Two Light - 14th & Grand

Come here for discussion about the new downtown entertainment district.
TheBigChuckbowski
Hotel President
Hotel President
Posts: 3359
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:36 pm
Location: Longfellow

Re: Two Light - 14th & Grand

Post by TheBigChuckbowski »

flyingember wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 4:46 pm
Kansas City is overrrun with bike lanes that no one uses. I look outside and don't see a bike in it.

You're making the same argument as people against bike lanes use and it's not a good argument then either
I'm sorry, that comparison makes no sense.

User avatar
normalthings
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 4491
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:52 pm

Re: Two Light - 14th & Grand

Post by normalthings »

TheBigChuckbowski wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 4:39 pm
flyingember wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 4:20 pm
TheBigChuckbowski wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 4:08 pm


Yes, absolutely. That map is exactly what I was thinking when I called it boring green space. Sure, it's got swooping lines and nice landscaping but what can you actually do there if there's isn't an event going on? Literally, "flexible lawn" is a major part of 3 of the 4 blocks. How else would you describe a flexible lawn other than greenspace with nothing in it? And the 4th block is just a dog park and some yard games. That plan is a complete waste of money and barely any better than Barney Allis Plaza.
Boring green space is easily the most valuable space in a city because it's accessible to all. Anyone downtown can walk into it and do anything that doesn't disrupt others.

The problem with Barney Allis plaza isn't that it's empty, but that the areas around it are (usually are).
Kansas City is overrun with green space that nobody uses. The lawns in front of Liberty Memorial or the Kauffman would be packed every nice day if we needed to build more greenspace. (spoiler alert: they're not)
Riverfront is packed during the summer. The riverfront uses small activity centers like trees for ham-mocking, out door gym for exercise, and volleyball courts to seed activity. The green space just north of Kauffman is popular for its ham-mocking trees and its accessibility makes a great place for picnics. The area plans and renderings of the loop cap park have so far shown numerous activity centers spread around the green space. I have no doubts that it will be well used.

Kauffman & LM are hard to access and only have a signature building to look at (which still attracts many visitors). Kauffman's green space is almost walled off from the Crossroads and is rather expose with nothing to do there. LM is hard to get to but it can get busy during the summer.

User avatar
DColeKC
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1068
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Two Light - 14th & Grand

Post by DColeKC »

TheBigChuckbowski wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 4:38 pm
DColeKC wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 4:22 pm
Yeah, I think you and the people who will be funding this are on completely different wave lengths. As a downtown resident, I want something like the original planned map and could care less if people from Nebraska drive all the way down here to snap a photo in front of a reflective item of art. I want a place my kids can go and play safely, considering there isn't exactly an abundance of kid friendly areas downtown that don't also charge an admission fee. I want a place that puts on events, both kid friendly and adult only types. Live music, plays and other forms of art.
When did I say all of those things shouldn't be included?
DColeKC wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 4:22 pm
The last thing the almost 30,000 downtown residents want is a massive tourist attraction that's always occupied by tourists, not allowing them a space to get outside and enjoy urban living.
Yeah, if there's one thing Kansas City's known for, it's being over-run with tourists.
DColeKC wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 4:22 pm
I didn't decide the park should act as Two Lights backyard, it's always been the plan that this would be a park for all the downtown residents to utilize. It's not a lack of vision, it's building something that's appropriate for the area and what will be the best use of the funds. A over the top tourist attraction isn't needed or wanted.
Best use of the funds? I'm sorry, there are plenty of surface lots that can be converted to boring green space for wayyyyy cheaper. If all we care about is the highway noise, put on a sound-dampening roof, that'll be way cheaper, too. As I've said this whole time, the best use of funds is to actually build something worth building, not spend $200 million on four blocks of flexible lawns. That's a terrible use of money.

"Over the top tourist attraction"? You like to go from zero to hyperbole the first chance you get, don't you?
DColeKC wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 4:22 pm
Btw, Barney Allis Plaza is boring because no one takes the time to manage it.
You know, I bet if Cordish offered to manage Barney Allis Plaza, the city would be totally cool with that. And, hey, we just saved everybody $200 million.
Ugh, so stupid. You're the king of hyperbole. You came in here saying this was a massive waste of funds calling the entire project one big dog park and offering no real world solutions or ideas. You realize the bulk of the construction cost is the cap right? So sure, let's put on a "sound dampening roof" and save 20 million bucks. Or, let's take a square surface lot where at some point a building would go and temporarily turn it into a park that's not centrally located and does nothing to connect to popular downtown neighborhoods. You don't think all the parks you've mentioned don't have tons of "flexible lawn" space? 150 millions dollars to build this cap and park is worth it to the people putting up the funds and to downtown residents. Perhaps in your opinion or to you personally the money's not worth it, but that's your minority opinion.

