Grand Opera House, 710 and 711 Main to be razed.

[FangKC]

Here is a photo of the area that shows the Prom Motor Hotel as it once appeared.  The top section of the Midland Hotel is shown behind the Prom Motor Hotel.

http://digital.library.umsystem.edu/cgi ... mage.y=108

[moderne]

The regrettable loss of a historic building could be an opportunity to expand Kansas City's much touted boulevard system downtown.  With these buildings gone, and 7th between Grand and Walnut already a surface lot, 7th could be widened to the south.  This would make it align with, and be as wide as Admiral Blvd, which is what 7th becomes east of Grand.   This would expand two way four lane Admiral all the way to Main.

[eliphar17]

The regrettable loss of a historic building could be an opportunity to expand Kansas City's much touted boulevard system downtown.  With these buildings gone, and 7th between Grand and Walnut already a surface lot, 7th could be widened to the south.  This would make it align with, and be as wide as Admiral Blvd, which is what 7th becomes east of Grand.  This would expand two way four lane Admiral all the way to Main.

More roads! Woohoo!

&&&

[moderne]

  Better than more parking lots.  Downtown KC has really narrow streets unlike places like NYC.  There are only three 4 lane north south streets(if you count Oak) and none east west.  The only through east west street is 12th and it is very narrow.  Some of the east west streets have doglegs.  Extending a tree lined boulevard would encourage residential and business and get some of these cars clogging my neighborhood out of here quickly and back to their suburbs.

[voltopt]

first they need to reclaim one lane of traffic on both sides of admiral boulevard east of grand.  there is no reason for that one way street to be six lanes wide.

[FangKC]

Umm, NYC has a lot of narrow streets.  Getting traffic out of downtown is really not a significant problem.  KC has one of the shortest commute times of any American city.

[GRID]

Umm, NYC has a lot of narrow streets.  Getting traffic out of downtown is really not a significant problem.  KC has one of the shortest commute times of any American city.

That has nothing to do with circulation downtown.  Downtown has very poor local circulation and when the arena, pac, P&L district etc opens, people are going to find that out REAL FAST.

I'm not justifying Tower's de-urbanization of the north side of downtown, I don't think widening 7th, will do much, but I think this city is going to need to address some traffic issues and get a "real" transit system operating quickly so people easily park south of downtown as far as crown center and walk or take transit, because there will be major traffic problems getting out of the loop garages after large events.

[kc-vino]

Any more pictures of this building.  I think it is neat seeing what the North loop looked like.  What a tragedy when one realizes what currently exists in this location.

[Gretz]

This was posted in "rumors" regarding these demolitions by an guest....




The address of the building is 710 Main. This past week the city council passed resolution no. 061343, stating:

"Stating the intent of the City Council of Kansas City, Missouri regarding the effect of the proposed demolition of certain improvements at 710 Main, 711 Main and 700 Walnut prior to the City Councils consideration of a Chapter 353 redevelopment plan."

You can read the whole resolution here.

http://cityclerk.kcmo.org/liveweb/Docum ... N10Q%3d%3d

It baffels me why the city should hand out another tax abatement (that's what a 353 redvelopment plan gets you) so that somebody can demolish a building when it is surrounded by vacant lots.

[FangKC]

I agree.  I looked at the building yesterday and the exterior isn't in that bad of shape. Of course, it's unsightly but that because it's boarded up and painted all one color.  I'm sure a good architect could make it into a decent-looking building.

It seems foolish to me to tear down a building that has a two-story parking garage in it already just for another surface parking lot.

I'm getting tired of the City allowing buildings to be torn down without a full-disclosure of the development plan the TIF seeker has.  This "I'm not at liberty to say" attitude is ok if they aren't seeking any public dollars. I think taxpayers deserve to know what it planned before TIF is granted or demolition is authorized.

I think the public deserves to know in advance why city council members would support this.  Especially if the Grand Opera House is part of the demolition plan.

[DaveKCMO]

I'm getting tired of the City allowing buildings to be torn down without a full-disclosure of the development plan the TIF seeker has.  This "I'm not at liberty to say" attitude is ok if they aren't seeking any public dollars. I think taxpayers deserve to know what it planned before TIF is granted or demolition is authorized.

email attack on the city council... GO!

[DaveKCMO]

here's mine:

To all concerned:

On 12/14/06, the council approved the demolition of buildings at 710 Main, 711 Main, and 700 Walnut without a stated plan by Tower Properties of what they plan to replace the structure with (one assumes surface parking?). Granted, these buildings are technically blighted, but to allow demolition and a TIF to be formed for these properties without any public knowledge of the redevelopment plan is inappropriate and requires explanation. What exactly is the health and safety issue with these buildings? I walk by them frequently and haven't been knowingly exposed to anything unsafe. What exactly are we allowing taxes to be diverted for? A new building or a surface lot? Downtown Kansas City has enough scars on its landscape that there are no longer any excuses for the "speculative" demolition that the city has allowed for decades.

Please advise.

[voltopt]

did you email the entire council or just 2nd district members?

[voltopt]

here is what i had to say.  i just sent it to jim glover, as he represents me on the council, but if you guys think i should send it to anyone else (or to the star or pitch) let me know.

