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

[tat2kc]

It looks like the south loop used to look. and the east loop looks now. and look at both of those areas. Yea, it looks bad now, but if the south loop develoment is a success, then I expect that the nothern edge of the loop would hopefully develop organically, and not as a large, single development

[FangKC]

That facade of the Grand Opera House could be reused and be quite lovely -- much like the buildings on W. 9th Street near Baltimore (the Bunker, 102-06 W. 9th buildings: Lyceum-Orient (Stillwell Bldg.) and former Dime Museum.  The front facade has stood up quite well for a 116-year-old building that has been ruined with a bad reuse.  I can only imagine what the Europeans would do with that facade.

Click link to see buildings at 102-04 W. 9th Street (Bunker and Stillwell buildings)

http://www.kitesingleton.com/bunker.htm

Highlander, the Grand Opera House was deemed structurally sound.  It's not in any danger of collapse. It just can't be used for a parking garage. There is some water damage on west and south facades that can be repaired if need be.  That's assuming any part is saved, and if so, if those walls will be removed or not.  The real challenge will be removing the inner parking decks.

It certainly would make a neat candidate for an adaptive re-use plan.  Given the right partnership, it could even be a great opportunity for some design firm.

[PumpkinStalker]

Interesting blip I will quote out of Historic Kansas City Foundation's website.

"HKCF learned that structural studies conducted by the previous owner and Tower Properties indicate that the ramp system which supports the exterior walls is deteriorated beyond repair. The removal of the ramp system to rehabilitate the building for another use would compromise the structure and require costly and careful installation of a new structural system to prevent the walls from collapsing. Because of the previous gutting of the interior and the removal of the ramps, how much of this cost would be considered eligible for tax credits? Normally costs associated with the rehabilitation of historic interiors and structural elements of a historic building qualify, however when there is significant infill within a shell, the question of what is rehabilitation and what is new construction arises."

See full article here
http://www.historickansascity.org/index ... &Itemid=93

[scooterj]

The barricades around this building are down again... was there a last minute save?

[voltopt]

The barricades around this building are down again... was there a last minute save?

With all of this barricade indecision, I half expect the building to launch into orbit sometime soon.

[moderne]

They enlarged the barricade enclosure around the old hotel site.  Looks like they just moved the segments over that were around the Opera House.

[FangKC]

I just can't believe that Jonathan Kemper, president of the board of trustees for the National Trust for Historic Preservation, cannot see the intrinsic beauty of this facade and do what is necessary to preserve it. Regardless of the fact that it's not on the National Register for Historic Places, it is a beautiful old facade and could be re-used.  It is certainly far from plain.

Shirley Helzberg spent $11 million restoring and expanding the George Blossom mansion and another $15 million on the Webster School project.  She goes the extra mile to save historic properties.  Perhaps she should be the head of the National Trust because she is a better custodian and example of preserving our city's history and architecture.  Certainly more laudable than Kemper.

As head of the National Trust, Jonathan Kemper has a responsibility to set an example for building preservation--especially in his own city.  What is the point of his having the power and influence if he doesn't apply it here?

Kemper's major preservation projects locally have been restoration of the Commerce Trust building and the First National Bank building for reuse as a library.  The Commerce Trust restoration received public historic tax credits to preserve the offices of a wealthy, family-controlled bank, which certainly could have afforded to restore their own property without tax credits.

The Kempers are a very wealthy family. What is the point of being on the National Trust, and having all that money, yet not preserving the Grand Opera building?  I can't  help feeling that destroying this building will set a very bad precedent by someone who is supposed to be setting an example.

How can other wealthy owners and developers be asked to save old buildings when the head of the National Trust seems unwilling to do it himself?

In the case of the Kemper family, there is also their long legacy of destroying historic buildings and those by significant architects. Not just one, but many. One would have to look hard to find any other single family dynasty that has destroyed so much of our historic building stock.  In my estimation, because of past misdeeds, the Kemper family owes us the Grand Opera House as a form of restitution.

Tower Properties has cited the immense cost of salvaging the structure as justification for demolishing it.  Isn't that exactly the common refrain used by all developers and owners of historic buildings?   If that were the major factor, no historic building justifies preservation and re-use.

