Oz in Downtown KCK?

Post by **dangerboy** » Wed Sep 17, 2003 7:25 am

Not sure what to make of this... A guy is proposing Yet Another Oz-themed development, including a 650-foot tornado landmark. He would like to locate in Downtown KCK....

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascit ... 785134.htm

Brooksider · Post by **Brooksider** » Wed Sep 17, 2003 7:50 am

I just don't think the KC metro can support 2 theme parks.

phxcat · Post by **phxcat** » Wed Sep 17, 2003 8:48 am

If you read the article, it doesn't sound like a theme park, more of a theme district. It sounds like the tornado is the only thing that would be out of the ordinary. That could either be a huge boost to KCK (and I mena huge- the type of thing that could get people down there) or it will look tacky and fall flat on its face.

GRID · Post by **GRID** » Wed Sep 17, 2003 12:35 pm

whatever

KCDevin · Post by **KCDevin** » Wed Sep 17, 2003 2:39 pm

itll never happen, plus the public won't approve of it, waay worse than the Bartle Hall Expansion incident. No way this will happen

KCDevin · Post by **KCDevin** » Wed Sep 17, 2003 4:17 pm

I emailed the editor and here is his reply...

I'd say it's fair to say it would loom, even with one competing
building in
kcmo (which is a squat and not very striking or dominant presence in
the
city's skyline, in my opinion. But then I've never thought much of
KCMO's
skyline. Tulsa, a much smaller city, seems to have better definition.
I'm
not an architect so I can't really explain way. It's just a feeling.)

I don't know much about how the tornado would work, or even if it could
and
still look like a credible tornado. My honest opinion is the project
could
only happen (here or kcmo) if someone quick finds a pair of ruby
slippers
and clicks their heels.

Thanks for writing.

Mark

trailerkid · Post by **trailerkid** » Wed Sep 17, 2003 5:35 pm

editor of what?

KCDevin · Post by **KCDevin** » Wed Sep 17, 2003 6:12 pm

editor, writer whatever you call it, of the article

KCforumer · Post by **KCforumer** » Wed Sep 17, 2003 7:45 pm

GRID wrote:whatever

I agree!

A huge tornado?

Who the hell would fund something like that? Nobody, especially in this economy.

QueSi2Opie · Post by **QueSi2Opie** » Wed Sep 17, 2003 9:00 pm

Did he dis KC's skyline?

Post by **mean** » Wed Sep 17, 2003 9:13 pm

even with one competing building in kcmo (which is a squat and not very striking or dominant presence in the city's skyline, in my opinion.

I gotta agree. 1KCP does look kind of squat and ugly. I don't hate it, but I wish they'd made it taller and thinner and pointier at the top.

Tulsa's skyline has some good qualities, but it ain't no Kansas City. Maybe a St. Louis (without the arch).

KCDevin · Post by **KCDevin** » Wed Sep 17, 2003 9:19 pm

KC is more than a STL, more like a...
Minneapolis:

I didn't appreciate how he dissed us...

His latest reply:

Better than Chicago? I can accept New York, St. Louis and the like.
But
Chicago? Anyway, thanks for the links. I'll check them out when I get
time.

Mark

I had said that I LIKE KC's skyline better than CHI and NYC, not that its a fact...

Post by **dangerboy** » Wed Sep 17, 2003 10:24 pm

It's all about topography. There aren't many midwestern cities that are as hilly as Kansas City. The impact of our skyline varies dramatically depending on the vantage point and the angle, because of the hills, valleys, bluffs, etc. The skylines in Tulsa, St. Louis, and Chicago all rise out of very flat landscapes.

KCforumer · Post by **KCforumer** » Thu Sep 18, 2003 1:08 am

Kansas City's skyline is definitely not on par with Minneapolis's skyline.

KCDevin · Post by **KCDevin** » Thu Sep 18, 2003 6:29 am

and why not?

Post by **mean** » Thu Sep 18, 2003 7:45 am

Minneapolis has us completely owned in the modern glass skyscraper category.

Post by **bahua** » Thu Sep 18, 2003 7:50 am

...and in snow removal.

QueSi2Opie · Post by **QueSi2Opie** » Thu Sep 18, 2003 12:08 pm

dangerboy wrote:It's all about topography. There aren't many midwestern cities that are as hilly as Kansas City. The impact of our skyline varies dramatically depending on the vantage point and the angle, because of the hills, valleys, bluffs, etc. The skylines in Tulsa, St. Louis, and Chicago all rise out of very flat landscapes.

Cincinatti is nice and hilly.

DanCa · Post by **DanCa** » Thu Sep 18, 2003 3:37 pm

Ever been to Pittsburgh? It's hillier than KC and downtown is sort of the inverse of KC - because it's in the river valley where the rivers meet. You can's see the skyline from the suburbs but it's cool when you drive down into the valley.

Post by **bahua** » Thu Sep 18, 2003 5:38 pm

Pittsburgh's downtown rocks. I love coming through the Liberty Tunnel to see it, all of a sudden.