Office project at 27th & Main

[DaveKCMO]

Cityscene article was updated with it

I see that, but the text is still very hard to read. What do all of the labels in the green space say? I can only make out "NORTH LAWN".

[Chris Stritzel]

Cityscene article was updated with it

I see that, but the text is still very hard to read. What do all of the labels in the green space say? I can only make out "NORTH LAWN".

A lot of what’s said in the lawns are measurements. One says “south lawn with landscape feature (shrubs/bushes in radiating pattern)”. Others say storm water detention or things about landscaping.

[moderne]

Fidelity Security is a closely held family company. They have been in that marble palace on Broadway for over half a century. Wonder if there has been a generational change in control? I would think PVCC would want that property for expansion. Wonder if they would not have started renovating space on Troost if they had known this building would soon be available.

[DaveKCMO]

Cityscene article was updated with it

I see that, but the text is still very hard to read. What do all of the labels in the green space say? I can only make out "NORTH LAWN".

A lot of what’s said in the lawns are measurements. One says “south lawn with landscape feature (shrubs/bushes in radiating pattern)”. Others say storm water detention or things about landscaping.

That's the yawn I was expecting. Basically Corporate Woods plopped next to a streetcar stop. Ridiculous.

[horizons82]

Worth noting the plan also shows no exterior entry into the supposed tenant spaces. Those look an awful lot like building tenant amenity space, not retail tenant space.

[normalthings]

Worth noting the plan also shows no exterior entry into the supposed tenant spaces. Those look an awful lot like building tenant amenity space, not retail tenant space.

Some rooms have no openings or doors at all drawn in...

[Chris Stritzel]

Worth noting the plan also shows no exterior entry into the supposed tenant spaces. Those look an awful lot like building tenant amenity space, not retail tenant space.

Some rooms have no openings or doors at all drawn in...

This is more or less a schematic design from what I can see. Prior to construction starting, things like door locations and more will be finalized.

[horizons82]

Worth noting the plan also shows no exterior entry into the supposed tenant spaces. Those look an awful lot like building tenant amenity space, not retail tenant space.

Some rooms have no openings or doors at all drawn in...

Sorry, but I'll disagree. The red circles highlight all the doors on the plans. The green shows where a pass-through exists for lobby employees to access BOH spaces.

This plan is fairly developed and certainly would be if you're bringing it forward with the press. While there likely will be revisions regardless of city input, there's enough here to discern what's going on.



EDIT: to clarify, given the apparent size of those tenant spaces, an egress door to the exterior would likely be necessary if they are used for retail or restaurant use. However, other less intense uses of those spaces would negate the need for additional exterior egress. The lack of it being there, coupled with how many other spaces have egress accounted for, & the fairly large landscaping strips sort of blocking easy flow from the street, lead me to believe that the developer doesn't want that to be Main St-facing retail/restaurant.

A newer trend among office developers is to tease out potential ground floor "tenant" space that ends up being just office user amenity space or straight office lease. Easy to include on the plans, if it doesn't precipitate a zoning change; get those development incentives; and then claim lack of interest in leasing when you end up filling it with a non-retail/restaurant use. it's not like the city's going to claw back over a bait&switch over <5k (or whatever this area is) of promised retail space in a 100k+ sf building. Just stinks from an urbanism standpoint.

I'm not saying that's what is happening or going to happen here, just something for the relevant groups to keep an eye on.

[smh]

I just think it is unfortunate we are rebuilding the 2600 Building instead of something more akin to the Crown Center conceptual drawings that have circulated for years. What we're getting is a suburban office building, what we wanted was a mixed-use neighborhood.

Bring the building up to the streets at ground level and I'd be content. I care much less about the aesthetic of the tower itself. If we get the ground floor right, we can make a significant stride in extending the walkability of downtown up to Union Hill et al.

[im2kull]

I just think it is unfortunate we are rebuilding the 2600 Building instead of something more akin to the Crown Center conceptual drawings that have circulated for years. What we're getting is a suburban office building, what we wanted was a mixed-use neighborhood.

Bring the building up to the streets at ground level and I'd be content. I care much less about the aesthetic of the tower itself. If we get the ground floor right, we can make a significant stride in extending the walkability of downtown up to Union Hill et al.

You are welcome to join the development team anytime.

[KCPowercat]

I just think it is unfortunate we are rebuilding the 2600 Building instead of something more akin to the Crown Center conceptual drawings that have circulated for years. What we're getting is a suburban office building, what we wanted was a mixed-use neighborhood.

