Two Light - 14th & Grand

Come here for discussion about the new downtown entertainment district.
User avatar
DColeKC
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1086
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Two Light - 14th & Grand

Post by DColeKC »

TheBigChuckbowski wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 9:42 am
DColeKC wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 9:03 pm

You act like this hasn’t been done in other cities. Is a dog park for its residents worth 3.4 million..... yes, yes it is. Let’s just drop the idea it would be for residents only and assume it’s open to the public. You are severely underestimating how important an off lease dog park is downtown.
There are already multiple off-leash dog parks downtown and I don't doubt at all that creating a few more would be beneficial. But, that's not what this park should be for. Everything in this park should not only be unique to downtown, it should be unique to the entire region, otherwise what's the point of spending all that money and where's the vision? A small standard off-leash dog park is not an attraction and it's not an amenity that downtown doesn't already have. I've already said that if they wanted to build a super big unique dog park that was an attraction, I'd be on board. That's not what this is.

As to the dollar value of the dog park, if it's worth $3 million, guess what, they can buy a parcel of land nearby for less than $1 million to put it in or they could use half a floor of Three Light to put it in.
DColeKC wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 9:03 pm
Do you know how insanely successful Bar-k is? They want to open 10 additional locations in 5 years.
Either it's a small dog park or it's something like Bar K. If it's not like Bar K then that is completely irrelevant.
DColeKC wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 9:03 pm
They charge monthly “pet rent” of $75 per pet. It’s advantageous for them to have residents who want a dog.
Either this dog park will produce revenue or it won't. You keep trying to have everything both ways.
The park should first and foremost be designed with the downtown resident in mind and not as a tourist attraction. This isn’t a 100+ acre park next to a Great Lake. It’s likely not going to have a world famous art installation like “the bean” that will inspire people from all over the region to drive downtown and snap a photo with. This park would mostly be utilized by the thousands of downtown residents looking for green space. A place to take their partner for a picnic, kids to play, dogs to run or just a quiet place to read in the shade.

Talking about contradicting. One minute you say a small dog park would be a nuisance to other park guests but you’re ok with a large dog park? I’ve been downtown for over 10 years and had dogs for 7 of those years. I’ve never known of an off lease park within walking distance except for the private ones for various residential buildings. Please enlighten me.

What I mean by a public dog park not being revenue generating as in charging a membership fee or admission fee directly. Just how residential pools don’t generate revenue on their own but they maybe the reason a person picks your building over a different one.

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 10:07 am
The park should first and foremost be designed with the downtown resident in mind and not as a tourist attraction. This isn’t a 100+ acre park next to a Great Lake. It’s likely not going to have a world famous art installation like “the bean” that will inspire people from all over the region to drive downtown and snap a photo with. This park would mostly be utilized by the thousands of downtown residents looking for green space. A place to take their partner for a picnic, kids to play, dogs to run or just a quiet place to read in the shade.
Agree to disagree on that one. It's going to cost too much for that. Plus, that already exists at Barney Allis Plaza a couple blocks away and nobody uses it. We need four more blocks of that? And, I fail to see how you're going to possibly get taxpayer/city council support for such an idea, especially considering the current fiscal environment. You're talking about just as much of an investment as the streetcar to put in some greenspace only beneficial for downtown residents? Yeah, nobody's going to support that outside of people that live within a couple blocks.

What a genuinely uninspiring train-wreck of an idea.
DColeKC wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 10:07 am
Talking about contradicting. One minute you say a small dog park would be a nuisance to other park guests but you’re ok with a large dog park? I’ve been downtown for over 10 years and had dogs for 7 of those years. I’ve never known of an off lease park within walking distance except for the private ones for various residential buildings. Please enlighten me.
I'm not saying that I would choose to put a huge dog park in if it I was designing the place, just that it would actually be worth the money spent. It would actually attract people.

As to dog parks: River Market, West Terrace Park, Penn Valley Park. Really?
DColeKC wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 10:07 am
What I mean by a public dog park not being revenue generating as in charging a membership fee or admission fee directly. Just how residential pools don’t generate revenue on their own but they maybe the reason a person picks your building over a different one.
You're right, it's exactly like a residential pool, which is why I said to put it in the building...like a residential pool.

