Two Light - 14th & Grand

Come here for discussion about the new downtown entertainment district.
TheBigChuckbowski
Hotel President
Hotel President
Posts: 3358
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:36 pm
Location: Longfellow

Re: Two Light - 14th & Grand

Post by TheBigChuckbowski »

DColeKC wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 2:45 pm
I don't anything is going to change your mind.
You're right. It's one of the most uniquely bad ideas I've ever heard in my life. And, your argument essentially boils down to Cordish is infallible and a private dog park isn't worth sacrificing the expensive revenue-generating space in Three Light for but it's definitely worth sacrificing the expensive revenue-generating space...across the street, to create a worse experience for the dog owners as well as the park visitors.
DColeKC wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 2:45 pm
II'd much rather have them confined to a certain area and make the rest of the park unavailable to dogs.
That's not how parks work.

TheBigChuckbowski
Hotel President
Hotel President
Posts: 3358
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:36 pm
Location: Longfellow

Re: Two Light - 14th & Grand

Post by TheBigChuckbowski »

As I mentioned previously, it sounds like they're willing to make the dog park public.
I love how people in this thread are acting like Cordish will completely back out without a dog park. Meanwhile, they give in on privatization the first time someone asks about it.

Cordish isn't backing out of this project without a dog park. That would make no sense whatsoever. Make it private, though, and taxpayer dollars will 100% be taken off the table.

DColeKC
Colonnade
Colonnade
Posts: 854
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Two Light - 14th & Grand

Post by DColeKC »

TheBigChuckbowski wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 3:14 pm
DColeKC wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 2:45 pm
I don't anything is going to change your mind.
You're right. It's one of the most uniquely bad ideas I've ever heard in my life. And, your argument essentially boils down to Cordish is infallible and a private dog park isn't worth sacrificing the expensive revenue-generating space in Three Light for but it's definitely worth sacrificing the expensive revenue-generating space...across the street, to create a worse experience for the dog owners as well as the park visitors.
DColeKC wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 2:45 pm
II'd much rather have them confined to a certain area and make the rest of the park unavailable to dogs.
That's not how parks work.
Uhhh... That's how Millennial Park works.

Look, I don't know what you do for a living and I'm not trying to be insulting, but it's clear you don't know what you're talking about.

Yes, 1000 square foot of interior, ground level retail space is far more valuable than 1000 square foot of space in a park in Kansas City. People who live in smaller downtown apartments want to get outside with their dogs, not into a concrete, windowless room with murals on the walls. Do you really expect people from Two Light and eventually Four Light to leave their building and enter another building in order to let their dogs run and take a piss?

A small dog park may not generate revenue as in charged admission, but the amenities value to 3 to 5 Cordish owned downtown apartments is worth a massive amount of money. Private or not. I've lived in these buildings as a dog owner. I've spoken to other dog owners and I know many people that moved from One Light to Two Light specifically because it's far more convenient to own dogs in Two Light. So people were willing to move down one block, pay MORE money, for a more favorable dog park situation. I'd call that revenue generating.

DColeKC
Colonnade
Colonnade
Posts: 854
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Two Light - 14th & Grand

Post by DColeKC »

TheBigChuckbowski wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 3:27 pm
As I mentioned previously, it sounds like they're willing to make the dog park public.
I love how people in this thread are acting like Cordish will completely back out without a dog park. Meanwhile, they give in on privatization the first time someone asks about it.

Cordish isn't backing out of this project without a dog park. That would make no sense whatsoever. Make it private, though, and taxpayer dollars will 100% be taken off the table.
The idea of a private dog park has been discussed in here for years and I've had conversations with Cordish about dozens of times. You underestimate the amount of money and time Cordish has already put into this. You think they've not discussed how the park will be operated and managed with the city over the last 5 years? You really think the city would turn away a developer willing to put 100 million into a project over the simple idea of cordish wanting the possibly make 1.7% of the project private space? I can tell you factually, that the city wouldn't care.

Cordish has always been willing to work with the city, so it was relayed to me that the idea of a private area for dogs isn't a deal breaker and as the project comes closer to being a reality, they'd certainly be willing to and know it's their duty to listen to public input being it's a public park.

