Office project at 27th & Main

[grovester]

Odd how a negative opinion on aesthetics can be represented as "factual". "Corporate Woods" is used as a negative connotation.

That said, the HR Block building, 1201 Walnut, Pershing Place, and new Loews Hotel.. --all glass buildings with similar design aesthetics as the (proposed) 27th and Main opportunity; why are those incumbent properties not slimed similarly?

Corporate Woods was the response to high crime (and perceived crime) in the 1970's and 1980's ..I do agree (an opinion): Corporate Woods is the icon of urban decay, white flight, and urban sprawl in KC-land. It is a manifestation of urban flight due to bad management of Kansas City. The current Mayor WhatABurger and City Council should take notice this is a risk today.

This proposed project, at 27th and Main? It is a massive improvement to the neighborhood, regardless of architecture. It indicates commitment by a company and by a developer. ..The project will certainly secure additional (well compensated) residential base into the CBD.

It's not the building design as much as its orientation and surrounding dead space.

[kenrbnj]

Corporate Woods was the response to high crime (and perceived crime) in the 1970's and 1980's ..I do agree (an opinion): Corporate Woods is the icon of urban decay, white flight, and urban sprawl in KC-land. It is a manifestation of urban flight due to bad management of Kansas City. The current Mayor WhatABurger and City Council should take notice this is a risk today.

Uh, you mean racism?

Absolutely not.

In the 1970's through the 1990's; it was dangerous downtown.

[flyingember]

In the 1970's through the 1990's; it was dangerous downtown.

Do you have any formal data set that backs this up? I can't find one and would love to look at it.

[beautyfromashes]

Absolutely not.

In the 1970's through the 1990's; it was dangerous downtown.

Either your mom and dad or the local news told you this. Either way, they were both liars.

[normalthings]

Absolutely not.

In the 1970's through the 1990's; it was dangerous downtown.

Either your mom and dad or the local news told you this. Either way, they were both liars.

Kenrbnj is lived in downtown for some time, no? Downtown being dangerous or at least perceived as dangerous during that time period is extremely common. US cities in general had much higher violent crime rates during that period.

While KC specific data is not readily available, I am certain we looked something like the national trends.

[flyingember]

I really doubt it looked at all like national trends considering the citywide homicide rate in 2015 was the same as it was in 1995

My guess is the downtown homicide rate was dramatically lower than the citywide rate because of the lack of residents living downtown in that era

But other crimes like theft was high

[smh]

Odd how a negative opinion on aesthetics can be represented as "factual". "Corporate Woods" is used as a negative connotation.

That said, the HR Block building, 1201 Walnut, Pershing Place, and new Loews Hotel.. --all glass buildings with similar design aesthetics as the (proposed) 27th and Main opportunity; why are those incumbent properties not slimed similarly?

Corporate Woods was the response to high crime (and perceived crime) in the 1970's and 1980's ..I do agree (an opinion): Corporate Woods is the icon of urban decay, white flight, and urban sprawl in KC-land. It is a manifestation of urban flight due to bad management of Kansas City. The current Mayor WhatABurger and City Council should take notice this is a risk today.

This proposed project, at 27th and Main? It is a massive improvement to the neighborhood, regardless of architecture. It indicates commitment by a company and by a developer. ..The project will certainly secure additional (well compensated) residential base into the CBD.

It's not the building design as much as its orientation and surrounding dead space.

Yep, Ken has mistaken my critique of the form as a critique of the glass, which I could care less about. I just want it to address the street at least as well as H&R Block does, which frankly, isn't all that great!

Also, this is what kills me about KC. The argument is always "this is way better than what's there now!" That argument can be used to justify any shit design. Let's expect a little more of our city than "Golly, weeze got ourselfs some konstruktion!"

I agree with the comments that this is a really a lack of policy from City Hall versus the development team on this project.

[normalthings]

Odd how a negative opinion on aesthetics can be represented as "factual". "Corporate Woods" is used as a negative connotation.

That said, the HR Block building, 1201 Walnut, Pershing Place, and new Loews Hotel.. --all glass buildings with similar design aesthetics as the (proposed) 27th and Main opportunity; why are those incumbent properties not slimed similarly?