One is also not taking into account the considerable cost of completely demolishing and preparing the site for redevelopment. Which will also probably require some public dollars in the end for "site preparation." Sure it will probably be less than saving the building, but that demolition cost could be applied to a re-use budget and partially pay for some of the cost of saving it.  I'd rather see public dollars spent to preserve the structure than demolish it.  That doesn't take into account additional public dollars that will probably be requested to build a new structure in the form of long-term TIF and tax-abatement periods.

I just don't buy the argument that the facade is too difficult to stabilize and re-use.  Of course it won't be easy. The Jenkins Music Building facade was saved.   The Vine Street Workhouse is being saved and re-used, and it is just a shell that has sat exposed to the elements for years.  I've watched the demolition of several large old buildings downtown, and some of them even in demolition appeared to have been very well-built and difficult to bring down.  I'm willing to bet the shell of the Grand Opera House is still very strong.

In other cases, some freeway bridges and overpasses have been cut apart in sections and the parts re-used in other building projects.  There is know-how in the engineering world to cut apart concrete slabs.

The other problem I have with the whole idea is that the City is going to lengths to save and preserve already destroyed foundations of long-gone buildings at the Town of Kansas site.  Buildings that one cannot even see in their entire state. Yet no one wants to save the ruins of a 115-year-old theater building that is still standing?  It doesn't make sense to me.  Isn't the visible representation of historic architecture worth more aethestically than stone foundations?

I may be alone in this position, but there is also another thing gnawing at me about this entire situation. It is the premise that the Grand Opera House cannot be landmarked because the building is not in its original condition and has been significantly modified from its original purpose and use.  The historians and politicians use this as justification for why it isn't on the National Register and eligible for historic tax credits.

But I ask you, what building over 100-years-old hasn't been modified in some way?  Often the interiors and facades have to be recreated completely to replace what has been removed or modified.  If we apply that standard, we are going to continue to lose our historic built environment and the physical manifestations of old styles of architecture.

It would also seem to me that Jonathan Kemper is in the position to influence and advocate changes in the standards and criteria so that historic facades that have had significant interior modifications can be landmarked.  In the case of the Jenkins Music Building, it was on the National Register before the majority of it was demolished.  Only the facade remains anyway.   What really is the difference between that situation and what might be done saving just the facade of the Grand Opera House?

I know there are a lot of other situations where the facades of buildings are the only portion that are landmarked.  It just seems to me that there should be a way to save this building and get it some form of landmarked status.  Isn't it up to the public in the end to set the criteria for what is worthy of saving?   Kemper seems to be the obvious person to change how some buildings are granted protection.    Isn't it more important in the end to landmark and save these structures than argue over details like whether the interior or original use is intact?

There is an argument to be made for simply preserving portions of the historic landscape and built environment despite what has happened to it through the buildings' life.  There should be some sort of category for the preservation of, and in some cases, re-use of building ruins that have had their integrity spoiled.

Many people can admire the facade of an old building without ever going inside of it. It is the inter-connectedness of the past and present styles of architecture that is important and relevant.

In the end, it all comes down to public will.

[rxlexi]

Fang, I admire your passion on the subject of the grand opera house.  On a related note, what about somehow stabilizing the building and doing some minor rehab work and then doing an elegant lighting scheme and opening to the public as a kind of ruin or romantic castle kind of thing?  I'm not sure what one could/would do with the interior but simply keeping the facade intact and allowing people to explore around it, creating a manufactured 'ruin' DT would be kind of neat.  Surely will never happen, but I'd like to see some outside the box ideas about the GOH's reuse.

[KC-wildcat]

what about somehow stabilizing the building and doing some minor rehab work and then doing an elegant lighting scheme and opening to the public as a kind of ruin or romantic castle kind of thing? 

Yeah, it would be like the Coliseum or Roman Forum or The Alamo. 

Seriously, though, in my opinion there would be absolutely no value in an old abandoned building that is cleaned up and lit up.  It has a nice, interesting facade, but that's about it. 

[kard]

i'd be happy enough if the building was cleaned up and used as a parking garage.

[moderne]

Virtually every city in Europe consisted of thousands of shells worse than this one back in 1945. 

