dangerboy wrote:In the US, Manhatten and downtown Chicago are the only two places where you could even think about having a corporate headquarters without car parking. Even then I dare you do find one that doesn't provide at least some parking.
Yes, it's a good idea to provide parking for residents/employees/customers. But there's a difference between it being a good idea and needing to be enforced by law. I also agree that off-street (pay)parking is provided in almost all cases, even in major cities. I personally don't think it's necessary, and plunges us deeper into a world where I don't want to be.
Regardless, the building sat vacant for many many years. To say "The building doesn't have enough off-street parking," as a reason to delay progress is an egregious copout. To say that is to admit that the building is better off a vermin-infested, derelict shell than anything else.
StL_Dan wrote:this may be a little off the wall, but i remember a poster on my thread about the StL City Museum indicating they would like to see the Stuart Hall building used for such a museum in KC.
i still like that idea, but know it was the least likely thing to happen since it is not a revenue generating proposition.
They have enough parking for lofts, one space per unit, which equals 300 spaces. A commercial use would have required more spaces. Dumb, yea. I don't have a covered lot in my building, and it is not "secure". We do have security cameras, but thats it. Never had any problems, other than First Friday patrons taking my space!!
Are you sure we're talking about the same God here, because yours sounds kind of like a dick.
StL_Dan wrote:this may be a little off the wall, but i remember a poster on my thread about the StL City Museum indicating they would like to see the Stuart Hall building used for such a museum in KC.
i still like that idea, but know it was the least likely thing to happen since it is not a revenue generating proposition.
Why couldn't it be a revenue generator?
I guess it could be a profit center....but not a very big one for the savvy investor.
One State. One Spirit. One Mizzou. 05.22.2011 RIP Rusty, Harli and Hayze
I've been kicking around this idea in my head for awhile. I've thought for some time that Union Station would be a great location to house --and construct an additional annex to house--a midwestern collection run by the Smithsonian Institute in Washington DC.
I recall thinking of the idea after the 9/11 attacks, when I stilled lived in New York City. I worried about a ramifications of a possible attack on New York, or Washington DC, by terrorists detonating a nuclear weapon or "dirty bomb" that might make the area uninhabitable for generations.
My concern lies in the fact that many or most of our national treasures are kept in these two cities. Under such a scenario, priceless objects might be destroyed or made unavailable to Americans by toxic poisoning--or radiation. As the disaster in Chernobyl demonstrated, you pretty much have to abandon the entire area including buildings and their contents.
This got me to thinking about posterity and antiquity. It seems to me that as a nation we should spread some of our national treasures around the country to protect them. Having them mostly located in two major East Coast cities--which have already proven to be terrorist targets--no longer makes sense strategically.
A nice side benefit of this plan would be that more Americans might see them if they resided in places other than Washington DC. From this, the idea for regional Smithsonian Museums came. I was thinking of placing these satellite Smithsonian Museums around the country--like Kansas City, Atlanta, Houston, Los Angeles, and Seattle.
I recall reading at one time that the Smithsonian has keeps much of its collection in storage because it doesn't have exhibit space to display them all. This would provide a reason to take them out of storage and display them.
The Stuart Hall Building was part of my plan in that an annex could be constructed to link Union Station to Stuart Hall. Union Station's large waiting rooms are perfect to display larger exhibits like replicas of dinosaurs, autos, and smaller aircraft or space modules. Those spaces are presently under-utilized. The Stuart Hall Building has plenty of floor-space for permanent exhibits--say natural history. The annex could contain a rail museum on the ground level, and have larger open spaces on higher floors to display large exhibits.
Creating this type of museum would create a major attraction in Kansas City, and help support Union Station as a destination.
This is a bit wierd, but I've also thought that a midwestern collection would be awesome from the Smithsonian. When the traveling exhibit was here a few years ago, it was way cool. So much of what they have in their collections are in storage. I've thought that the KC museum could have exhibits from each of the Smithsonian museums, which would allow so many midwesterners, who would never go to Washington, to see some of our heritage.
I remember reading about the redevelopment of Union Station, and this very idea was floated, but the costs of setting this up and then operating it made it impractacle. I personally would not mind at all if Science City was closed, and upgraded, then reopened as "Smithsonian Mid-Continet" Add to that the underground caverns at Sub-tropolis, which could safely store artifacts, and KC could be a great tourist attraction.
Are you sure we're talking about the same God here, because yours sounds kind of like a dick.
