What if Sprint had built a 70 story Tower downtown?

LyRiCaL GanGsTa · Post by **LyRiCaL GanGsTa** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 12:53 pm

First off, I like Sprint as a company, there are far worse places to work.

I still think they should have went downtown, regardless of the $$ OP gave them. KCMO could have offered more than OP in every way, even monetarily if it wanted to. I think liberal idiot Mayor Cleaver dropped the ball and should have given them whatever they wanted. Downtown would have soared from all of the offshoot res and business development a Sprint tower would have brought with it, including all of the existing amenities that would have benefited. Throw in massive payroll taxes and downtown could have given away half the farm and still came out ahead... Instead buffoon Cleaver followed the good ol boy network of Kemper & company and other downtown 'movers' ( they couldn't make a bowel move) and tried to play like they really didn't need Sprint, that downtown was coming back already - hoping Sprint would fall for it. KC lost them more than OP gained or deserved them. In the end, downtown was still 20 years away from what Sprint would have done to impact the area. What Sprint completed in OP was a campus that is inefficient and has kept company departments fractionalized. Nobody out there really knows anyone else, not like a tower and surrounding mid-rises would have (70 story tower and 2-3, 20 story campus structures surrounding). A tower would have given them a rally-point and a true home base. The campus they built is so sterile.... I think it causes a moronic act-like-me-think-like-me-follow-along mentality that has caused Sprint to fall behind other telecomms. When I worked for Sprint ( 103rd & Holmes last year) every guy there was a dork - his life consisted of golf, The Comedy Channel, KU basketball and how much porn he could download... they all thought and acted alike.

In the long run, a downtown tower would have made them Kansas City's telecomm company. Now - nobody in KCMO or Missouri thinks of them as hometown. in fact, the opposite is true. I despise them after thier decision to build in Kansas and leaving the city behind like punks. Instead of an INSPIRING shining tower with SPRINT raised high above downtown KC, and an urbane, creative and diverse workforce from all walks of life - they got a sterile row of boxes on Kansas farmland that can't inspire, adds nothing to the city and enrolls masses of suburban moronic dolts that play follow-the-leader. Shame on Sprint for all eternity. Take a peek at what I envision Sprint might have built downtown below.

KC0KEK · Post by **KC0KEK** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 1:51 pm

One question is whether KCMO's infrastructure (i.e., roads) could have scaled quickly to accommodate the addition of 10K-20K people downtown. Sprint downtown might have been the impetus for commuter/light rail, but considering the lead time to put in rail, my guess is that the tower(s) would have opened long before the rail system did.

I'd be interested in a comparison of the cost of Sprint's campus, including land, versus a tower or towers downtown. If downtown was much more expensive, then I can't blame them for taking the cheaper route. They're a public company, and some fund manager in NYC doesn't care whether they took a hit to do right by downtown. They just want to see good numbers each quarter, and in a commodity business such as telecom, it's getting to the point where the only way to hit your numbers is by cutting costs.

Slappy the Wang · Post by **Slappy the Wang** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 2:19 pm

It would have 49 vacant stories at this point!

LyRiCaL GanGsTa · Post by **LyRiCaL GanGsTa** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 2:49 pm

One question is whether KCMO's infrastructure (i.e., roads) could have scaled quickly to accommodate the addition of 10K-20K people downtown. Sprint downtown might have been the impetus for commuter/light rail, but considering the lead time to put in rail, my guess is that the tower(s) would have opened long before the rail system did.

Very true and great point. It may have been possible - especially with all the massive empty holes ( surface parking lots) in the south loop in 1980 until even now. I don't believe the new campus has ever had more than 12,000 employees working there, and it's doubtful it will ever have more than that, since downsizing is more eminent. Sprint will continue moving employees to the campus from other parts of the city ( there are hundreds still in KCMO). More than likely there would have been 10,000 new employees within the first few years had they built downtown. I also wonder how many of the employees that did go to the campus and the new employees that relocated here would have wanted to live downtown, within blocks of thier new tower? Perhaps as many as 1-2000 or more may have wanted to start living downtown and walk to work as soon as the tower was built?

Post by **staubio** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 3:07 pm

I know from reading a great deal about the campus project and looking at some drawings and design documents that the distribution of current employees was a matter of concern. Perhaps this was just a way to justify building on a previously owned greenfield, but the campus location was supposedly very near the center of a scatter-plot distribution of employees' homes. Granted, this simply caters to the same legacy suburban minds that are prolific at Sprint. To attract young, creative and energetic talent, there is no doubt an impressive urban tower would have done the trick. Still, young people seem inexplicably dazzled by the campus.

Post by **staubio** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 3:11 pm

Does anyone know of any potential plans for a downtown location when the campus was being considered? I know that the original concept for the parcel of land adjacent to Berkley Park on the riverfront was a Sprint campus. I haven't heard of what was studied in the loop.