User avatar
DColeKC
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1086
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Two Light - 14th & Grand

Post by DColeKC »

TheBigChuckbowski wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 11:04 am
DColeKC wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 10:07 am
The park should first and foremost be designed with the downtown resident in mind and not as a tourist attraction. This isn’t a 100+ acre park next to a Great Lake. It’s likely not going to have a world famous art installation like “the bean” that will inspire people from all over the region to drive downtown and snap a photo with. This park would mostly be utilized by the thousands of downtown residents looking for green space. A place to take their partner for a picnic, kids to play, dogs to run or just a quiet place to read in the shade.
Agree to disagree on that one. It's going to cost too much for that. Plus, that already exists at Barney Allis Plaza a couple blocks away and nobody uses it. We need four more blocks of that? And, I fail to see how you're going to possibly get taxpayer/city council support for such an idea, especially considering the current fiscal environment. You're talking about just as much of an investment as the streetcar to put in some greenspace only beneficial for downtown residents? Yeah, nobody's going to support that outside of people that live within a couple blocks.

What a genuinely uninspiring train-wreck of an idea.
DColeKC wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 10:07 am
Talking about contradicting. One minute you say a small dog park would be a nuisance to other park guests but you’re ok with a large dog park? I’ve been downtown for over 10 years and had dogs for 7 of those years. I’ve never known of an off lease park within walking distance except for the private ones for various residential buildings. Please enlighten me.
I'm not saying that I would choose to put a huge dog park in if it I was designing the place, just that it would actually be worth the money spent. It would actually attract people.

As to dog parks: River Market, West Terrace Park, Penn Valley Park. Really?
DColeKC wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 10:07 am
What I mean by a public dog park not being revenue generating as in charging a membership fee or admission fee directly. Just how residential pools don’t generate revenue on their own but they maybe the reason a person picks your building over a different one.
You're right, it's exactly like a residential pool, which is why I said to put it in the building...like a residential pool.
How many years experience do you have in Urban Development?

Barney Allis is a joke. This park would be nothing like that. Regardless of how amazing the park is, it’s still not going to be a major draw for downtown KC to pull in folks from the suburbs unless there’s a festival, for example a Beer Festival in the park. The events will draw the people, not the park itself. Outside of events, residents and tourist staying downtown will most frequent the park. This isn’t me making this up, this is the results of a very extensive study that was done.

Not sure what you consider “walkable”, but none of those parks you mention are walkable for anyone living in PNL or Crossroads. Those also aren’t accessible to hotel guests who may have dogs traveling with them.

The bulk of the money will come from Cordish, MoDot and federal grants. Likely leaving the city on the hook for a very small portion if anything. Which would be ideal.

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 11:20 am
Barney Allis is a joke. This park would be nothing like that.
You described Barney Allis Park when talking about how great this place would be: "A place to take their partner for a picnic, kids to play, dogs to run or just a quiet place to read in the shade." You can't have a picnic in Barney Allis or read in the shade?
DColeKC wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 11:20 am
Regardless of how amazing the park is, it’s still not going to be a major draw for downtown KC to pull in folks from the suburbs unless there’s a festival, for example a Beer Festival in the park. The events will draw the people, not the park itself.
True, if all you do is create some greenspace. But, here's the thing: I'm saying don't do that.
DColeKC wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 11:20 am
Not sure what you consider “walkable”, but none of those parks you mention are walkable for anyone living in PNL or Crossroads. Those also aren’t accessible to hotel guests who may have dogs traveling with them.
Okay, so you're unwilling to walk a mile for a dog park but you think it's worth millions of dollars to put one in? At first it was going to be private for Light residents only and now it's absolutely vital that hotel guests have a dog park to go to?

My point had nothing to do with walkability to Two Light. My point was that a dog park wasn't unique to downtown because it's not and putting things in a $200 million park that aren't unique to downtown would be dumb and a waste of money.
DColeKC wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 11:20 am
The bulk of the money will come from Cordish, MoDot and federal grants. Likely leaving the city on the hook for a very small portion if anything. Which would be ideal.
That is ideal because your plan would get zero dollars from the city. And, BTW, depending on MoDOT for funds isn't the greatest of plans, either.