[FangKC]

The idea is a romantic one indeed.  If we were in Europe, it might be a very real possibility.  Kansas City just doesn't have the tourism to support such a concept.  Europeans are less inclined to demand that something have a direct economic benefit.  Although they learned a long time ago the overall benefit of preserving their historic environment since the conglomeration of such properties increases their tourism.

New York City has something similar to your idea though. The old Smallpox Hospital on Roosevelt Island.









The ruined site is being considered as part of a greater memorial to Franklin Delano Roosevelt.  The Smallpox Hospital is lit at night. I used to love taking a cab down FDR Drive at night and passing by it and seeing it all lit up. It is really very gothic and neat.  It is one of my favorite sites in NYC.

However, we have to face economic realities in that most people demand some sort of productive use of the site. If it were located outside the downtown business district, it might be more feasible to have it be a stabilized ruin. Granted, surface parking lots are a lesser form of productive land-use and contribute less to economic health than a functioning building might.  However, even a surface parking lot contributes to the economy in that it provides an indirect benefit and amenity for the businesses that use it.  The Grand Opera House only has been able to survive this long because it was used as a parking garage for most of its life.  Other theaters of its vintage are long-gone.

Which brings us back to the demand for land, and productive use. Most historic buildings have to find a economic purpose to survive unless there isn't much need for the land.  Like a ghost town.  :lol:  The problem with stabilizing the buildings and doing minor rehab is the cost of doing it.  In our country, most of this has to come from public money.  Private businesses don't want to do it.

In places like New York City and Boston, many historic buildings remain because of the high demand and cost of housing, and the difficulty of constructing new buildings.  It is more cost-effective to renovate and re-use there. Partially because it is so expensive to do a full-scale demolition.  In New York City, almost any centrally-located building can be turned into housing because the demand for convenient housing is so high.  People will live in closet-sized spaces just to live in Manhattan.  People there will pay a premium to live in a historic or distinctive building.  Millions are paid for a renovated horse stable.

In the end though, the best hope for any building is the fact it is used.  There are great arguments for preservation though.

One can make an argument that cities that emphasize and promote a preservation ethic do better economically that cities that don't.  One form of this is that these cities have converted their former commercial and industrical building stock into a tourism economy.  They also promote the use of older buildings for cultural amenities like art galleries and studios.  Older buildings often provide cheap space for entrepenuers to start new businesses, and for non-profit entities.

Cultural and arts center have traditionally faired better over the long term than other cities.  The arts and tourism often sustain them though bad business downturns and loss of industry.

[FangKC]

The romantic part of me loves ruins though, and I wish we had more of them just existing as cultural artifacts.

Candidates locally:

Wheatley-Provident Hospital at 1826 Forest near 19th and Troost.  It is the building with the old ASYLUM lights on the building.



Vine Street Workhouse at 20th and Vine. It is supposed to be reconstructed as part of a greater redevelopment plan for Beacon Hill.



Sauer Castle on Shawnee Drive in Kansas City, Kansas.  It would make a great ruin in the center of a small park.  I hope it gets restored though.  It's one of the great houses of the KC Metro.  If this isn't the setting for a horror movie, I don't know what is.



Covenant Baptist Church at 9th and Harrison



There is an old grain processing facility near I-35, Southwest Boulevard, and Cambridge Circle that would make a neat ruin.  I don't have a photo to display though.

[KC-wildcat]

Not really sure what the structure is/was, but there exists something of a ruin over on Broadway & 31st.  A new building constructed inside the ruin.  That could be an interesting concept for the Opera House, I guess. 

[Tosspot]

As far as I can remember, Sauer Castle is getting rehabbed.

[schugg]

Not really sure what the structure is/was, but there exists something of a ruin over on Broadway & 31st.  A new building constructed inside the ruin.  That could be an interesting concept for the Opera House, I guess. 

that used to be the old stables for the KCPD.

[scooterj]

They enlarged the barricade enclosure around the old hotel site.  Looks like they just moved the segments over that were around the Opera House.

You sure?  It's always been blocking a lane of 7th, Main, and 8th.