Kansas City actually does very well when it comes to tourism for a mid-size city. There are projects you build to spark tourism and there are projects you build for the betterment of your residents. Sometimes they do both but this project should be for the people of downtown first and foremost.

You keep saying you think the plan sucks, yet you haven't offered any alterations or ideas that would make it better besides cut the dog park. It's like you're standing in front of a recently completed building saying it sucks, was a waste of money and when asked, "What would have done different?", you just keep replying with, "Well, I don't know but this sucks and someone wasted money".

Walker
Pad site
Pad site
Posts: 83
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2020 9:23 pm

Re: Two Light - 14th & Grand

Post by Walker »

DColeKC wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 4:55 pm
DColeKC, the current plans have the cap ending at Grand. Do you know or think it would be possible to do a building over the interstate to the east of Grand? Something like this:

Image

Or if a cap does not advance before bridge replacement, something like this new bridge in Columbus.

Image
Last edited by Walker on Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
KCPowercat
Ambassador
Posts: 30687
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
Location: Quality Hill
Contact:

Re: Two Light - 14th & Grand

Post by KCPowercat »

I think MoDot has said no to that.

User avatar
DColeKC
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1068
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Two Light - 14th & Grand

Post by DColeKC »

Walker wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:07 pm
DColeKC wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 4:55 pm
DColeKC, the current plans have the cap ending at Grand. Do you know or think it would be possible to do a building over the interstate to the east of Grand? Something like this:

Image
I'm sure it's possible. Originally they wanted the cap to go past grand but scaled it down to shave 20 or so million off the project.

TheBigChuckbowski
Hotel President
Hotel President
Posts: 3359
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:36 pm
Location: Longfellow

Re: Two Light - 14th & Grand

Post by TheBigChuckbowski »

DColeKC wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 4:55 pm
There are projects you build to spark tourism and there are projects you build for the betterment of your residents. Sometimes they do both but this project should be for the people of downtown first and foremost.
I just completely disagree. This is too expensive of a project for it to only benefit downtown residents. And, like I said earlier, I think that's a bad idea from Cordish's perspective, too. Why treat it as simply an amenity for your residential buildings when it can be an amenity for your residential buildings AND a draw that will support your restaurant/retail district next door and be great advertising for your residential buildings.
DColeKC wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 4:55 pm
You keep saying you think the plan sucks, yet you haven't offered any alterations or ideas that would make it better besides cut the dog park. It's like you're standing in front of a recently completed building saying it sucks, was a waste of money and when asked, "What would have done different?", you just keep replying with, "Well, I don't know but this sucks and someone wasted money". Reminds me of the famous Mike Tyson interview.
Dude, I've given a ton of examples of things that could go in there.

User avatar
normalthings
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 4491
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:52 pm

Re: Two Light - 14th & Grand

Post by normalthings »

Move the conversation over to the right thread

User avatar
DColeKC
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1068
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Two Light - 14th & Grand

Post by DColeKC »

TheBigChuckbowski wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:12 pm
DColeKC wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 4:55 pm
There are projects you build to spark tourism and there are projects you build for the betterment of your residents. Sometimes they do both but this project should be for the people of downtown first and foremost.
I just completely disagree. This is too expensive of a project for it to only benefit downtown residents. And, like I said earlier, I think that's a bad idea from Cordish's perspective, too. Why treat it as simply an amenity for your residential buildings when it can be an amenity for your residential buildings AND a draw that will support your restaurant/retail district next door and be great advertising for your residential buildings.
DColeKC wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 4:55 pm
You keep saying you think the plan sucks, yet you haven't offered any alterations or ideas that would make it better besides cut the dog park. It's like you're standing in front of a recently completed building saying it sucks, was a waste of money and when asked, "What would have done different?", you just keep replying with, "Well, I don't know but this sucks and someone wasted money". Reminds me of the famous Mike Tyson interview.
Dude, I've given a ton of examples of things that could go in there.
Brah, not really. You've just called it trash and listed unrealistic comparisons in much larger cities with much more space.

Who said Cordish is building this solely for the residents of their towers? A long time ago I mentioned the idea that they were considering a small portion of the park being only accessible for residents. You took that and ran with it. Who do you think will put on the beer festivals, food festivals, art events, plays, music and other events that will draw the people? It will be heavily programmed on the weekends and mostly utilized the rest of the time by downtown residents. Several people on here don't like when they shut down streets for events, so this would be a great location that will still drive bodies downtown from other parts of the metro without needing to close Grand Blvd.

As for the cost, I agree that if the city alone was paying for it, it would be too expensive of a project to mostly serve downtown residents. That's why Cordish and Loews family are so crucial to the project. The city chipping in a smaller percentage of the total is absolutely worth it.