WoodDraw
Valencia Place
Valencia Place
Posts: 1821
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 8:53 pm

Re: Two Light - 14th & Grand

Post by WoodDraw »

The more I read this thread, the more convinced I’m becoming that cordish should play no role in this.

Just from a point of city pride, we should be able to build one of the most massive infrastructure projects in our city without the input of a company that cares this much about a fucking dog park.

It’s a bit embarrassing that we’re even talking with them about what they want.

TheBigChuckbowski
Hotel President
Hotel President
Posts: 3358
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:36 pm
Location: Longfellow

Re: Two Light - 14th & Grand

Post by TheBigChuckbowski »

DColeKC wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 3:33 pm
Yes, 1000 square foot of interior, ground level retail space is far more valuable than 1000 square foot of space in a park in Kansas City. People who live in smaller downtown apartments want to get outside with their dogs, not into a concrete, windowless room with murals on the walls. Do you really expect people from Two Light and eventually Four Light to leave their building and enter another building in order to let their dogs run and take a piss?
Who said anything about ground-level retail space? I've said multiple times that it should go on top of the garage, or if covered, inside the garage. That means replacing parking spots or amenities that weren't important enough to include in Two Light, or not replace anything, really, because it could have been included in the design from the beginning. If it isn't valuable enough for that then it isn't valuable enough to put in the $200+ million park across the street.
DColeKC wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 3:33 pm
Do you really expect people from Two Light to leave their building
A. Why wouldn't they use the honky tube? B. Your plan is to force everyone to leave their buildings. And cross at least one street.
DColeKC wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 3:33 pm
You really think the city would turn away a developer willing to put 100 million into a project over the simple idea of cordish wanting the possibly make 1.7% of the project private space?
I don't doubt for a second that city hall is willing to say that in private conversations. What I'm saying is that as soon as that goes public, the Star's editorial board will freak out, KC citizens will freak out, which means city council will freak out, and any money the city is bringing to the table will be jeopardized. I mean, that should be pretty clear to anyone that's ever paid attention to the politics in this city.

And, BTW, that's not turning away the developer. I'm sure everyone in the city would be more than okay if Cordish was willing to bring the rest of the money to the table.

DColeKC
Colonnade
Colonnade
Posts: 854
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Two Light - 14th & Grand

Post by DColeKC »

WoodDraw wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 4:03 pm
The more I read this thread, the more convinced I’m becoming that cordish should play no role in this.

Just from a point of city pride, we should be able to build one of the most massive infrastructure projects in our city without the input of a company that cares this much about a fucking dog park.

It’s a bit embarrassing that we’re even talking with them about what they want.
It's not that they care this much about a dog park. It's that a few people care this much about there NOT being a dog park. Why would a developer invest the bulk of the money if the city didn't care about what they wanted?

Also, this is a public park and if you think for a second there won't be several meetings to allow public input, you're crazy. If it's city pride you care about, you should understand that in order to get an amazing, world-class downtown park, you will need a private developer or private donor. Who do you think is more invested? The city, who would build it and besides mowing the grass, walk away? Or a developer with half a billion dollars worth of apartment buildings that look down upon the park?

It's amazing that a few people are so opposed to a dog park and willing to say fuck em over what may occupy under 2% of the entire damn project.

DColeKC
Colonnade
Colonnade
Posts: 854
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Two Light - 14th & Grand

Post by DColeKC »

TheBigChuckbowski wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 4:15 pm
DColeKC wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 3:33 pm
Yes, 1000 square foot of interior, ground level retail space is far more valuable than 1000 square foot of space in a park in Kansas City. People who live in smaller downtown apartments want to get outside with their dogs, not into a concrete, windowless room with murals on the walls. Do you really expect people from Two Light and eventually Four Light to leave their building and enter another building in order to let their dogs run and take a piss?
Who said anything about ground-level retail space? I've said multiple times that it should go on top of the garage, or if covered, inside the garage. That means replacing parking spots or amenities that weren't important enough to include in Two Light, or not replace anything, really, because it could have been included in the design from the beginning. If it isn't valuable enough for that then it isn't valuable enough to put in the $200+ million park across the street.
DColeKC wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 3:33 pm
Do you really expect people from Two Light to leave their building
A. Why wouldn't they use the honky tube? B. Your plan is to force everyone to leave their buildings. And cross at least one street.
DColeKC wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 3:33 pm
You really think the city would turn away a developer willing to put 100 million into a project over the simple idea of cordish wanting the possibly make 1.7% of the project private space?
I don't doubt for a second that city hall is willing to say that in private conversations. What I'm saying is that as soon as that goes public, the Star's editorial board will freak out, KC citizens will freak out, which means city council will freak out, and any money the city is bringing to the table will be jeopardized. I mean, that should be pretty clear to anyone that's ever paid attention to the politics in this city.