Corporate Woods was the response to high crime (and perceived crime) in the 1970's and 1980's ..I do agree (an opinion): Corporate Woods is the icon of urban decay, white flight, and urban sprawl in KC-land. It is a manifestation of urban flight due to bad management of Kansas City. The current Mayor WhatABurger and City Council should take notice this is a risk today.

This proposed project, at 27th and Main? It is a massive improvement to the neighborhood, regardless of architecture. It indicates commitment by a company and by a developer. ..The project will certainly secure additional (well compensated) residential base into the CBD.

It's not the building design as much as its orientation and surrounding dead space.

Yep, Ken has mistaken my critique of the form as a critique of the glass, which I could care less about. I just want it to address the street at least as well as H&R Block does, which frankly, isn't all that great!

Also, this is what kills me about KC. The argument is always "this is way better than what's there now!" That argument can be used to justify any shit design. Let's expect a little more of our city than "Golly, weeze got ourselfs some konstruktion!"

I agree with the comments that this is a really a lack of policy from City Hall versus the development team on this project.

I thought the issue is that exemptions are easy to get approved to bypass the existing policies (ie WR). This design has yet to be submitted to Planing & Zoning and wasn't even directly released to the press/public either. These are early conceptual drawings submitted to give an image to the word jumble in the TIF application.

[smh]

It's not the building design as much as its orientation and surrounding dead space.

Yep, Ken has mistaken my critique of the form as a critique of the glass, which I could care less about. I just want it to address the street at least as well as H&R Block does, which frankly, isn't all that great!

Also, this is what kills me about KC. The argument is always "this is way better than what's there now!" That argument can be used to justify any shit design. Let's expect a little more of our city than "Golly, weeze got ourselfs some konstruktion!"

I agree with the comments that this is a really a lack of policy from City Hall versus the development team on this project.

I thought the issue is that exemptions are easy to get approved to bypass the existing policies (ie WR). This design has yet to be submitted to Planing & Zoning and wasn't even directly released to the press/public either. These are early conceptual drawings submitted to give an image to the word jumble in the TIF application.

Yeah, that's a fair assessment as well. To get incentives they'll rezone UR (though TBH I haven't checked the existing zoning yet). Once in UR my understanding is the "zoning" is whatever development plan CPC and then Council approve. So perhaps putting some hooks into what's allowed under UR might be useful.

[normalthings]

Yep, Ken has mistaken my critique of the form as a critique of the glass, which I could care less about. I just want it to address the street at least as well as H&R Block does, which frankly, isn't all that great!

Also, this is what kills me about KC. The argument is always "this is way better than what's there now!" That argument can be used to justify any shit design. Let's expect a little more of our city than "Golly, weeze got ourselfs some konstruktion!"

I agree with the comments that this is a really a lack of policy from City Hall versus the development team on this project.

I thought the issue is that exemptions are easy to get approved to bypass the existing policies (ie WR). This design has yet to be submitted to Planing & Zoning and wasn't even directly released to the press/public either. These are early conceptual drawings submitted to give an image to the word jumble in the TIF application.

Yeah, that's a fair assessment as well. To get incentives they'll rezone UR (though TBH I haven't checked the existing zoning yet). Once in UR my understanding is the "zoning" is whatever development plan CPC and then Council approve. So perhaps putting some hooks into what's allowed under UR might be useful.

Interesting. So with WR, my understanding was that City Planning said "this sucks and doesn't follow GDAP which you must follow, you need to change it" and the council bypassed them and approved it. Doesn't really matter if there are hook if they can be bypassed. Process is already time and resource consuming, just need to enforce what is there now instead of adding more work.

[kenrbnj]

Absolutely not.

In the 1970's through the 1990's; it was dangerous downtown.

Either your mom and dad or the local news told you this. Either way, they were both liars.

Quite the emotional response.

I am in my 40's. I lived at 204 E. 30th street from 1996 through 2001, at the crest of Union Hill. At that time, I had been in my middle 20's.

At that time, Union Hill, Quality Hill, and parts of River Market were the "safe areas" of downtown at that time. Further South, parts of the CC Plaza, Central Hyde Park, and slivers of Westport were considered "safe". Union Hill was under the "protection" of Crown Center's private security detail.

Even within UH, vigilance was necessary. More than once, suspects were apprehended -- at gunpoint -- in the neighborhood. 30th and Gillham hosted drug dealers in plain sight. 31st Street was emerging; but you went to the car as a group. Venturing to White Castle helped with a martini in your head.

