DColeKC wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 3:24 pm
Wouldn't seem like it, but if the skybridge is denied, it will have a large impact on the project design. Mostly the top level of the parking garage where the bridge was supposed to connect to 3L. If it's denied, hoping the architects can flip the changes quickly.
Translation: If you reject my skybridge, I will delay the start of construction for a godawful amount of time due to "design changes", just for spite.
Beauty from ashes
Your comment isn’t making sense to me.
normalthings wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 12:27 pm
Beauty from ashes
Your comment isn’t making sense to me.
Cordish seems to be about threats. Put a restriction or rule against them and they stall the project needlessly. If they reject the "skybridge" expect a six month delay.
normalthings wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 12:27 pm
Beauty from ashes
Your comment isn’t making sense to me.
Cordish seems to be about threats. Put a restriction or rule against them and they stall the project needlessly. If they reject the "skybridge" expect a six month delay.
Why would they not redesign if a structural element is disallowed? I don’t see any threats being made.
I don't see how the disapproval of a sky bridge hinders this project. You can always pre-engineer/design the building to support a skybridge. It's not like it would go up by time construction on the parking garage/podium portion made it to that level of the building. The sky bridge would more likely than not be installed closer to completion, or at least after 3 Light is topped out.
If the design of the sky bridge is rejected, Cordish could still move ahead on construction and work its way through the approval process for the bridge while the building is being built. I see no reason for them to be hostile in this case since the skybridge is such a small thing in the grand scheme of things.
Which would you choose if you were the developer? Hundreds of apartments equating to hundreds of new residents to support Power and Light District businesses and thousands of dollars in revenue? or picking a fight with the City because you didn't get approval for a skybridge, thus pushing the project back further and increasing pre-development costs along the way despite the main building being mostly finished/completely finishes with design? I'd choose the first one over the second any day of the week.
I think a sky bridge, especially that high, looks terrible myself. I much prefer the look of an open street canyon. I wouldn't stop the project over it I guess, but it doesn't seem to take much to delay this project.
Last edited by GRID on Wed May 19, 2021 1:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
KCPowercat wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 1:25 pm
Agreed but those 120 story sky bridges are cool.
I don't see how a sky bridge for this project requires redesign but I don't build buildings
probably because it will effect the overall numbers a tad and they may not want to start any construction till it's all 100% in signed contracts.
But yeah, they could easily get going on this and be under construction for a year before it really even matters. I still wish it were taller, even with those three floors, it made a huge difference in how that building looks. It's too stubby for the size of the garage now and too close in height to 2Light.
DColeKC wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 3:24 pm
Wouldn't seem like it, but if the skybridge is denied, it will have a large impact on the project design. Mostly the top level of the parking garage where the bridge was supposed to connect to 3L. If it's denied, hoping the architects can flip the changes quickly.
Translation: If you reject my skybridge, I will delay the start of construction for a godawful amount of time due to "design changes", just for spite.
To my knowledge, Cordish has never delayed construction out of spite. Don't you think they'd much rather be half way through this building before costs started skyrocketing? There's no advantage to them delaying anything and it just adds cost.
They had discussed the skybridge with the city for sometime now and being tossed in front of the MAC was unexpected. Having the MAC not complain about the design aesthetics but more about birds, suicides, mardigras beads and scary heights was a bit off-putting, but not enough to stall work.
They will build the support for the bridge whether it’s approved or not. If it’s rejected they’ll keep trying to get it added. And, we are talking about the pool deck bridge, right? It’s probably 40 feet high. Seems a stretch to call it a skybridge.
beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 2:31 pm
They will build the support for the bridge whether it’s approved or not. If it’s rejected they’ll keep trying to get it added. And, we are talking about the pool deck bridge, right? It’s probably 40 feet high. Seems a stretch to call it a skybridge.
They won't build the support for the bridge if it's not approved because it takes up parking space. The architect, Frank Andre told me that it's not a massive deal but it's also not as easy as just not building the bridge. Skybridge, pedestrian bridge, I don't care what it's called, doesn't matter to me. From my understanding, basically any elevated bridge connecting two or more buildings in an urban environment is a skybridge. Let's call it an open-air, moderately raised walking platform or low altitude pedestrian bridge.