And, BTW, that's not turning away the developer. I'm sure everyone in the city would be more than okay if Cordish was willing to bring the rest of the money to the table.
You think it's smart to take up outdoor amenity space 8 floors up, next to where people grill, swim, layout and socialize with a dog park? I've heard of some stupid ideas but this is up there. You think people who live in concrete buildings want to take their dog to yet another concrete building? So you're idea, so for Two Light residents is to come down the elevator, walk through the 8th floor amenity sections with your dog, pass through the kitchen and bar area, exit outside, cross the sky bridge and reverse the process to get to a tiny dog park so people swimming 20 feet away can smell your dogs shit? Urban planning isn't in your wheel house.

I'm sure if they stuck with wanting to make the dog park private, there would some tax payer backlash. I also think even with pressure, the city council understand how important and transformative this project could be to the citizens of KC. The benefits far outweigh the downsides but Cordish isn't looking for a fight on this either. Public/Private partnerships is what they do, I'm sure everyone would be happy in the end.


The dedicated area for One Light residents is the green roof on top of the Consteninos parking garage. It's a massive pain the ass to get there and people hate it. I don't see them repeating the same unliked idea.

TheBigChuckbowski
Hotel President
Hotel President
Posts: 3358
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:36 pm
Location: Longfellow

Re: Two Light - 14th & Grand

Post by TheBigChuckbowski »

DColeKC wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 4:25 pm
You think it's smart to take up outdoor amenity space 8 floors up, next to where people grill, swim, layout and socialize with a dog park? I've heard of some stupid ideas but this is up there. You think people who live in concrete buildings want to take their dog to yet another concrete building? So you're idea, so for Two Light residents is to come down the elevator, walk through the 8th floor amenity sections with your dog, pass through the kitchen and bar area, exit outside, cross the sky bridge and reverse the process to get to a tiny dog park so people swimming 20 feet away can smell your dogs shit? Urban planning isn't in your wheel house.
Ohhh, so suddenly people don't want to be around dogs, huh? And smelling shit is a problem? Hmm...you must be one of those people that dislike dogs for some reason.

So, let me get this straight, the hoity-toities in the Light buildings shouldn't possibly be exposed to one heathen creature but the plebs down in the public park should wallow in shit. LOL, do you even read your posts? BTW, couldn't they just landscape it? I've heard that solves all problems caused by dogs.

Thank you for finally acknowledging my point, though. I accept your apology.
DColeKC wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 4:25 pm
I'm sure if they stuck with wanting to make the dog park private, there would some tax payer backlash. I also think even with pressure, the city council understand how important and transformative this project could be to the citizens of KC. The benefits far outweigh the downsides but Cordish isn't looking for a fight on this either. Public/Private partnerships is what they do, I'm sure everyone would be happy in the end.
I mean, JFC, Cordish had trouble getting money that the city was contractually obligated to provide for Three Light because of political backlash and you don't think city council will put up a fight over a $200 million private dog park (maybe not a fair description but that'll be how it's perceived and described)?
Last edited by TheBigChuckbowski on Wed Jan 13, 2021 4:55 pm, edited 6 times in total.