NormalThings presented data which supports the reality.

Back to the subject? 27th and Main illustrates the profound change 20 years makes.

[smh]

I thought the issue is that exemptions are easy to get approved to bypass the existing policies (ie WR). This design has yet to be submitted to Planing & Zoning and wasn't even directly released to the press/public either. These are early conceptual drawings submitted to give an image to the word jumble in the TIF application.

Yeah, that's a fair assessment as well. To get incentives they'll rezone UR (though TBH I haven't checked the existing zoning yet). Once in UR my understanding is the "zoning" is whatever development plan CPC and then Council approve. So perhaps putting some hooks into what's allowed under UR might be useful.

Interesting. So with WR, my understanding was that City Planning said "this sucks and doesn't follow GDAP which you must follow, you need to change it" and the council bypassed them and approved it. Doesn't really matter if there are hook if they can be bypassed. Process is already time and resource consuming, just need to enforce what is there now instead of adding more work.

Pretty much!

[FangKC]

...
This proposed project, at 27th and Main? It is a massive improvement to the neighborhood, regardless of architecture.

This is hilarious. Do you accept the most mediocre in all areas of your life?

It continues the worst practices of Crown Center in the urban core. An insular project that barely connects with its' surroundings, little street life, hostile pedestrian environment, etc. Why even build it on a streetcar line? I doubt anyone parking in the garage will use the streetcar.

It indicates commitment by a company and by a developer. ..The project will certainly secure additional (well compensated) residential base into the CBD.

The tenant hasn't even been announced. It could simply be a company already in KCMO, whose well compensated employees already live where they live. If it is the Fidelity Mutual Life Insurance company, they are moving a few blocks. I doubt their employees will be doing mass-moves as a result.

[FangKC]

Corporate Woods was the response to high crime (and perceived crime) in the 1970's and 1980's ..I do agree (an opinion): Corporate Woods is the icon of urban decay, white flight, and urban sprawl in KC-land. It is a manifestation of urban flight due to bad management of Kansas City. The current Mayor WhatABurger and City Council should take notice this is a risk today.

Uh, you mean racism?

Absolutely not.

In the 1970's through the 1990's; it was dangerous downtown.

Please provide examples of the proliferation of murders in downtown business district during this period.

It's like when I announced I was moving to New York City, and my family insisted that I would be murdered. I constantly pointed out that New York City was among the safest US cities. Lived there 10 years. Wasn't murdered. Never had a friend or co-worker murdered.

[FangKC]

Absolutely not.

In the 1970's through the 1990's; it was dangerous downtown.

Either your mom and dad or the local news told you this. Either way, they were both liars.

Kenrbnj is lived in downtown for some time, no? Downtown being dangerous or at least perceived as dangerous during that time period is extremely common. US cities in general had much higher violent crime rates during that period.

While KC specific data is not readily available, I am certain we looked something like the national trends.

Everyone needs to be reminded that the vast majority of murders, and violent crime, in Kansas City existed/exists in one zip code, 64130, centered around 51st Street and Cleveland.

[DaveKCMO]

Back to topic.

VanTrust is the developer, per KCBJ.

https://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/ ... trust.html

[FangKC]

Geez. I hope they don't develop the East Village like this too: building in the middle of the block surrounded by grass and plazas -- lack of street interaction on four (or at least three sides).

We really need to send RFPs to European developers and architecture firms with real urban experience to get them to come show locals how it should be done.

I agree with GRID, Kansas City never learns.

[im2kull]

I think your missing the point here with your trollish flippant comment. Development teams aren't out for the neighborhood's best interest.

Then create one that is and quit complaining about an entity that you have NO controlling interest in doing things that you don't "like".

[FangKC]

The community does have an interest in any new structure built in the City. This is normally accomplished by city boards, policy and zoning.

But to your point, yes, the developer can build anything they want as long as they adhere to current zoning and codes, and don't ask for TIF, or property abatements.

[mykn]

I think your missing the point here with your trollish flippant comment. Development teams aren't out for the neighborhood's best interest.

Then create one that is and quit complaining about an entity that you have NO controlling interest in doing things that you don't "like".

That’s literally the point of this entire website, complaining about things we have no control over.