DColeKC wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 2:17 pm
...
They had discussed the skybridge with the city for sometime now and being tossed in front of the MAC was unexpected. Having the MAC not complain about the design aesthetics but more about birds, suicides, mardigras beads and scary heights was a bit off-putting, but not enough to stall work.
Cordish has bad development lawyers if they didn't tell management well in advance about the MAC being involved in the approval process for a skybridge.
The bridge could be interesting if Cordish included a Power & LIght sign on it similar to the one on the top of the building on the SE corner of 12th and Main.
DColeKC wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 2:17 pm
...
They had discussed the skybridge with the city for sometime now and being tossed in front of the MAC was unexpected. Having the MAC not complain about the design aesthetics but more about birds, suicides, mardigras beads and scary heights was a bit off-putting, but not enough to stall work.
Cordish has bad development lawyers if they didn't tell management well in advance about the MAC being involved in the approval process for a skybridge.
The bridge could be interesting if Cordish included a Power & LIght sign on it similar to the one on the top of the building on the SE corner of 12th and Main.
I should probably clarify. They didn’t expect them to be so much in opposition. I’m sure they were more than aware it was one of the steps involved. I didn’t relay my conversations with them properly.
My personal taste thinks it would be very cool to have signage on it but I know that would get major pushback.
Since this seems like news to everyone, here's the MAC's official description so we can get a grasp on what their responsibilities are.
By City Charter, the Art Commission’s responsibilities include the approval of works of art on, or extending over, any City property; the design of buildings, bridges, fences and other structures built by the City; and any privately owned signs, skywalks or other structures that extend over public property. City ordinances also provide that no existing work of art owned by the City can be moved or altered without commission approval except under emergency conditions. The Municipal Art Commission oversees the administration of the Kansas City One Percent for Art Program. Through the One Percent for Art Program, the mission of the Municipal Art Commission is to serve as a catalyst for artistic growth and aesthetic excellence in our communities, and in doing so, enhance the vitality of Kansas City and enrich the lives of our residents.
TheLastGentleman wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 11:37 pm
Since this seems like news to everyone, here's the MAC's official description so we can get a grasp on what their responsibilities are.
By City Charter, the Art Commission’s responsibilities include the approval of works of art on, or extending over, any City property; the design of buildings, bridges, fences and other structures built by the City; and any privately owned signs, skywalks or other structures that extend over public property. City ordinances also provide that no existing work of art owned by the City can be moved or altered without commission approval except under emergency conditions. The Municipal Art Commission oversees the administration of the Kansas City One Percent for Art Program. Through the One Percent for Art Program, the mission of the Municipal Art Commission is to serve as a catalyst for artistic growth and aesthetic excellence in our communities, and in doing so, enhance the vitality of Kansas City and enrich the lives of our residents.
I understand what they do and that the commission has been around since like 1926. My argument is more about what they complained about than the idea they’re even involved. In many cases, they’re a very important part of the checks and balances.
In this situation, concerns about aesthetics fall under their purview but that was barely brought up. I’m not sure bird safety or suicide attempts should be their concern and I know for a fact they shouldn’t be bringing up their disdain for the cities master agreement with Cordish and tax revenue projections.
KCPowercat wrote: ↑Thu May 20, 2021 11:46 am
See something, say something!
I think our system of government at all levels is already far too bureaucratic. I can understand denying the proposal based on the fact you disagree with how it impacts the general public's view of downtown or even the publics safety, but concern for birds and beads is a stretch. Denying it because you have a personal issue with the developer and the cities piss poor projections that lead to the tax revenue shortfall is problematic. One person even brought up affordable housing and "elitism" as their reason for voting no.
Regardless, it was passed yesterday during the planning commission meeting and moves before the city council for a final vote. I'll be watching that one.
KCPowercat wrote: ↑Thu May 20, 2021 2:07 pm
Seems like a pretty big accusation to say those on the MAC just don't like Cordish.
One member, Jack Holland basically said so. “I read the original proforma” was one of his comments among others trashing the deal between the city and Cordish.
Not saying all members do, but there was obvious bias on display.
