off.

[FlippantCitizen]

Interesting, I didn't know that about Seattle. I would support implementing something like that. Having future retrofits and adaptability for the ground floor in mind is underrated.

[TheLastGentleman]

Centropolis certainly isn’t perfect, and retail space would definitely improve it, but I don’t like a lack of retail makes a bad building. There are loads of excellent buildings in KC that lack retail, so I don’t think it’s inherently a deciding factor

[earthling]

^It's not whether the building is bad or not, it's what it takes away from 30-50+ year street vibe potential by not factoring that in the original design. If one building ignores the potential then the next one may too, so on and so on and you never will create an environment for future street vibe. If all buildings build with future street vibe in mind even if current condition aren't right, it takes the potential out of the equation.

[GRID]

Of all buildings in the ENTIRE river market district, this is THE ONE LOCATION that should have ground floor retail on at least two sides and it should be built as urban as possible (not just another 5 over 1 block). And the fact that this entire project was originally supposed to be a "vision" by the city to build something special with the city providing input on what they wanted built there, I'm just very confused by the end design.

This project should have ground floor retail or some sort of ground floor activation (walk out apartments etc) and I thought it would have some sort of transit component like maybe putting a bus transit center in the garage or something.

[TheLastGentleman]

^It's not whether the building is bad or not, it's what it takes away from 30-50+ year street vibe potential by not factoring that in the original design. If one building ignores the potential then the next one may too, so on and so on and you never will create an environment for future street vibe. If all buildings build with future street vibe in mind even if current condition aren't right, it takes the potential out of the equation.

Again, yes, retail space would improve Centropolis. My point is that there is a lot more that contributes to good urbanism than just retail slots.

[smh]

I suppose I misspoke. What I am really talking about is a transparent activated ground floor. It could be retail, it could be lobby, it could be really anything. But the worst choice is brick wall or parking garage vent which contribute nothing to the streetscape.

[earthling]

^It's not whether the building is bad or not, it's what it takes away from 30-50+ year street vibe potential by not factoring that in the original design. If one building ignores the potential then the next one may too, so on and so on and you never will create an environment for future street vibe. If all buildings build with future street vibe in mind even if current condition aren't right, it takes the potential out of the equation.

Again, yes, retail space would improve Centropolis. My point is that there is a lot more that contributes to good urbanism than just retail slots.

Yeah so am not suggesting these spaces need to be 'retail' full time or to start with, but rather some kind of sidewalk publicly accessible space with own entrance that could be used for any purpose over the years - internal some years, some form of public accessible other years as market/economic conditions dictate over the decades. KC should require this downtown and along streetcar line for any project that receives any form of public aid.