OFFICIAL - Loews Convention Hotel (formerly Hyatt)

[missingkc]

I think that it's just that some of us are not convinced that the complainers know more about the process, resources and limitations than the people who actually did the work and invested the money.

[horizons82]

People have every right to complain, but you’ve got to ground it in the realities of A) what the building code dictates; B) what the market/financiers dictate; C) what the required program is; and arguably most importantly D) What the city mandates. People should push developers to be better. The best way to do that is to take stock of City policy failings. Figure out what should have been enacted and still can be for future projects of any size.

[TheLastGentleman]

If this design were built on a flat, blank surface lot bordered entirely by regular city streets, like those buildings in Seattle are, I'd be just as annoyed as all of you are.

But that's not where it's being built, is it?

It was built on a site bisected into two dramatically different elevations by a rocky hill and directly across the worst section of Truman Rd from a busy freeway trench. I think the fact that this site has never been much more than a shaggy hill throughout its entire history demonstrates how undesirable and difficult this site is. It was an eyesore, and one that wasn't going to get developed by private interests in the foreseeable future.

That's what makes it so great that it's finally getting developed with a building that resolves the elevation change, conceals the hill and visually and physically connects the convention center with the P&L district. As established earlier in this thread, many of the complaints leveled against this building were a direct result of the challenging site, so why are you all so disturbed by them? Any large project constructed on this site was going to come out roughly the same way. Again, even the fantasy skyscraper proposal shows an ugly south end. What were they supposed to do?

As for the claim that it should've been built elsewhere, why? This project was a chance to fix a prominent eyesore and I'm glad the city took it.

[kas1]

I'm just wondering why the complaining is starting now. It's been known since the beginning of time that the only way a convention hotel would happen would be if it was value-engineered to hell and back twice over, and this is exactly the type of building you get when every decision is driven by cost. And obviously there wasn't going to be any pressure for good design from a city council that condemned four blocks of land to build a single-story building in a parking lagoon. People need to be careful what they wish for.

[FangKC]

I agree it was a bad site. The only way some of the problems could have been resolved is, if back during the Depression as a work project, the rest of the limestone would have been excavated to Wyandotte simply to make it a better building site. Back then, labor was really cheap and the City got all kinds of federal money for make-work projects. This would have been a good one. I only bring this up as an example because of how expensive it is now to do that sort of excavation.

Had it been excavated to Wyandotte, there would have been more room to place a large building foundation, or (later) the garage on that side, and it would have freed up some space for retail and a main entrance along Baltimore.

The only other way I can think of that would cheaply have gotten rid of that limestone had been if Hunt Midwest had been putting up a building on that site. They had an entire division devoted to excavation and selling of aggregates. They could have done the excavation cheaply for themselves, and then removed the limestone for processing at one of their facilities, then erected a building.

Had that been done, and we had a flat site all the way to Wyandotte, then the main entrance could have been on Baltimore; the garage entrance on Wyandotte, and the hamster tube could have still provided guest movement from the hotel to the ballroom addition. That block of Wyandotte was never going to have a friendly pedestrian feel anyway so you could also have placed the loading dock on that side.

The hotel entrance could have been in the middle of the block with a small inset drive for unloading that would be covered, and still have room for two retail spaces on the ends of the block fronting Baltimore. But this would only have been possible had the garage been able to sit on half the block up against Wyandotte.

In many ways, this site reminds me of the site the Westin Crown Center is on. Some similar challenges.

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0833928 ... 6656?hl=en

[moderne]

But there instead of hiding the rocky outcrop they made it a beautiful unique feature.

[KCPowercat]

People have every right to complain, but you’ve got to ground it in the realities of A) what the building code dictates; B) what the market/financiers dictate; C) what the required program is; and arguably most importantly D) What the city mandates. People should push developers to be better. The best way to do that is to take stock of City policy failings. Figure out what should have been enacted and still can be for future projects of any size.

So which gave us a poor design in this situation?

[KCPowercat]

If this design were built on a flat, blank surface lot bordered entirely by regular city streets, like those buildings in Seattle are, I'd be just as annoyed as all of you are.