Hello.
    I'm not sure if this is your issue, but as the representative of the council district I live in I assumed you would be the one to read this.  I am an avid supporter of Kansas City and as a young professional I have decided to remain in this city and live in the crossroads/downtown area.  Previously I have lived in south hyde park on charlotte, the west bottoms, valentine and volker, and I grew up in the southern section of waldo.  I have chosen to remain in Kansas City due to its amazing potential and the recent developments throughout the central city, which are not limited to the large scale projects that are publicly supported but also the general increase in quality of life, such as new restaurants, bars, salons, cafes, museums, galleries, somewhat better transit, a more pedestrian oriented public works department (although there is still a considerable way to go, I am encouraged by the "road diets" on Gilham and Baltimore).  Basically, I see things changing and the half century of decline and disinvestment may have finally turned upwards.  As we all know, a healthy city center means a healthy metropolitan area. 
    That is why I am so concerned and bothered that Tower Properties is seeking Public money (353 tax abatements) for vacant properties that are surrounded by surface parking lots, and it seems these properties will themselves become parking lots.  I experience the void that ALREADY exists in the north loop area every day when I walk down walnut or main street to work in the North End.  It is terrible how much existing infrastructure and city was removed decades ago for an overly setback, overly accessible suburban style highway and blocks upon blocks of surface parking lots.  Many significant buildings have been demolished over the years and replaced with something of little value to greater downtown - a surface parking lot.  Our fair city has subsidized its own destruction, thinking that parking trumped walkabilty, character, density, and history.  There is very little left - and one significant building that is left is the old Grand Opera House at 7th and Walnut.  This building is in disrepair, but the masonry exoskeleton is in great shape and the building itself could be saved if as nothing more than a great urban park ruin.  It is entirely feasible to reuse the outside of this fine building and build an entirely new structure on the interior.  Even if Tower Properties wanted to demolish this building for more parking, that is okay, as long as no public money is involved.  I can't fathom why the city would knowingly support tax breaks for something that would set back downtown even further, just as it seems poised for rebirth.  The only way the massive public investments in arenas, hotel, power and light districts can function as a reborn downtown is if the city treats the rest of downtown as an urban area, not as a suburban parking lot.  Maybe there is a development plan for this 700 main and 700 walnut site, but it has not been disclosed and I and many more like me feel like it is not deserving of public money unless there is some sort of IMPROVEMENT to the site.  A surface parking lot is not an improvement.

Please help support our love for Kansas City - we don't need more parking downtown, especially in the north loop, and especially of the publicly financed surface variety.

[kc-vino]

here is what i had to say.  i just sent it to jim glover, as he represents me on the council, but if you guys think i should send it to anyone else (or to the star or pitch) let me know.

Good call!  What's really sad is aside from Collison their seems to be no watch dogs in The Pitch or The Star that exploit these horrible actions by the city.  And Collison is so busy presenting news of projects taking off that he doesn't have time to address set backs such as this.  Seriously, where is the Historical Preservation Associations of Kansas city in all of this?  Where are these architects and urban developer aficionados when you need them?  We have enough talented architects that must have opinions on these matters. They have all this clout at these many firms but I never see them making a public stink about issues...unless they are all on this forum.  But this forum in itself is limited in the broader scope of development. 

[Long]

Widening any street downtown is an absurd idea, and the last thing I expected to hear from this site.

The ability to "get out of downtown fast" after something like an event at the Sprint Center is the suburban Truman Sports Complex mentality.  The idea is the the P&L district (as well as more of the surrounding downtown) becomes sort of a filter-- many people ideally will want to stop for dinner or a drink, or wander through retail before they get into their car and head back to the burbs.  Hopefully this could even start to happen with downtown workers, that they might be encouraged to hang out downtown after work a couple days a week instead of everyone racing to their car and out toward the highway at 5:00 PM.

[Long]

Here is a photo of the area that shows the Prom Motor Hotel as it once appeared.  The top section of the Midland Hotel is shown behind the Prom Motor Hotel.

http://digital.library.umsystem.edu/cgi ... mage.y=108

Yep.  Assuming the building is structurally sound, there's absolutely no reason this couldn't be turned into some funky modern apartment or condo building. 

[moderne]

  Please walk down Admiral and also seventh as I do every day.  Undoubtably you would have been against cutting Main through the hill south of Pershing 80 years ago and straigntening it out between Wesport and 41st.  Extending a Boulevard by taking 10 feet of surface parking lot is not building a freeway.  Guess you dont like the Champ Elysee in Paris or Michigan Ave in Chicago!

[LenexatoKCMO]

   Please walk down Admiral and also seventh as I do every day.  Undoubtably you would have been against cutting Main through the hill south of Pershing 80 years ago and straigntening it out between Wesport and 41st.  Extending a Boulevard by taking 10 feet of surface parking lot is not building a freeway.  Guess you dont like the Champ Elysee in Paris or Michigan Ave in Chicago!

The Champs Elysee and Michigan Avenue both feature Sidewalks that are almost as wide as the traffic and in the case of the Champs Elysee, a very wide landscaped median.  Both of these Boulevards, while wide roads, are mostly geared towards the pedestrian experience.  Kansas City, unfortunately, does not know how to build a real boulevard.  Our idea of a boulevard is seven lanes of undivided traffic with a narrow strip of unlandscaped sidewalk on either side.  That is not a boulevard - it's an expressway.  I would love to see some of our "boulevards" reworked so that some of that width is actually used to create a pleasant urban experience instead of an express route out of town.  Imagine how nice Main or Grand could be. 

[moderne]

  Look again at Admiral.  The sidewalks there are set back from the street and separated from the traffic by trees(What there are left of them).  It makes for a more pleasant walking experience than being butted up against the cars.  Neither main nor grand are really wide enough to be reworked into proper boulevards, for some reason Grand Ave was erroneously renamed a Boulevard over a decade ago.  A true boulevard actually has a staggered double row of trees.  You can see this is some old photos of Armour.  I have a feeling that out older boulevards have been altered dramatically from what Kessler designed in that pre-auto age.