Old KCPS HQ - 12th & McGee

[crazywarriorman]

The building was sold to Copaken Brooks who said they will most likely demolish the building:

https://cityscenekc.com/former-board-of ... on-likely/

[langosta]

The building was sold to Copaken Brooks who said they will most likely demolish the building:

https://cityscenekc.com/former-board-of ... on-likely/

Supposedly nothing in the works.

[TheLastGentleman]

Oh boy can’t wait to look at a parking lot for 50 years!

[langosta]

Oh boy can’t wait to look at a parking lot for 50 years!

Arterra, Reverb, Strata, and Corrigan Station shows that Copaken Brooks is no longer a vapor-ware based developer. I’m sure they have some legitimate ideas floating around for this site as seen in the 2018 Renderings they produced.

[JLowe2018]

The building was sold to Copaken Brooks who said they will most likely demolish the building:

https://cityscenekc.com/former-board-of ... on-likely/

Supposedly nothing in the works.

I'm calling it...

...worst case scenario, this ends up as a parking lot for decades and nothing ever materializes.

~or~

...it ends up as a parking garage for Copaken's 13th & Grand tower a decade (or more) from now. (Connected by skywalk, of course.)

[beautyfromashes]

If there’s ever a building perfect for affordable housing, it’s this one. Another demonstration why the KCPSD is inept.

[TheLastGentleman]

Jon Copaken, principal of the firm, said that while there are no immediate development plans for the 2.5-acre site next door to the Sprint Center, the nine-story building likely will be razed.

This sentence from the Cityscene article alone completely destroys any hope I'd have for this site. It's identical to the story of every other ancient surface lot in downtown.

"We don't know what to do with this site or just don't care, but we don't like having a vacant building there so we gotta tear it down instead of, god forbid, spending any of our precious money rehabilitating it into something that could actually benefit the city!"

[beautyfromashes]

I’ve changed my mind on Strata now too. If Copaken is a company that is going to just tear down useful buildings, they should be taken off the TIF available builders list.

[TheLastGentleman]

I’m sure they have some legitimate ideas floating around for this site as seen in the 2018 Renderings they produced.

What renderings are you referring to?

[missingkc]

I will be sorry to see this building go. I worked there in the early 80s. It is so much of its time - the design, the materials, the mosaic.

[langosta]

I’m sure they have some legitimate ideas floating around for this site as seen in the 2018 Renderings they produced.

What renderings are you referring to?

Copake Brooks plan for 13th & Grand and this newly purchased block.

https://youtu.be/dkh2Qbqmy04

[beautyfromashes]

If that can force Cordish to turn the Midland building into affordable housing in exchange for money for 3 Light, the city can force Copaken to turn this building affordable in exchange for Strata money.

[GRID]

This sucks. Nothing should be torn down in KC. Especially before solid plans are in place to build something. That will leave a gaping hole in that part of downtown especially since it's next to that terrible parking lot at 12th and Grand. Maybe it will get developed quickly, but it seems like development in the loop east of grand is nearly impossible to get off the ground.

[TheLastGentleman]

Copake Brooks plan for 13th & Grand and this newly purchased block.

https://youtu.be/dkh2Qbqmy04

I’d forgotten that plan included this site

[KCDowntown]

Before you start - this post assumes that the building could only be saved as is, because of the use of historical tax credits.

I don't have any love for this building and won't lose any sleep if this building is torn down. Obviously I'd take this building over a surface parking lot any day of the week but... IMO, this is not a good building for the city for the following reasons.

• It takes up an entire city block, and isn't tall enough or dense enough to provide street life to one side let alone four

• 2/3 of this block are parking garages. I don't know if saving the garages would be required to get the tax credits but this whole block is one parcel so I'm thinking there's a solid chance

• There is only one real entry point for the building so there would be three dead sides on this block

• It's a small building (using 25% of the block) that acts as a low density, single-use, boring superblock

The whole mid-50's, 60's modern architecture movement produced buildings that are terrible for pedestrian street-life so I say good riddance. I hate to see buildings get torn down, but not this one. If you restore this building you are wasting an opportunity to do something much better than this.

KCDowntown

[beautyfromashes]

Reusing existing buildings is the best way to provide affordable housing, not injury the environment and increase activity and density in the city with minimal money spent compared to a tear down and, eventual?, rebuild.

[TheLastGentleman]

Before you start - this post assumes that the building could only be saved as is, because of the use of historical tax credits.

I don't have any love for this building and won't lose any sleep if this building is torn down. Obviously I'd take this building over a surface parking lot any day of the week but... IMO, this is not a good building for the city for the following reasons.

• It takes up an entire city block

• 2/3 of this block are parking garages. I don't know if saving the garages would be required to get the tax credits but this whole block is one parcel so I'm thinking there's a solid chance

• There is only one real entry point for the building so there would be three dead sides on this block

The whole mid-50's, 60's modern architecture movement produced buildings that are terrible for pedestrian street-life so I say good riddance. I hate to see buildings get torn down, but not this one. If you restore this building you are wasting an opportunity to do something much better than this.

KCDowntown

The southern portion of the garage is in a different style, vaguely postmodern, so I doubt it's original and certainly wouldn't be part of a NHR listing. This part could easily be demolished for a new building with retail while still complimenting the older building.



While this building's exterior isn't much, if any of its midcentury modern interior survived, I'd say it's worth saving. Downtown certainly has enough space to fit this building. Can anyone attest to how much might be left inside?

[KCDowntown]

The southern portion of the garage is in a different style, vaguely postmodern, so I doubt it's original and certainly wouldn't be part of a NHR listing. This part could easily be demolished for a new building with retail while still complimenting the older building.

Yeah, the southern part of the garage has definitely been updated, but the most of the block is encircled by a light red brick podium that stretches from the front all the way back with some breaks. So I'm still not entirely convinced that it is actually not part of this building.

If they could put a new building on the southern half of the site (one that actually encouraged people to use the street) I could rethink. But, if the whole block had to be saved as is, including both parking structures, would you still favor saving the building? Is 100 or so affordable apts and 3 sides of a block (any really more likely 4 because it would be a low-density, single use) with no pedestrian activity a good use of an entire city block?

KCDowntown

[TheLastGentleman]

If they could put a new building on the southern half of the site (one that actually encouraged people to use the street) I could rethink. But, if the whole block had to be saved as is, including both parking structures, would you still favor saving the building? Is 100 or so affordable apts and 3 sides of a block (any really more likely 4 because it would be a single use) with no pedestrian activity a good use of an entire city block?

If you could 100% guarantee that the building is being demolished for a larger, well conceived, full block project, then sure, demolish it. I'd still advocate for savaging whatever public art is still attached to the building, but I'd be cool with it.

That's the only scenario I'd support demolition, though. Otherwise, maintain the building, even if it means keeping the parking structure. It's the least of that area's problems.

[kas1]

Reusing existing buildings is the best way to provide affordable housing, not injury the environment and increase activity and density in the city with minimal money spent compared to a tear down and, eventual?, rebuild.

The previous owner had found that it would be cheaper to replace the building than to rehab it, and new buildings are much more energy efficient than old buildings.

Plus, this thing is hideous, has terrible urban form, and isn't even very dense due to how far it's set back from the sidewalk.