But that's not where it's being built, is it?

It was built on a site bisected into two dramatically different elevations by a rocky hill and directly across the worst section of Truman Rd from a busy freeway trench. I think the fact that this site has never been much more than a shaggy hill throughout its entire history demonstrates how undesirable and difficult this site is. It was an eyesore, and one that wasn't going to get developed by private interests in the foreseeable future.

That's what makes it so great that it's finally getting developed with a building that resolves the elevation change, conceals the hill and visually and physically connects the convention center with the P&L district. As established earlier in this thread, many of the complaints leveled against this building were a direct result of the challenging site, so why are you all so disturbed by them? Any large project constructed on this site was going to come out roughly the same way. Again, even the fantasy skyscraper proposal shows an ugly south end. What were they supposed to do?

As for the claim that it should've been built elsewhere, why? This project was a chance to fix a prominent eyesore and I'm glad the city took it.

Seems like a poor excuse. Nobody required this to be the location of this project, it's not like this was the last empty lot adjacent to the convention center complex. Seems two developments would have worked better here. One on the west side and one on the east.

Nobody was the up in arms about the location being an eyesore, hell 90% of KC metro residents have never seen it.

[KCPowercat]

I'm just wondering why the complaining is starting now. It's been known since the beginning of time that the only way a convention hotel would happen would be if it was value-engineered to hell and back twice over, and this is exactly the type of building you get when every decision is driven by cost. And obviously there wasn't going to be any pressure for good design from a city council that condemned four blocks of land to build a single-story building in a parking lagoon. People need to be careful what they wish for.

The very first posts were bringing these very same points up.

[horizons82]

So which gave us a poor design in this situation?

I mean without turning this into a red string mess of interconnections, the main culprit is the city parking requirements and in a distant second place building code egress and fire protection.

The parking garage ties into what financiers are dictating, but also what the city is and isn't enforcing. The garage is located, more than likely, at two corners of the building due to building code requirements on ventilation thru the space. If you sink it below grade or try to wrap it with other program, not only are you incurring additional excavation costs (which would be higher than typical because of the rocky site) but now you have to pay for additional fire containment and air handling units. It adds up quickly. To remedy, the city could have mandated a maximum on parking by zoning. Or, god forbid, have a thorough strategic plan for parking in the CBD instead of the piecemeal mess we put up with.

Regardless, a reduction in parking or a mandate for a wrapped/submerged parking might hinder the private financing amount. If that were to happen, is the city willing to cover the difference? This is where to me, given how much the city already contributed, it was silly to not give the extra funds for this.

Assembly/Convention spaces, because of fire protection requirements, dictate abnormally large/wide egress ways. The much despised tower of beige at the corner of 16th & Baltimore (and @ 16th & Wyandotte) is one of these massive egress stairs for all the ballroom and convention space. The developer/architect could have provided some glazing on the exterior of this. They didn't because there likely wasn't a city requirement. Or there was a clause in such a requirement that allowed the openings of the garage to count towards an elevation transparency %; negating the "need" for transparency at the stairs. If the stair exterior glazing isn't required, that's an easy way to save money on a bare bones stairwell and potentially more expensive glazing.

[DColeKC]

It’s slightly pretentious that some people want the ground level of certain buildings to be a great looking situation just so they feel happy as they walk by. I get it, but it’s such a thin argument.

If we want these buildings to be successful and full, function is key. Also, that whole thing about opinions....

I also don’t think KC is in position to create strict building requirements at this point. We are on a role but I’d hate to see the progress slowed by overly rigid policies.

[KCPowercat]

If you think this is all about feeling happy while walking by buildings this discussion isn't worth having.

Successful cities don't build buildings like these. That isn't a coincidence.

[KCPowercat]

So which gave us a poor design in this situation?

I mean without turning this into a red string mess of interconnections, the main culprit is the city parking requirements and in a distant second place building code egress and fire protection.