TheBigChuckbowski
Hotel President
Hotel President
Posts: 3358
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:36 pm
Location: Longfellow

Re: Two Light - 14th & Grand

Post by TheBigChuckbowski »

so for Two Light residents is to come down the elevator, walk through the 8th floor amenity sections with your dog, pass through the kitchen and bar area, exit outside, cross the sky bridge and reverse the process to get to a tiny dog park
so your plan is for residents of all the Light buildings to come down the elevator, walk through the lobby with your dog, exit outside, walk down the sidewalk, cross a street, walk down the sidewalk, maybe cross another street, maybe walk down another sidewalk, maybe cross another street, use a passcard to get into the gate, and reverse the process to get to a tiny dog park

DColeKC
Colonnade
Colonnade
Posts: 854
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Two Light - 14th & Grand

Post by DColeKC »

TheBigChuckbowski wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 4:42 pm
DColeKC wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 4:25 pm
You think it's smart to take up outdoor amenity space 8 floors up, next to where people grill, swim, layout and socialize with a dog park? I've heard of some stupid ideas but this is up there. You think people who live in concrete buildings want to take their dog to yet another concrete building? So you're idea, so for Two Light residents is to come down the elevator, walk through the 8th floor amenity sections with your dog, pass through the kitchen and bar area, exit outside, cross the sky bridge and reverse the process to get to a tiny dog park so people swimming 20 feet away can smell your dogs shit? Urban planning isn't in your wheel house.
Ohhh, so suddenly people don't want to be around dogs, huh? And smelling shit is a problem? Hmm...you must be one of those people that dislike dogs for some reason.

So, let me get this straight, the hoity-toities in the Light buildings shouldn't possibly be exposed to one heathen creature but the plebs down in the public park should wallow in shit. LOL, do you even read your posts? BTW, couldn't they just landscape it? I've heard that solves all problems caused by dogs.

Thank you for finally acknowledging my point, though. I accept your apology.
DColeKC wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 4:25 pm
I'm sure if they stuck with wanting to make the dog park private, there would some tax payer backlash. I also think even with pressure, the city council understand how important and transformative this project could be to the citizens of KC. The benefits far outweigh the downsides but Cordish isn't looking for a fight on this either. Public/Private partnerships is what they do, I'm sure everyone would be happy in the end.
I mean, JFC, Cordish had trouble getting money that the city was contractually obligated to provide for Three Light because of political backlash and you don't think city council will put up a fight over a $200 million private dog park (maybe not a fair description but that'll be how it's perceived and described)?
I'm starting to think you're just trolling because you can't be this slow. Let's see... A dog shitting onto an artificial surface, on top of a roof that's baked by the sun... right next to installed grills and a swimming pool or a dog shitting in mulch, on earth, surrounded by landscaping and shade. Landscaping doesn't just look pretty, it cuts down on the noise and smells. You're the one who has the misconception that people in these buildings are "hoity-toity's" and think of themselves as fancy folks. Do you even have any real world experience involved here or just found a good thing to flip out over? We have a project, just like this idea that has been done with success. I don't see any complaints from park goers in Dallas about the insane dog noise and nasty smells.

Once again, it's a 200 million dollar park where 98.3% of it has nothing to do with dogs. Sure, if the private portion is pushed by Cordish, there will be push back. The last pushback was due to the affordable housing pressure the city council was getting and Cordish made concessions by moving the Midland project up. Another example of them willing to work with the city. I've also not once said that Cordish would flat out NOT do the deal if the city was 100% against any kind of dog park. It's something they feel strongly about but it's not a non-negotiable.

FML, a lot of talk over a 800 square foot dog park in a 250,000 square foot park.

Dogs are allowed in many public parks... Does that ruin it for all the other park guests?

WoodDraw
Valencia Place
Valencia Place
Posts: 1821
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 8:53 pm

Re: Two Light - 14th & Grand

Post by WoodDraw »

DColeKC wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 4:17 pm
WoodDraw wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 4:03 pm
The more I read this thread, the more convinced I’m becoming that cordish should play no role in this.

Just from a point of city pride, we should be able to build one of the most massive infrastructure projects in our city without the input of a company that cares this much about a fucking dog park.

It’s a bit embarrassing that we’re even talking with them about what they want.
It's not that they care this much about a dog park. It's that a few people care this much about there NOT being a dog park. Why would a developer invest the bulk of the money if the city didn't care about what they wanted?