Bring the building up to the streets at ground level and I'd be content. I care much less about the aesthetic of the tower itself. If we get the ground floor right, we can make a significant stride in extending the walkability of downtown up to Union Hill et al.

You are welcome to join the development team anytime.

Really? Is there a facebook group or something? Can we all join or just smh?

[smh]

I just think it is unfortunate we are rebuilding the 2600 Building instead of something more akin to the Crown Center conceptual drawings that have circulated for years. What we're getting is a suburban office building, what we wanted was a mixed-use neighborhood.

Bring the building up to the streets at ground level and I'd be content. I care much less about the aesthetic of the tower itself. If we get the ground floor right, we can make a significant stride in extending the walkability of downtown up to Union Hill et al.

You are welcome to join the development team anytime.

Oh great, where can I apply? I'm actually in the market. For real.

But also, why are we reliant on the developer to understand how to build in an urban environment (or at least what we hope becomes one)? Why is it not standard practice to build in a more urban fashion? This is where I think city hall needs stricter development standards and maybe some outreach to design firms. It just seems like we are getting minimal bang for our buck by not developing sites in a way that promotes walking and transit use. I'm very glad to see development, but I'm not so blind to applaud Corporate Woods on the Park without asking why it isn't building in a way that will help multiply our investments in streetcar and downtown generally.

[im2kull]

I just think it is unfortunate we are rebuilding the 2600 Building instead of something more akin to the Crown Center conceptual drawings that have circulated for years. What we're getting is a suburban office building, what we wanted was a mixed-use neighborhood.

Bring the building up to the streets at ground level and I'd be content. I care much less about the aesthetic of the tower itself. If we get the ground floor right, we can make a significant stride in extending the walkability of downtown up to Union Hill et al.

You are welcome to join the development team anytime.

Oh great, where can I apply? I'm actually in the market. For real.

But also, why are we reliant on the developer to understand how to build in an urban environment (or at least what we hope becomes one)? Why is it not standard practice to build in a more urban fashion? This is where I think city hall needs stricter development standards and maybe some outreach to design firms. It just seems like we are getting minimal bang for our buck by not developing sites in a way that promotes walking and transit use. I'm very glad to see development, but I'm not so blind to applaud Corporate Woods on the Park without asking why it isn't building in a way that will help multiply our investments in streetcar and downtown generally.

If you have capital to contribute to a significant development project, then I would encourage you to contact the development team and see if you can become involved.

This is the beauty of America. You have every opportunity to get involved in anything your mind desires. However, money or not another individual has no obligation to include you. Simply put you are welcome to offer to join this team, or you can create your own development team and project.

[KCPowercat]

I think your missing the point here with your trollish flippant comment. Development teams aren't out for the neighborhood's best interest. Joining their team isn't going to do anything. We need design standards to guide developers to build better for their surrounding environment / neighborhood. A development team is out for one thing, their own profit. Smh won't fix that machine.

The beauty of America = you can get involved in what you want if you have the cash. Lovely and speaks to why our neighborhoods are getting shit on.

[horizons82]

We need design standards to guide developers to build better for their surrounding environment / neighborhood. A development team is out for one thing, their own profit. Smh won't fix that machine.

This cannot get stressed enough. If you set up strong design standards before any project is proposed, it gives the design team ammo to push back on the worst instincts of their clients. Without them, it doesn’t matter how talented the A/E team is, they’re beholden to how frugal the developer wants to be.

[TheLastGentleman]

Don’t feed the troll

[flyingember]

We need design standards to guide developers to build better for their surrounding environment / neighborhood. A development team is out for one thing, their own profit. Smh won't fix that machine.

This cannot get stressed enough. If you set up strong design standards before any project is proposed, it gives the design team ammo to push back on the worst instincts of their clients. Without them, it doesn’t matter how talented the A/E team is, they’re beholden to how frugal the developer wants to be.

This

City Code being so weak is one of the failings of a project.

I heard an engineer say they were going to ask for an exception to a city code requirement around bike parking. If something is worth adding to code it shouldn't have exceptions that aren't already built into code.

[kenrbnj]

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.

[beautyfromashes]

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?

[flyingember]

You must not have read the Lowes Hotel thread, the design was maligned in all matters of design, some aesthetic but most around the layout.

Corporate Woods may have been built because of crime elsewhere, but the design chosen was not required because of crime dozens of miles away. The entire development could have been put into land a fraction it's current size.