User avatar
DColeKC
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1068
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Two Light - 14th & Grand

Post by DColeKC »

normalthings wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:23 pm
Move the conversation over to the right thread
I'd love too, but I've been hoping it would just end instead.

TheBigChuckbowski
Hotel President
Hotel President
Posts: 3359
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:36 pm
Location: Longfellow

Re: Two Light - 14th & Grand

Post by TheBigChuckbowski »

DColeKC wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:29 pm
Brah, not really. You've just called it trash and listed unrealistic comparisons in much larger cities with much more space.
What is unrealistic about adding $50 million to a $200 million project to actually make it something worth building? Crown Fountain cost $17 million. Lurie Garden cost $13 million. Cloud Gate cost $23 million. The entirety of Maggie Daley Park cost $60 million.

What exactly is unrealistic?
DColeKC wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:29 pm
Who said Cordish is building this solely for the residents of their towers?
You. In the post that I was responding to.
DColeKC wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:29 pm
As for the cost, I agree that if the city alone was paying for it, it would be too expensive of a project to mostly serve downtown residents. That's why Cordish and Loews family are so crucial to the project. The city chipping in a smaller percentage of the total is absolutely worth it.
To you, sure. In the opinion of the rest of the city that will see absolutely no value to this project and who you are repeatedly saying the project isn't for, not so much.

User avatar
DColeKC
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1068
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Two Light - 14th & Grand

Post by DColeKC »

TheBigChuckbowski wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:46 pm
DColeKC wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:29 pm
Brah, not really. You've just called it trash and listed unrealistic comparisons in much larger cities with much more space.
What is unrealistic about adding $50 million to a $200 million project to actually make it something worth building? Crown Fountain cost $17 million. Lurie Garden cost $13 million. Cloud Gate cost $23 million. The entirety of Maggie Daley Park cost $60 million.

What exactly is unrealistic?
DColeKC wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:29 pm
Who said Cordish is building this solely for the residents of their towers?
You. In the post that I was responding to.
DColeKC wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:29 pm
As for the cost, I agree that if the city alone was paying for it, it would be too expensive of a project to mostly serve downtown residents. That's why Cordish and Loews family are so crucial to the project. The city chipping in a smaller percentage of the total is absolutely worth it.
To you, sure. In the opinion of the rest of the city that will see absolutely no value to this project and who you are repeatedly saying the project isn't for, not so much.
And all those projects were built on existing land. What would something like Cloud Gate which is roughly half the entire size of this park, do for the citizens of Kansas City? I've never once said the entire park was being built for Cordish residents only, I mentioned a 0.07 acre section possibly being private but that's up in the air and not a deal breaker for them. The intent has always been a public park.

And since when does a project the city chips in on have to benefit every single citizen? I support several city funded projects that don't directly impact me. If a developer can win support for a luxury apartment building, I'm sure securing funding for a park that anyone can use, for free, wouldn't be insanely hard. This also comes with the idea that many events would be free to the public and everyone's welcome. Hell, the value of joining two neighborhoods, creating a more healthy environment to live and be in combined with the simple fact of hiding an ugly highway trench is damn near worth the money alone.

Let's just agree to disagree here and let this thread get back to being about Two Light.

User avatar
KCPowercat
Ambassador
Posts: 30687
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
Location: Quality Hill
Contact:

Re: Two Light - 14th & Grand

Post by KCPowercat »

DColeKC wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:30 pm
normalthings wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:23 pm
Move the conversation over to the right thread
I'd love too, but I've been hoping it would just end instead.
You have the power in your hands to do that.

User avatar
DColeKC
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1068
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Two Light - 14th & Grand

Post by DColeKC »

KCPowercat wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 6:58 pm
DColeKC wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:30 pm
normalthings wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:23 pm
Move the conversation over to the right thread
I'd love too, but I've been hoping it would just end instead.
You have the power in your hands to do that.
I’m trying but I am weak! Must. Resist.

User avatar
normalthings
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 4491
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:52 pm

Re: Two Light - 14th & Grand

Post by normalthings »

https://compasskc.kcmo.org/EnerGov_Prod ... b=moreinfo

Apartment being broken into smaller individual units.

User avatar
DColeKC
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1068
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Two Light - 14th & Grand

Post by DColeKC »

normalthings wrote:
Fri Mar 05, 2021 8:56 pm
https://compasskc.kcmo.org/EnerGov_Prod ... b=moreinfo

Apartment being broken into smaller individual units.
The 9th floor will become all affordable micro units eventually. I have no idea how they’re going to execute this or if this first apartment flip is just a trial run to see how disruptive the process is.

Post Reply