Also, this is a public park and if you think for a second there won't be several meetings to allow public input, you're crazy. If it's city pride you care about, you should understand that in order to get an amazing, world-class downtown park, you will need a private developer or private donor. Who do you think is more invested? The city, who would build it and besides mowing the grass, walk away? Or a developer with half a billion dollars worth of apartment buildings that look down upon the park?

It's amazing that a few people are so opposed to a dog park and willing to say fuck em over what may occupy under 2% of the entire damn project.
I’m actually not opposed to a dog park. In a different city I lived with one right next to me. Anyone that wanted into it paid a fee, showed vaccines, and they were given a code to enter.

I don’t have strong opinions on this yet. But I’m being won over by the side that says no private developer should control any part of this. They can be paid to develop, but no private amenities.

DColeKC
Colonnade
Colonnade
Posts: 854
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Two Light - 14th & Grand

Post by DColeKC »

I don’t think such an ambitious project gets done without a private party not only financially, but willing to operate the park. From what I’ve been told, the park in Dallas works very well. I don’t trust the city to pay for it, take care of it and operate it. It would just be some grass to sit on.

shinatoo
Ambassador
Posts: 6610
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 3:20 pm

Re: Two Light - 14th & Grand

Post by shinatoo »

I think it's cruel to dogs to make them live in a highrise in the middle of the city where they don't have room to run. What a miserable life. Down an elevator, into traffic, into another cage just to take a shit, or run around for 15 minutes. Gross.
Quocunque Jeceris Stabit

TheBigChuckbowski
Hotel President
Hotel President
Posts: 3358
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:36 pm
Location: Longfellow

Re: Two Light - 14th & Grand

Post by TheBigChuckbowski »

DColeKC wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 5:18 pm
I'm starting to think you're just trolling because you can't be this slow. Let's see... A dog shitting onto an artificial surface, on top of a roof that's baked by the sun... right next to installed grills and a swimming pool or a dog shitting in mulch, on earth, surrounded by landscaping and shade. Landscaping doesn't just look pretty, it cuts down on the noise and smells.

Dogs are allowed in many public parks... Does that ruin it for all the other park guests?
Either dog parks are annoying to be around or they aren't, you don't get to have it both ways.
DColeKC wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 5:18 pm
You're the one who has the misconception that people in these buildings are "hoity-toity's" and think of themselves as fancy folks.
I'm just going by your description. If they're too good to have a dog walk by them while they're in the pool and expect taxpayers to fund half of a $200 million exclusive dog park instead, how else would you describe people like that?

DColeKC
Colonnade
Colonnade
Posts: 854
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Two Light - 14th & Grand

Post by DColeKC »

TheBigChuckbowski wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 6:22 pm
DColeKC wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 5:18 pm
I'm starting to think you're just trolling because you can't be this slow. Let's see... A dog shitting onto an artificial surface, on top of a roof that's baked by the sun... right next to installed grills and a swimming pool or a dog shitting in mulch, on earth, surrounded by landscaping and shade. Landscaping doesn't just look pretty, it cuts down on the noise and smells.

Dogs are allowed in many public parks... Does that ruin it for all the other park guests?
Either dog parks are annoying to be around or they aren't, you don't get to have it both ways.
DColeKC wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 5:18 pm
You're the one who has the misconception that people in these buildings are "hoity-toity's" and think of themselves as fancy folks.
I'm just going by your description. If they're too good to have a dog walk by them while they're in the pool and expect taxpayers to fund half of a $200 million exclusive dog park instead, how else would you describe people like that?
A dog park in a park makes more sense than a dog park next to swimming pool and cooking area 8 floors above ground on a concrete surface with artificial turf. I also never said they’re annoying, they just need to be in the proper place.

It’s not about a dog walking past you, it’s about the inconvenience for the person walking the dog. I’ve done it, it sucks. I moved one block for our dogs.

Here’s a solution. Cordish puts in whatever millions towards the project. Once complete, Cordish purchases a tiny sliver for another million off the city to use as a dog park. Everybody’s happy.

I think can pick this wonderful conversation back up in the proper thread when it’s closer to reality.