The parking garage ties into what financiers are dictating, but also what the city is and isn't enforcing. The garage is located, more than likely, at two corners of the building due to building code requirements on ventilation thru the space. If you sink it below grade or try to wrap it with other program, not only are you incurring additional excavation costs (which would be higher than typical because of the rocky site) but now you have to pay for additional fire containment and air handling units. It adds up quickly. To remedy, the city could have mandated a maximum on parking by zoning. Or, god forbid, have a thorough strategic plan for parking in the CBD instead of the piecemeal mess we put up with.

Regardless, a reduction in parking or a mandate for a wrapped/submerged parking might hinder the private financing amount. If that were to happen, is the city willing to cover the difference? This is where to me, given how much the city already contributed, it was silly to not give the extra funds for this.

Assembly/Convention spaces, because of fire protection requirements, dictate abnormally large/wide egress ways. The much despised tower of beige at the corner of 16th & Baltimore (and @ 16th & Wyandotte) is one of these massive egress stairs for all the ballroom and convention space. The developer/architect could have provided some glazing on the exterior of this. They didn't because there likely wasn't a city requirement. Or there was a clause in such a requirement that allowed the openings of the garage to count towards an elevation transparency %; negating the "need" for transparency at the stairs. If the stair exterior glazing isn't required, that's an easy way to save money on a bare bones stairwell and potentially more expensive glazing.

Appreciate your comments

Glass stairways on the corner would have helped the whole situation tremendously. That or in the case of Seattle hotels some cool mirrored effects I saw in the streetview.

Or flip the building and put the ugly side towards the highest trench / rock wall.

[DColeKC]

If you think this is all about feeling happy while walking by buildings this discussion isn't worth having.

Successful cities don't build buildings like these. That isn't a coincidence.

Than why has it been mentioned several times about the experience as you “walk by daily”?

I’m not saying this conversation is all about that, but it’s a part of it.

We are a successful city and other cities do build buildings like this. Unless of course you start comparing KC to much larger cities.

[grovester]

It’s slightly pretentious that some people want the ground level of certain buildings to be a great looking situation just so they feel happy as they walk by. I get it, but it’s such a thin argument.

If we want these buildings to be successful and full, function is key. Also, that whole thing about opinions....

I also don’t think KC is in position to create strict building requirements at this point. We are on a role but I’d hate to see the progress slowed by overly rigid policies.

Successful building does not equal successful city, see 1970-1990.

[grovester]

If you think this is all about feeling happy while walking by buildings this discussion isn't worth having.

Successful cities don't build buildings like these. That isn't a coincidence.

Than why has it been mentioned several times about the experience as you “walk by daily”?

I’m not saying this conversation is all about that, but it’s a part of it.

We are a successful city and other cities do build buildings like this. Unless of course you start comparing KC to much larger cities.

KC - Settle for mediocrity

[DColeKC]

I don’t think liking 95% of a building and disliking 5% is mediocrity. Some people who have never had a single thing to do with a building project obviously have a different set (and often unrealistic) set of standards. Development is all about compromise. I don’t think any of us like the process where it’s time to get within budget.

[grovester]

I guess my problem is there is never any explanation about why there is no pedestrian experience or quantifying about why it may have been too expensive.

Basically, pedestrians are a minority who's views are allowed to be ignored even thought there is copious evidence that following these guidelines leads to successful long term results for a city.

Developers complain that the requirements aren't codified into law, but bitch when there is any attempt to require said guidelines.

[kas1]

It’s slightly pretentious that some people want the ground level of certain buildings to be a great looking situation just so they feel happy as they walk by.

It's not about feeling happy. It's about feeling safe. Buildings with long blank walls create zones with minimal activity where it's clear that there's no chance of bystanders or witnesses coincidentally showing up while a mugging is in progress. That's what criminals target. Anyone with any street smarts will avoid walking on those blocks unless the neighborhood has a pristine reputation.

[KCPowercat]

If you think this is all about feeling happy while walking by buildings this discussion isn't worth having.

Successful cities don't build buildings like these. That isn't a coincidence.

Than why has it been mentioned several times about the experience as you “walk by daily”?

I’m not saying this conversation is all about that, but it’s a part of it.

We are a successful city and other cities do build buildings like this. Unless of course you start comparing KC to much larger cities.

Safety. Building a quality neighborhood.