User avatar
taxi
Valencia Place
Valencia Place
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:32 am
Location: North End
Contact:

Re: Two Light - 14th & Grand

Post by taxi »

Wow, I woke up and read the news and thought that was bad. Can't we all just get along? I hope Biden comes to KC to mediate this issue.

Now, all this talk about a small dog park. What about the big dogs? They arguably need a place to run and do their bidness even more than small dogs, who have been known to pee on a pad. And don't forget, cat lives matter! I think TheBigChuckbowwowski would get behind that.

I am going back to reading about the impending civil war before I get too riled up about a socialist dog park over my highway.

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 »

taxi wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 12:05 pm
And don't forget, cat lives matter! I think TheBigChuckbowwowski would get behind that.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

User avatar
DColeKC
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1086
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Two Light - 14th & Grand

Post by DColeKC »

TheBigChuckbowski wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 11:39 am
DColeKC wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 11:20 am
Barney Allis is a joke. This park would be nothing like that.
You described Barney Allis Park when talking about how great this place would be: "A place to take their partner for a picnic, kids to play, dogs to run or just a quiet place to read in the shade." You can't have a picnic in Barney Allis or read in the shade?
DColeKC wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 11:20 am
Regardless of how amazing the park is, it’s still not going to be a major draw for downtown KC to pull in folks from the suburbs unless there’s a festival, for example a Beer Festival in the park. The events will draw the people, not the park itself.
True, if all you do is create some greenspace. But, here's the thing: I'm saying don't do that.
DColeKC wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 11:20 am
Not sure what you consider “walkable”, but none of those parks you mention are walkable for anyone living in PNL or Crossroads. Those also aren’t accessible to hotel guests who may have dogs traveling with them.
Okay, so you're unwilling to walk a mile for a dog park but you think it's worth millions of dollars to put one in? At first it was going to be private for Light residents only and now it's absolutely vital that hotel guests have a dog park to go to?

My point had nothing to do with walkability to Two Light. My point was that a dog park wasn't unique to downtown because it's not and putting things in a $200 million park that aren't unique to downtown would be dumb and a waste of money.
DColeKC wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 11:20 am
The bulk of the money will come from Cordish, MoDot and federal grants. Likely leaving the city on the hook for a very small portion if anything. Which would be ideal.
That is ideal because your plan would get zero dollars from the city. And, BTW, depending on MoDOT for funds isn't the greatest of plans, either.
Yes, unlike Barney Allis, this park would feature dedicated areas for certain uses. For example, a play area with equipment for kids that's also fenced in for safety. A covered pavilion that when not in use for entertainment, doubles as a shaded area with tables for guests to enjoy. Water fountains and water bottle fill stations. Power and dedicated areas for pop-up or seasonal kiosks. Room for food trucks. Art installations and most importantly, operated by a company that knows how to put on events and entertainment, so it would be properly programmed.

And yes, the last thing a dog owner wants to do is walk their dog a mile and force them to walk a mile home on exhausted legs from playing with other dogs. I'm not a Cordish spokesperson, I'm just very familiar with them and have some sources. If we're talking about the dog park being open to the public, it does become a nice additional option for downtown hotel guests.

The fact that you think this type of plan would get zero city dollars with hilarious and so inaccurate. MoDot has already said they'd be on board and you really can't build over a fuckin freeway without them being a part of the project. Not to mention, both Walnut and Baltimore bridges are nearing the end of their life cycle.

All I've gotten from your many comments and from the very first second you opened your mouth was the fact you have no clue what you're talking about. I usually respect all opinions and relay them to the proper people when I can, but at least others suggest things in a respectful way and understand the big picture. I'm not even sure why I keep responding because it's clear your input isn't helpful or realistic.

Here's the original map from a study Cordish partially funded. This plan does include Walnut not being a thru-road, like I've mentioned Cordish isn't married to that idea.