LyRiCaL GanGsTa · Post by **LyRiCaL GanGsTa** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 3:22 pm

I don't recall any definite plans, maybe someone else does. I do know that Cleaver was always in the news regarding ongoing discussions with Sprint and we had a shot. Knowing how stupid Cleaver was - he probably would have tried to steer them into the West Bottoms like he did Gateway and Sprint and OP probably got a good laugh.

KCDevin · Post by **KCDevin** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 3:35 pm

I doubt it would have been 70 floors, our tallest ever proposed was 60...

GuyInLenexa · Post by **GuyInLenexa** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 5:28 pm

staubio wrote:Does anyone know of any potential plans for a downtown location when the campus was being considered? I know that the original concept for the parcel of land adjacent to Berkley Park on the riverfront was a Sprint campus. I haven't heard of what was studied in the loop.

I have never seen a solid proposal for Sprint to build a downtown World Headquarters. But when I was working for Sprint in Dallas around 1989 there were rumors that a new headquarters in KCMO. There never were definite plans.
The land purchased where the campus now stands was made in the early 1990â€™s.
One plan was for the World Headquarters to be moved from 2330 SM Pkwy in Westwood to Midtown, I think it was possibly the BMA building. The wanted all of the offices (52 at one time) to be consolidated into one location.
From some of the â€œold timersâ€

tat2kc · Post by **tat2kc** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 6:58 pm

GIL, why do you prefer a campus setting rather than a high rise? Just curious. Are there amenities that could be incorporated in an urban high rise setting that would sway you in the other direction?

KCDevin · Post by **KCDevin** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 7:02 pm

besides, building up saves room (even though we already have 313 sq miles) and it looks awsome.
We also have to keep in mind KC has a height limit (not only KC, probably alot of the metro in both states) of 2049ft above sea level.
That means if we built something at 900ft above sea level, the building could reach 1149ft tall.
Our tallest structure, KCPT is at 829ft above sea level. (1220ft tall)

To give you perspective, the WTC were 1,368ft and 1,362ft.
The John Hancock Center in Chicago is 1,127ft and the Aon Center in Chicago is 1,136ft.

Also, to give you perspective, the WDAF Tower is 1,164ft tall.

GRID · Post by **GRID** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 8:06 pm

Considering One KC Place is only around 1 million sq ft.

They could have built four 50 story towers. Hard to comprehend what Leavenworth South could have been.

trailerkid · Post by **trailerkid** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 12:49 pm

GRID wrote:Considering One KC Place is only around 1 million sq ft.

They could have built four 50 story towers. Hard to comprehend what Leavenworth South could have been.

Yeah...and three of them would've been empty by now.

GRID · Post by **GRID** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 2:18 pm

Not true, Sprint occupies all of the campus. They used to have a total of 5-6 million sq ft.

But still empty towers is better than no towers. How do you think Dallas, Atlanta and Denver are able to land big time corporate relocations? By have vast amounts of class A space readily available. But that's just not how KC does it. We wait for tennants and then build.

GuyInLenexa · Post by **GuyInLenexa** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 2:23 pm

tat2kc wrote:GIL, why do you prefer a campus setting rather than a high rise? Just curious. Are there amenities that could be incorporated in an urban high rise setting that would sway you in the other direction?

Tat2KC, I would have to say convenience and accessibility. I worked in downtown Houston and Fort Worth TX in the past in high rise buildings.
I love skyscrapers, but as far as â€œgetting the job doneâ€

Post by **staubio** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 2:39 pm

What good are the green spaces? They aren't ever used. The campus doesn't offer anything that a shared green space downtown wouldn't offer. Granted, parking is a luxery on campus, but its location all but ensures it cannot be effectively served using transit. The campus is served from the core by one Jo line from the Plaza to the campus. It takes an hour to make the trip, as it weaves throughout JoCo, and there are only 3-4 incoming and outgoing routes. I'd take the bus to go to work downtown 100% of the time, but that route wouldn't give people the flexibility.

I also agree that the campus design perpetuates the divisions between workgroups. Physical seperation begets perceptual seperation.

GuyInLenexa · Post by **GuyInLenexa** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 2:56 pm

I enjoy the green areas, I just walked from my office at Truman C to Earhart B for a meeting. To me it was a very pleasant walk.
Don't you eat outside when the weather is nice?
I suppose most of it is personal preference. If I worked downtown, I would probably live nearer to Downtown.

Post by **staubio** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 3:06 pm

I suppose "nobody" was a strong statement. I know that many people enjoy the opportunities to get outside and walk, but I'd venture that 95% of people never do. I can't count the times that people have driven from one garage to another on campus to go to a meeting.

Still, the green space doesn't really get used. I've never seen someone go play frisbee or play catch on the lawn over lunch. That would be unheard of! People walk around and enjoy the asthetics, I suppose, but you could do that downtown.

Czar · Post by **Czar** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 5:26 pm

Reminds me of a saying.... If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle... come on guys....stop dreaming and start living

KCDevin · Post by **KCDevin** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 5:37 pm

Its not dreaming, KC one day will get a 70 floor building, and I see in happening in 30 years.