OFFICIAL - Loews Convention Hotel (formerly Hyatt)

[DColeKC]

Must everything require ground level retail? I think any of us that have design responsibilities get to the point in the design phase where you can't please everyone and you need to consider what you're going to be dealing with 99% of the time. The loading docks for example, they need to be a on street that can accommodate a large 53' semi backing in. I don't see a better place for the loading docks and parking garage entrance. I haven't walked over there in some time.

At the end of the day, the most important question is what will make the business successful and if that means you can't make the side of your building beautiful for the neighbors across the street due to need for it to function, that's what has to happen. Look at the H&R building with the loading dock, garage entrance and mechanical all on walnut, directly across from restaurant patios. It had to be that way.

[KCPowercat]

I have no problem with any hotel Porte cochere. I mentioned it as that is not a fun pedestrian experience on that side but it is necessary. I appreciate your comments and not at all trying to misrepresent them.

What we got was below what we should expect from buildings in 2019. That's my only point. A hotel that took no incentives did better albeit smaller so definitely easier.

[KCPowercat]

Nobody ever said there has to be 100% ground level retail on every building

[TheLastGentleman]

Well given we have a gigantor rock wall there now and zero ability to add pedestrian walkway I think being forward thinking in that respect has left the station.

Pedestrian walkway to where? The underside of Bartle??? That stretch of Truman is effectively part of the South Loop Trench. What could you possibly do besides a rock wall without removing the entire hill?

As I already mentioned a couple options of putting the loading docks and trash down a private alley through the middle of the building or put these features in an underused Truman that faces a highway or at the very least cover up the BOH docks like PAC did and it faces Broadway for goodness sake.

Since the garage entries and loading docks are likely coupled together underneath the ballroom for a reason, placing them on Truman would mean relocating the functions of that entire part of the building to the north. That means the garage would become a prominent feature of the north facade and, to make room for the garage being at the northeast corner, the restaurant space would end up somewhere else in the building, isolating it from valuable P&L traffic.

On top of that, you couldn't even fit the garage in that spot in the first place without significantly reducing the rocky hill.

A private alleyway system through the building is an interesting idea. However, even ignoring the elevation changes involved that would complicate the building's layout, an alleyway totally entombed inside a building would require an extensive ventilation system, complex engineering to open a large enough cavity in the building to maneuver trucks inside (all with a building sitting on top, mind you!), and a relocation of all the parking space that would be sliced through in the existing plan. Even of you somehow figured a way to make it open air, you would then need to reorganize every single function around the new geometry.

It would end up being a very complicated building.

Doesn't seem like we have any rules given we just built an entire block 90% loading docks.

What?

And they will have trucks poking out of them 99% of the time into the sidewalk.

Maybe I'm just naive, but I'd assume trucks will be able to fit inside the dock.

Let's not ignore that 16th and Wyandotte is also a bad pedestrian experience.

Okay. How would you improve it?

The feeling I'm getting from the critics of this building is that it's bad it isn't facing the Crossroads. I thoroughly disagree, of course, but is that it? I know earlier in the thread, KCPowercat explicitly said that was his issue with it but I'd be surprised if that was the popular consensus.

Facing it north seems like a natural to me

[TheLastGentleman]

Friendly reminder

[KCPowercat]

Yeah lot of things you just posted could have been done if you flipped the building and put the garage and ballroom north.

I agree you will never fix Truman being impossible for peds, which is why I suggested putting the loading docks on that side

[KCPowercat]

Friendly reminder

Heck yeah that side is sexy.

[DaveKCMO]

Sidewalks are being poured on Baltimore and 16th

Urban perfection! Crossroads love! /s

.

[TheLastGentleman]

Urban perfection! Crossroads love! /s

So, Dave, what would have done?

[DaveKCMO]

Urban perfection! Crossroads love! /s

So, Dave, what would have done?

Maybe add glass like, I dunno, the other three corners?

Come on, even the lone set of doors is 100% solid and beige.

[DColeKC]

Urban perfection! Crossroads love! /s

So, Dave, what would have done?

Maybe add glass like, I dunno, the other three corners?

Come on, even the lone set of doors is 100% solid and beige.

I’m guessing the other three sides are functioning front of house space. Not sure why anyone would want to see into a loading dock, trash dumpster and garage area? Pull a play from dozens of other KC buildings. Have someone come slap a giant mural all over that beige.

[KCPowercat]

The flocking to defend bad design is weird to me.

Nobody is saying we'd rather this building not exist but is it so bad to discuss how the design could be better at the pedestrian level especially on, you know, a urban forum full of downtown neighborhood residents who have to walk by these buildings on the daily?

[horizons82]

In my view it’s a case of “you get what you paid for.” And planned for.

The city could have been more robust in its planning for the hotel, but it sat around and had no gameplan when a developer stepped up. The city could have land banked an easier site to develop. They could have modified parking reqs for convention facilities, instituted overlays on 16th street, etc.

The vast majority of the items people take issue with could have been remedied if there was a larger incentive package to pay for it all (garage ventilation, excavation for subterranean BOH, etc) because the base market doesn’t really support it. But we know how that would have been portrayed in the media.