Image

shinatoo
Ambassador
Posts: 6658
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 3:20 pm

Re: Two Light - 14th & Grand

Post by shinatoo »

If there is going to be a "Bark Bar" why a seperate dog run? or is that all part of the same complex? That would make more sense to me.
Quocunque Jeceris Stabit

User avatar
DColeKC
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1086
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Two Light - 14th & Grand

Post by DColeKC »

shinatoo wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 2:35 pm
If there is going to be a "Bark Bar" why a seperate dog run? or is that all part of the same complex? That would make more sense to me.
The original design which was done by a landscape design firm (I think), included a Bark bar as part of the Dog Park. I can see that making the final design, but the Downtown Council gave the designer little direction besides the fact they liked the park in Dallas.

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

Re: Two Light - 14th & Grand

Post by Walker »

St. Louis used a TIGER grant, MoDOT funds, other government grants, etc. It looks like MoDOT led construction there and may even have lead the highway capping efforts there.
MoDOT began construction on the Park Over the Highway in 2013 and completed work in 2015. The en- tire project is scheduled to be completed in 2017.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/candc/factshee ... tate44.pdf
The connection centerpiece of St. Louis’ Gateway Arch Park Foundation’s initiative is the $15 million Park Over the Highway Project, which includes a 285-foot long “land” bridge that carries a landscaped pedestrian greenway over Interstate 44, making a seamless connection between downtown and the Arch grounds. 100-foot x 285-foot land bridge. Designing an irregular shaped non-parallel girder bridge that also supports unique loadings for and eventual 30-foot-high landscaped tree canopy was an unprecedented achievement that required extensive collaboration in order to achieve MoDOT approval.
https://www.cmtengr.com/project/park-over-the-highway/

Image

Image

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 2:15 pm
The fact that you think this type of plan would get zero city dollars with hilarious and so inaccurate.
If you think city council won't lose their minds if tens of millions in taxpayer dollars are going to be used, in part, to fund a private dog park, I don't know how to help you. I also really just don't see city council having the political will to put a significant amount of money into some ho-hum greenspace that's only appealing to downtown residents. Beer festivals that can already be held downtown, notwithstanding.
DColeKC wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 2:15 pm
MoDot has already said they'd be on board and you really can't build over a fuckin freeway without them being a part of the project. Not to mention, both Walnut and Baltimore bridges are nearing the end of their life cycle.
Of course you need MoDOT's blessing. That doesn't mean they're going to provide any non-transportation related funding. Maybe they'll rebuild bridges that they would be rebuilding anyway. Or maybe they'll tell the city to do it like Buck O'Neil Bridge. If MoDOT doesn't have money to adequately maintain major downtown bridges, I'm not sure how they would have funding for a non-transportation related project.

Gateway Arch being very different circumstances at a very different time.

Pretty sure I'm not the only one that has a bigger vision for this than boring greenspace. I'm just trying to make the point that it's a totally wasted opportunity and not worth the money. If we're spending $200+ million, we should expect something like Millennium Park, not something like Barney Allis Plaza.

User avatar
DColeKC
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1086
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Two Light - 14th & Grand

Post by DColeKC »

TheBigChuckbowski wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 3:26 pm
DColeKC wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 2:15 pm
The fact that you think this type of plan would get zero city dollars with hilarious and so inaccurate.
If you think city council won't lose their minds if tens of millions in taxpayer dollars are going to be used, in part, to fund a private dog park, I don't know how to help you. I also really just don't see city council having the political will to put a significant amount of money into some ho-hum greenspace that's only appealing to downtown residents. Beer festivals that can already be held downtown, notwithstanding.
DColeKC wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 2:15 pm
MoDot has already said they'd be on board and you really can't build over a fuckin freeway without them being a part of the project. Not to mention, both Walnut and Baltimore bridges are nearing the end of their life cycle.
Of course you need MoDOT's blessing. That doesn't mean they're going to provide any non-transportation related funding. Maybe they'll rebuild bridges that they would be rebuilding anyway. Or maybe they'll tell the city to do it like Buck O'Neil Bridge. If MoDOT doesn't have money to adequately maintain major downtown bridges, I'm not sure how they would have funding for a non-transportation related project.

Gateway Arch being very different circumstances at a very different time.

