1650 Broadway

[dnweava]

Complaining about not being able to build a super high rise on the west side of downtown is absurd. I actually think quality hill and city market are a better neighborhoods without tall glass boxes and 1650 broadway isn't a location that needs the tallest building in the city.

Seriously, the area between East Village and Paseo is where new high rise office buildings should be going, it's not in the flight path, has highway access but also a walkable grid that is literally downtown adjacent but currently a dead zone. (I'm sure the area will explode with construction if the baseball stadium goes EV) Paseo is a wide street that should look like Paseo in Mexico city or Paulista in Sao Paulo in 20-30 years, Obviously we aren't that big of a city as those but I think that corridor has more potential than any other area of the metro for big city type development.

[Chris Stritzel]

Weren't the renderings already shared in this thread the 350ft version? It seemed like that was all they really counted on. The application for 520ft was just to test the waters.

I believe those renderings were for a 400ft tall version.

But the FAA’s response to the city’s proposal, which arrived at City Hall Thursday morning, appeared at first glance to provide developers more guidance than they’ve had in the past, said Platt assistant Morgan Holecek. She planned to spend the rest of that day studying the more than 100-page report to see how helpful it might be. As Platt told The Star earlier in the week: “Fingers crossed.”

Interesting part from the article.

https://www.kansascity.com/news/politic ... rylink=cpy

The document offers good feedback and good guidance. Adhering to what was said can give the city a new high-rise, or two or three, and give the developers a product that they'd be happy with.

[GRID]

Complaining about not being able to build a super high rise on the west side of downtown is absurd. I actually think quality hill and city market are a better neighborhoods without tall glass boxes and 1650 broadway isn't a location that needs the tallest building in the city.

Seriously, the area between East Village and Paseo is where new high rise office buildings should be going, it's not in the flight path, has highway access but also a walkable grid that is literally downtown adjacent but currently a dead zone. (I'm sure the area will explode with construction if the baseball stadium goes EV) Paseo is a wide street that should look like Paseo in Mexico city or Paulista in Sao Paulo in 20-30 years, Obviously we aren't that big of a city as those but I think that corridor has more potential than any other area of the metro for big city type development.

Agree 100%. Although I have zero confidence in the state doing what needs to be done with the east loop to help make Paseo West properly develop. I still think if a stadium goes to EV, then Paseo West will become a giant parking lot area, even if one or two small apartment buildings do go up there. I know that's besides the point.

I really hope whatever happens on Broadway, it fills up that entire area with a nice dense development that interacts well with Broadway. I have not seen renderings of this project yet, but I'm picturing a giant above ground garage (probably at least ten floors) with a 20-30 story building on top and just a lot of setbacks and wasted space on the ground. It will have great views, but be pretty stand alone and not interact with the city at all and it will really goof up the aesthetics of the skyline and the west side being just too tall. A 20 story building on that location will look like 40 stories from nearly every angle. A 40-50 story building will look like Galleria place in Houston or Devin Tower in OKC.

[Chris Stritzel]

Here are renderings for reference...

[GRID]

That looks to be only about 35 floors. Are they even serious about building something over 500 feet tall there? Or is the 500' just for the tower crane?

[im2kull]

The problem isn’t this specific project but instead everything in RM and RF getting delayed or stopped.

+1

I'm not sure how folks on a pro-development forum are so blind to the fact that this behavior is extremely anti-development. It has nothing to do with esthetics, etc. If a developer wants to build, and checks all the boxes from the city, then they should be able to build. Period. That's how progress happens. If ya'll don't want progress, then just say so. High rises are EXCITING. They're a large portion of what DRAWS to an urban metro. If you really think folks don't judge cities with terrible skylines and a lack of high-rises in very negative ways, then ask yourself if you'd rather have our skyline, Omaha's, or Orlando's. Vertical growth must happen or else we appear to be stagnant. This isn't so fringe concept. Appearances matter.

[smh]

Eh, Greenwich Village (generally) lacks highrises and is one of the most coveted neighborhoods on Earth. Copenhagen (generally) lacks highrises and is one of the liveliest, most livable cities in the world. (To cite just two top of mind examples)

[Chris Stritzel]

There's a blanket height limit established over the whole of DC, yet when you go there, there are many vibrant areas of town that people hang out in, walk around, and live in. DC's skyline is poor relative to most all cities in the US, yet no one thinks of skyscrapers when they think of DC. Just like how no one thinks of "La Défense" when they think of Paris or "Moscow City" when they think of Moscow.