TheBigChuckbowski
Hotel President
Hotel President
Posts: 3358
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:36 pm
Location: Longfellow

Re: Two Light - 14th & Grand

Post by TheBigChuckbowski »

DColeKC wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 6:54 pm
A dog park in a park makes more sense than a dog park next to swimming pool and cooking area 8 floors above ground
Why?
DColeKC wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 6:54 pm
artificial turf.
Yes, they can figure out how to cantilever a swimming pool off the side of the 8th floor of a building over Main Street but putting mulch and shrubs on a roof would be too much of an engineering miracle.
DColeKC wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 6:54 pm
It’s not about a dog walking past you, it’s about the inconvenience for the person walking the dog. I’ve done it, it sucks. I moved one block for our dogs.
I can't tell if you're saying that taking the elevator to the 8th floor and walking across the skybridge is more inconvenient than taking the elevator to the first floor and walking a block and crossing a street or if you're saying that walking by someone in a pool is too much of cross to bear but forcing someone to ride an elevator with your dog and then walking by a bunch of people on your way to the park is totally fine.

Either way, though, the feelings of entitled dog owners aren't considered when planning major infrastructure projects.
DColeKC wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 6:54 pm
Here’s a solution. Cordish puts in whatever millions towards the project. Once complete, Cordish purchases a tiny sliver for another million off the city to use as a dog park. Everybody’s happy.
You keeping saying it's 1.7% of the park. 1.7% of $200 million is $3.4 million. Why would giving away something for less than 1/3 of the cost make anyone happy? Please ask Cordish if they consider a dog park for a few hundred tenants to be worth over $3 million + the opportunity cost of what the most valuable land in the region could otherwise be used for.

DColeKC
Colonnade
Colonnade
Posts: 854
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Two Light - 14th & Grand

Post by DColeKC »

TheBigChuckbowski wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 8:47 pm
DColeKC wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 6:54 pm
A dog park in a park makes more sense than a dog park next to swimming pool and cooking area 8 floors above ground
Why?
DColeKC wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 6:54 pm
artificial turf.
Yes, they can figure out how to cantilever a swimming pool off the side of the 8th floor of a building over Main Street but putting mulch and shrubs on a roof would be too much of an engineering miracle.
DColeKC wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 6:54 pm
It’s not about a dog walking past you, it’s about the inconvenience for the person walking the dog. I’ve done it, it sucks. I moved one block for our dogs.
I can't tell if you're saying that taking the elevator to the 8th floor and walking across the skybridge is more inconvenient than taking the elevator to the first floor and walking a block and crossing a street or if you're saying that walking by someone in a pool is too much of cross to bear but forcing someone to ride an elevator with your dog and then walking by a bunch of people on your way to the park is totally fine.

Either way, though, the feelings of entitled dog owners aren't considered when planning major infrastructure projects.
DColeKC wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 6:54 pm
Here’s a solution. Cordish puts in whatever millions towards the project. Once complete, Cordish purchases a tiny sliver for another million off the city to use as a dog park. Everybody’s happy.
You keeping saying it's 1.7% of the park. 1.7% of $200 million is $3.4 million. Why would giving away something for less than 1/3 of the cost make anyone happy? Please ask Cordish if they consider a dog park for a few hundred tenants to be worth over $3 million + the opportunity cost of what the most valuable land in the region could otherwise be used for.
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. Do you know how insanely successful Bar-k is? They want to open 10 additional locations in 5 years. There will eventually be well over 1200 residents living in Cordish buildings. It’s safe to say 350 will have dogs. They charge monthly “pet rent” of $75 per pet. It’s advantageous for them to have residents who want a dog.

Thank god you’re in the minority with your thoughts. Once this gets closer to the planning stage I encourage you to attend the meetings and pipe up.

Cordish will operate the park and there will be a bunch of very cool events yearly. All things said, dog park or no dog park, it’s going to be such a great addition to downtown.

User avatar
normalthings
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3936
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:52 pm

Re: Two Light - 14th & Grand

Post by normalthings »

Speaking of Bar-K, they missed out on not offering doggy daycare. I am surprised that no one has stepped into that role.

TheBigChuckbowski
Hotel President
Hotel President
Posts: 3358
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:36 pm
Location: Longfellow

Re: Two Light - 14th & Grand

Post by TheBigChuckbowski »

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.

Post Reply