[flyingember]

In my view it’s a case of “you get what you paid for.” And planned for.

The city could have been more robust in its planning for the hotel, but it sat around and had no gameplan when a developer stepped up. The city could have land banked an easier site to develop. They could have modified parking reqs for convention facilities, instituted overlays on 16th street, etc.

The vast majority of the items people take issue with could have been remedied if there was a larger incentive package to pay for it all (garage ventilation, excavation for subterranean BOH, etc) because the base market doesn’t really support it. But we know how that would have been portrayed in the media.

So it's not "you get what you pay for" but more "you get what you demand they spend money on"

Nearly every point that is about a design that could change comes down to city code not requiring certain things be done as hard and fast rules. Our development standards are too flexible on the basics.

And why would the city just go and buy random land to sit on it? What if there was no developer interested in that site? Remember, there were multiple mock ups next to Power and Light with concepts and it wasn't built there. So just picking a spot could have meant building nothing.

Sometimes land becomes available only when someone is willing to pay the right price and the timing needs to be right. It's like the parking lot on Broadway held up in a lawsuit over who got to inherit it. The city couldn't have bought it when ownership was disputed. Meanwhile maybe the Herford Association saw an opportunity to move at a premium but it took their management to get used to the idea over a couple years to say yes and they said yes quicker and at a lower cost than someone else did.

Capitalism is messy.

[KCPowercat]

In my view it’s a case of “you get what you paid for.” And planned for.

The city could have been more robust in its planning for the hotel, but it sat around and had no gameplan when a developer stepped up. The city could have land banked an easier site to develop. They could have modified parking reqs for convention facilities, instituted overlays on 16th street, etc.

The vast majority of the items people take issue with could have been remedied if there was a larger incentive package to pay for it all (garage ventilation, excavation for subterranean BOH, etc) because the base market doesn’t really support it. But we know how that would have been portrayed in the media.

Definitely a lack of overall planning. I often feel like kcmo is putting together a puzzle without the box and just mushing pieces together.

[earthling]

Mayor James mentioned after a trip to Seattle and seeing the requirements they had for downtown development to include retail or ped friendly alignment, he wished he would have proposed this as well. Seattle did this 20+ years ago and it helped create lively streets all across downtown.

Downtown/city planners need to think about 20-50+ year impact and have authority to set guidelines for developers. Requiring some form of ped friendly/retail space doesn't have to be as restrictive as it sounds. Don't have to require retail space but it could be any street friendly space that could eventually become retail space. It could be used for conference rooms or storage, etc. until market conditions are right for the block to be used for potentially publicly accessibly space or just pedestrian friendlier than walking along blank walls.

Once a developer creates an isolated inward space with no street friendly vibe to it, the next one next door will do same. Then you have a 20+ year missed opportunity. Downtown planners need authority to promote street level design that create a contiguous pedestrian friendly flow from one building to the next. Even where it doesn't seem to make sense for a decade. But granted, this is a tough spot.

[KCPowercat]

Think of the businesses! They can't survive that way! Oh wait Seattle is growing gangbusters.

Go street view around all four streets surrounding the 1200 room Sheraton grand or the newly built 1200 room Hyatt regency both with more meeting space than our Loews and that shows why we are frustrated.

[beautyfromashes]

Go street view around all four streets surrounding the 1200 room Sheraton grand or the newly built 1200 room Hyatt regency both with more meeting space than our Loews and that shows why we are frustrated.

And it’s not like there wouldn’t be huge demand for retail space in that building. Event retail for weddings and receptions (flower shop, tuxes, dress shop, etc), tourism retail, lifestyle businesses (spa, massage, etc), convention business (shipping store, display rental, etc). Seems a waste of an opportunity.

[FangKC]

In my view it’s a case of “you get what you paid for.” And planned for.

The city could have been more robust in its planning for the hotel, but it sat around and had no gameplan when a developer stepped up. The city could have land banked an easier site to develop. They could have modified parking reqs for convention facilities, instituted overlays on 16th street, etc.
...

...
And why would the city just go and buy random land to sit on it? What if there was no developer interested in that site? Remember, there were multiple mock ups next to Power and Light with concepts and it wasn't built there. So just picking a spot could have meant building nothing.

The land under the hotel fronting Baltimore was--and is still--owned by a quasi-City agency, the Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority. It is part of the City's financial contribution to the project.

The city is contributing $35 million in cash to be repaid from hotel bed tax revenues, and land it owns on the development site along Baltimore Avenue valued at $7 million.

https://cityscenekc.com/convention-hote ... e-funding/

The City owns multiple blocks in the East Village that it has land banked for future development.

[grovester]

The flocking to defend bad design is weird to me.

Nobody is saying we'd rather this building not exist but is it so bad to discuss how the design could be better at the pedestrian level especially on, you know, a urban forum full of downtown neighborhood residents who have to walk by these buildings on the daily?

All I hear is "Shut up and be grateful!", how dare anyone ask anything of developers?