Office project at 27th & Main

Issues concerning Downtown as described by the Downtown Council. River to 31st Street, I-35 to Bruce R. Watkins.
User avatar
DaveKCMO
Ambassador
Posts: 18611
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:22 pm
Location: Crossroads
Contact:

Re: Office project at 27th & Main

Post by DaveKCMO »

Critical_Mass wrote:
Tue Mar 30, 2021 5:35 pm
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
Colonnade
Colonnade
Posts: 751
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2017 9:27 pm

Re: Office project at 27th & Main

Post by Chris Stritzel »

DaveKCMO wrote:
Wed Mar 31, 2021 1:00 pm
Critical_Mass wrote:
Tue Mar 30, 2021 5:35 pm
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
Oak Tower
Oak Tower
Posts: 4546
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 2:50 pm
Location: Mount Hope

Re: Office project at 27th & Main

Post by 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.

User avatar
DaveKCMO
Ambassador
Posts: 18611
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:22 pm
Location: Crossroads
Contact:

Re: Office project at 27th & Main

Post by DaveKCMO »

Chris Stritzel wrote:
Wed Mar 31, 2021 3:12 pm
DaveKCMO wrote:
Wed Mar 31, 2021 1:00 pm
Critical_Mass wrote:
Tue Mar 30, 2021 5:35 pm
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
New York Life
New York Life
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2016 8:41 am

Re: Office project at 27th & Main

Post by 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.

User avatar
normalthings
Oak Tower
Oak Tower
Posts: 4568
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:52 pm

Re: Office project at 27th & Main

Post by normalthings »

horizons82 wrote:
Wed Mar 31, 2021 6:38 pm
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
Colonnade
Colonnade
Posts: 751
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2017 9:27 pm

Re: Office project at 27th & Main

Post by Chris Stritzel »

normalthings wrote:
Wed Mar 31, 2021 7:31 pm
horizons82 wrote:
Wed Mar 31, 2021 6:38 pm
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
New York Life
New York Life
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2016 8:41 am

Re: Office project at 27th & Main

Post by horizons82 »

normalthings wrote:
Wed Mar 31, 2021 7:31 pm
horizons82 wrote:
Wed Mar 31, 2021 6:38 pm
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.

Image

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.

User avatar
smh
Supporter
Posts: 3764
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 10:40 pm
Location: Central Loop

Re: Office project at 27th & Main

Post by 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.

User avatar
im2kull
Hotel President
Hotel President
Posts: 3379
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 4:33 pm
Location: KCMO

Re: Office project at 27th & Main

Post by im2kull »

smh wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 7:49 am
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.

User avatar
KCPowercat
Ambassador
Posts: 30742
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
Location: Quality Hill
Contact:

Re: Office project at 27th & Main

Post by KCPowercat »

im2kull wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 7:54 am
smh wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 7:49 am
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?

User avatar
smh
Supporter
Posts: 3764
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 10:40 pm
Location: Central Loop

Re: Office project at 27th & Main

Post by smh »

im2kull wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 7:54 am
smh wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 7:49 am
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.

User avatar
im2kull
Hotel President
Hotel President
Posts: 3379
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 4:33 pm
Location: KCMO

Re: Office project at 27th & Main

Post by im2kull »

smh wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 8:03 am
im2kull wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 7:54 am
smh wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 7:49 am
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.

User avatar
KCPowercat
Ambassador
Posts: 30742
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
Location: Quality Hill
Contact:

Re: Office project at 27th & Main

Post by 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
New York Life
New York Life
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2016 8:41 am

Re: Office project at 27th & Main

Post by horizons82 »

KCPowercat wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 8:45 am
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.

User avatar
TheLastGentleman
Valencia Place
Valencia Place
Posts: 1953
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:27 pm

Re: Office project at 27th & Main

Post by TheLastGentleman »

Don’t feed the troll

flyingember
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: Office project at 27th & Main

Post by flyingember »

horizons82 wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 8:52 am
KCPowercat wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 8:45 am
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
Strip mall
Strip mall
Posts: 124
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2019 9:16 am

Re: Office project at 27th & Main

Post by 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.

User avatar
beautyfromashes
Oak Tower
Oak Tower
Posts: 5238
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:04 am

Re: Office project at 27th & Main

Post by beautyfromashes »

kenrbnj wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 9:58 am
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
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: Office project at 27th & Main

Post by 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.

Post Reply