[Midtownkid]

I was just reading about Roosevelt Island in "Architectural Record" (actually the issue w/ the Nelson in it) and it looks like this ruin might not stand for much longer.  A largely unrealized plan for a FDR memorial by Louis Kahn is being resurrected and the hospital stands in its way.  Preservationists are fighting it, but it will probably not be there for much longer.  I kind of like this 'ruin' idea, but it doesn't make much since for KC or for a downtown...if it was on the riverside or in a park it might make since.  Just brace the walls and build a tower behind it and reuse the facade for the first few floors (retail area?).  They do this here in DC all the time and it makes downtown look really cool!

The idea is a romantic one indeed.  If we were in Europe, it might be a very real possibility.  Kansas City just doesn't have the tourism to support such a concept.  Europeans are less inclined to demand that something have a direct economic benefit.  Although they learned a long time ago the overall benefit of preserving their historic environment since the conglomeration of such properties increases their tourism.

New York City has something similar to your idea though. The old Smallpox Hospital on Roosevelt Island.









The ruined site is being considered as part of a greater memorial to Franklin Delano Roosevelt.  The Smallpox Hospital is lit at night. I used to love taking a cab down FDR Drive at night and passing by it and seeing it all lit up. It is really very gothic and neat.  It is one of my favorite sites in NYC.

However, we have to face economic realities in that most people demand some sort of productive use of the site. If it were located outside the downtown business district, it might be more feasible to have it be a stabilized ruin. Granted, surface parking lots are a lesser form of productive land-use and contribute less to economic health than a functioning building might.  However, even a surface parking lot contributes to the economy in that it provides an indirect benefit and amenity for the businesses that use it.  The Grand Opera House only has been able to survive this long because it was used as a parking garage for most of its life.  Other theaters of its vintage are long-gone.

Which brings us back to the demand for land, and productive use. Most historic buildings have to find a economic purpose to survive unless there isn't much need for the land.  Like a ghost town.    The problem with stabilizing the buildings and doing minor rehab is the cost of doing it.  In our country, most of this has to come from public money.  Private businesses don't want to do it.

In places like New York City and Boston, many historic buildings remain because of the high demand and cost of housing, and the difficulty of constructing new buildings.  It is more cost-effective to renovate and re-use there. Partially because it is so expensive to do a full-scale demolition.  In New York City, almost any centrally-located building can be turned into housing because the demand for convenient housing is so high.  People will live in closet-sized spaces just to live in Manhattan.  People there will pay a premium to live in a historic or distinctive building.  Millions are paid for a renovated horse stable.

In the end though, the best hope for any building is the fact it is used.  There are great arguments for preservation though.

One can make an argument that cities that emphasize and promote a preservation ethic do better economically that cities that don't.  One form of this is that these cities have converted their former commercial and industrical building stock into a tourism economy.  They also promote the use of older buildings for cultural amenities like art galleries and studios.  Older buildings often provide cheap space for entrepenuers to start new businesses, and for non-profit entities.

Cultural and arts center have traditionally faired better over the long term than other cities.  The arts and tourism often sustain them though bad business downturns and loss of industry.

[rxlexi]

Fang, I was actually thinking of the smallpox hospital when I made my comment about leaving the building as a 'ruins' of sorts.  Another great example is the Mill City Museum in Minneapolis where they dug up a number of old flour mill foundations and excavated brick walls, and then created a historical museum there.  Leaving the facade up, lighting it well, and then adding plaques etc. about the history of the structure and the area might be an interesting addition to downtown.  I'd just like to see it saved in some way shape or form, even it is just stabilized and left a functional parking garage.  I would still add some type of historical plaque, though; the history there is worth mentioning as long the facade stands.

[FangKC]

I'm distressed to hear about the smallpox hospital. I'll have to go read that article when I'm at the library next.

Tearing the old hospital down is one of the stupidest ideas I've heard in a long time. Look at the beauty of it in its ruined state. The vines, the lights.  If the Roosevelt Memorial cannot be accomplished without sparing the ruins, then it should not be done, or should be modified. There is plenty of room for a memorial of some type without demolition.

That site is one of the most romantic sites in all of New York City.  It's in a location that doesn't have high land-use demands.  The Circle Line boats take people past it all day and night.