Pretty sure I'm not the only one that has a bigger vision for this than boring greenspace. I'm just trying to make the point that it's a totally wasted opportunity and not worth the money. If we're spending $200+ million, we should expect something like Millennium Park, not something like Barney Allis Plaza.
You keep mentioning Millennium Park. How in the world do you create something similar to the 25 acre, 600 million dollar (Today's money) park on 5 acres above a freeway? It's just not fair comparison not to mention the purpose of both parks are completely different. Millennium Park is first and foremost a tourist attraction.

Did you look at the proposed map I shared? You consider that plan "a boring green space"?

Hate to admit it, but Biden's infrastructure plans could be the winning ticket we need to get this project going.

Also, the projected cost last time around was under $150 million.

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 3:45 pm
You keep mentioning Millennium Park. How in the world do you create something similar to the 25 acre, 600 million dollar (Today's money) park on 5 acres above a freeway? It's just not fair comparison not to mention the purpose of both parks are completely different. Millennium Park is first and foremost a tourist attraction.
I've been saying it should be a tourist attraction this entire time. Millennium Park is on top of a parking garage and Metra structure, it's a totally apt comparison. Maybe it won't be the same size but that's pretty irrelevant. You don't need the scale of Millennium Park to have something like Cloud Gate or something like Crown Fountain or something like Lurie Garden. Those would all fit nicely inside a city block.

The purpose of the parks are completely different only because you've decided that the purpose of this park should be to act as Two Light's backyard. There's absolutely no reason it can't/shouldn't be more than that other than lack of vision.
DColeKC wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 3:45 pm
Did you look at the proposed map I shared? You consider that plan "a boring green space"?
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.

flyingember
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9074
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: Two Light - 14th & Grand

Post by flyingember »

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).
Last edited by flyingember on Thu Jan 14, 2021 4:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
DColeKC
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1086
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Two Light - 14th & Grand

Post by DColeKC »

TheBigChuckbowski wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 4:08 pm
DColeKC wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 3:45 pm
You keep mentioning Millennium Park. How in the world do you create something similar to the 25 acre, 600 million dollar (Today's money) park on 5 acres above a freeway? It's just not fair comparison not to mention the purpose of both parks are completely different. Millennium Park is first and foremost a tourist attraction.
I've been saying it should be a tourist attraction this entire time. Millennium Park is on top of a parking garage and Metra structure, it's a totally apt comparison. Maybe it won't be the same size but that's pretty irrelevant. You don't need the scale of Millennium Park to have something like Cloud Gate or something like Crown Fountain or something like Lurie Garden. Those would all fit nicely inside a city block.

The purpose of the parks are completely different only because you've decided that the purpose of this park should be to act as Two Light's backyard. There's absolutely no reason it can't/shouldn't be more than that other than lack of vision.
DColeKC wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 3:45 pm
Did you look at the proposed map I shared? You consider that plan "a boring green space"?
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.
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.

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.

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.

Btw, Barney Allis Plaza is boring because no one takes the time to manage it. Kauffman center has a ton of green space, perhaps they can erect some fun and fancy art for tourist.

flyingember
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9074
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: Two Light - 14th & Grand

Post by flyingember »

DColeKC wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 4:22 pm
Btw, Barney Allis Plaza is boring because no one takes the time to manage it. Kauffman center has a ton of green space, perhaps they can erect some fun and fancy art for tourist.
They did, they erected the Kauffman Center

User avatar
DColeKC
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1086
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Two Light - 14th & Grand

Post by DColeKC »

flyingember wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 4:27 pm
DColeKC wrote:
Thu Jan 14, 2021 4:22 pm
Btw, Barney Allis Plaza is boring because no one takes the time to manage it. Kauffman center has a ton of green space, perhaps they can erect some fun and fancy art for tourist.
They did, they erected the Kauffman Center
The Kauffman Center is beautiful.

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 4:22 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.

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 4:20 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.
Last edited by TheBigChuckbowski on Thu Jan 14, 2021 4:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

flyingember
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9074
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: Two Light - 14th & Grand

Post by flyingember »

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)
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

Post Reply