I believe that if developers check all boxes for development, then they should be able to build. No strings attached. Just build. But skylines aren't everything. The vibrancy and density within a city make or break it. Not all impressive skylines have vibrant cities attached to them.

I'm not upset by the FAA saying "hey, we know you wanted a 520ft tall building at 1650 Broadway and we're sorry you can't build that. But you have our full support and approval to build a 350ft tall building on the edge of a flight path on a site that's at the peak of a hill".

The River Market situation is entirely different than this one since you're taking about the FAA withholding approval for buildings that are within range of the existing buildings down there and the taller ones are situated further away from the downtown airport. You're also not talking about proposing a building of 500ft+ at the River Market.

This is a case-by-case situation and in the case of 1650 Broadway, the decision was made and a roadmap to success is clear. We can debate about aesthetics, vibrancy, density and towers all day, but be real. Those of us arguing that this is a good thing are some of the most vocal for developments in this city. We want density, vibrancy, and towers just as much as the next guy, but 1650 Broadway isn't the place to do it. 350ft is fine. Build that. Let's build denser neighborhoods that create an identity that can be associated with KC that's more than just the postcard skyline shot. You know how you do that? By not building high-rises everywhere.

I have not seen a logical argument presented for why a 520ft tall building on this particular site is a good thing. "Building towers to change the skyline in the name of progress" isn't a sound, logical argument.

[GRID]

^ I agree, but the FAA is way too hands on with the entire downtown area. I mean buildings under ten stories in the river market are being held up. Now that is totally ridiculous.

[Chris Stritzel]

^ I agree, but the FAA is way too hands on with the entire downtown area. I mean buildings under ten stories in the river market are being held up. Now that is totally ridiculous.

And I admit that there's where the FAA needs to be kicked to the curb. Since City Harvest was approved, everything of equal or shorter height east of Wyandotte should be approved by default. West of Wyandotte, when Atlas is approved, then that would set the new bar over there. When you go east of Walnut, you should be allowed to go even taller than City Harvest.

[beautyfromashes]

I'm not sure how folks on a pro-development forum are so blind to the fact that this behavior is extremely anti-development.

It's not just anti-development, it's anti-common sense. "We don't like this location because we feel there is a better location." "Does the developer own that property?" "Well, no. But, it's so much better."

[im2kull]

I'm not upset by the FAA saying "hey, we know you wanted a 520ft tall building at 1650 Broadway and we're sorry you can't build that. But you have our full support and approval to build a 350ft tall building on the edge of a flight path on a site that's at the peak of a hill".

But, this site isn't in any flight path. And, it's beyond hypocritical of the FAA given the number of flights each day that DO go directly over downtown. There's NO difference in our existing skyscrapers towering 500+ feet and this one proposed a mere 1,500ft away from those towering behemoths. (Which are actually quite short for most modern metropolitan downtown areas)

Air Traffic Control (ATC) will regularly ask a pilot if they are able to turn “North of the buildings” to expedite traffic. This results in planes flying over buildings, as you'll eventually notice from your new apartment. I've seen several planes buzz just a block or two to the North of there. In fact, this morning a large helicopter was buzzing around those blocks. Interestingly enough.

^ I agree, but the FAA is way too hands on with the entire downtown area. I mean buildings under ten stories in the river market are being held up. Now that is totally ridiculous.

+1

[bspecht]

Street and alley vacations applied for today. https://compasskc.kcmo.org/EnerGov_Prod ... b=moreinfo

[Chris Stritzel]

Seems the developers are trying for the 500ft option again. 11 applications amde to the FAA for a 500ft blanket building height across the site.

Just one such application...
https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/se ... 7983&row=2

[KCPowercat]

what was the plan here? Hotel? Rentals? Office? All the above?

[langosta]

what was the plan here? Hotel? Rentals? Office? All the above?

Yes

[KCPowercat]

what was the plan here? Hotel? Rentals? Office? All the above?

Yes

Ferris Wheel??

[langosta]

what was the plan here? Hotel? Rentals? Office? All the above?

Yes

Ferris Wheel??

No

[bspecht]

Street and alley vacations applied for today. https://compasskc.kcmo.org/EnerGov_Prod ... b=moreinfo

CPC didn't have any issues with the vacations this week, approved w/ conditions. Goes to Council at some point.

Representative for EPC said they we're still in early design ("focused on uses") but hoped to break ground early next year with a 2-3 year build.
https://www.youtube.com/live/jzXRQHJPox8?t=1774