Three Light

[normalthings]

The project does not have a 13th floor so this tower is actually 25 floors + mechanical floor + pointed crown.

So stupid.

The only stupid thing (on the surface at least) is having a city-funded 500 space parking garage for a 288 unit complex. Hopefully, the excess parking at Two and Three Light can be utilized by 4 Light.

[shinatoo]

The project does not have a 13th floor so this tower is actually 25 floors + mechanical floor + pointed crown.

So stupid.

The only stupid thing (on the surface at least) is having a city-funded 500 space parking garage for a 288 unit complex. Hopefully, the excess parking at Two and Three Light can be utilized by 4 Light.

Also stupid.

[Critical_Mass]

The project does not have a 13th floor so this tower is actually 25 floors + mechanical floor + pointed crown.

So stupid.

I haven't been in a high rise for years that actually does have a 13th floor. Triskaidekaphobia is alive and well.

My old condo downtown at 10th & Baltimore was on floor 13. Historically it was the 14th floor but when the building was renovated in 2002 they reintroduced the skipped floor number because, hey, we are living in a modern era. Maybe we've progressed backwards?

[DColeKC]

The project does not have a 13th floor so this tower is actually 25 floors + mechanical floor + pointed crown.

So stupid.

The only stupid thing (on the surface at least) is having a city-funded 500 space parking garage for a 288 unit complex. Hopefully, the excess parking at Two and Three Light can be utilized by 4 Light.

There is no excess parking at Two Light. Honestly, could use more public parking for tenant guests and retail customers. In 2L, the public parking is almost always nearly full. One of the bigger residential complaints is the lack of cheap parking for guests.

I'm guessing 3L will have a retail tenant that will need even more customer parking.

[KCPowercat]

the key is "city funded". If the developer needs more parking, build it themselves.

[WoodDraw]

Lack of cheap parking? I can't even.

Sometimes I wonder if making parking free on the plaza through taxes was one of the dumbest things we ever did.

Now everyone thinks parking costs nothing because a once nice shopping mall that is bankrupt charged for it through tax instead of directly.

[DColeKC]

the key is "city funded". If the developer needs more parking, build it themselves.

Yeah... I don't think that's how it works. More public parking, more revenue for the city. The parking garage for 3L isn't any bigger than the one for 2L.

[KCPowercat]

the key is "city funded". If the developer needs more parking, build it themselves.

Yeah... I don't think that's how it works. More public parking, more revenue for the city. The parking garage for 3L isn't any bigger than the one for 2L.

You may have noticed there is a lot of discussion here and at city hall that the concern is city funding of parking garages. In no way is that expense mitigated by parking income. Waddell and Reed, 3L, etc etc.

[normalthings]

So stupid.

The only stupid thing (on the surface at least) is having a city-funded 500 space parking garage for a 288 unit complex. Hopefully, the excess parking at Two and Three Light can be utilized by 4 Light.

There is no excess parking at Two Light. Honestly, could use more public parking for tenant guests and retail customers. In 2L, the public parking is almost always nearly full. One of the bigger residential complaints is the lack of cheap parking for guests.

I'm guessing 3L will have a retail tenant that will need even more customer parking.

Most of the parking at 3L is dedicated residential. Seems like they could have shifted it to the public if there was the demand? I can see Light residents, with their presumably higher incomes, owning multiple cars. However, the dedicated residential parking ratio seems out of line with other developments downtown that are around 1-1 or below.

[DColeKC]

the key is "city funded". If the developer needs more parking, build it themselves.

Yeah... I don't think that's how it works. More public parking, more revenue for the city. The parking garage for 3L isn't any bigger than the one for 2L.

You may have noticed there is a lot of discussion here and at city hall that the concern is city funding of parking garages. In no way is that expense mitigated by parking income. Waddell and Reed, 3L, etc etc.

I'm not implying any justification for the deal the city struck with the developers. They made a deal, developers are going to use it.

What I am saying is there is no, "developer needs more parking" situation where a developer is just being greedy and trying to squeeze the city for more help. The parking garage at 3L will have one more parking spot than 2L.

[DColeKC]

The only stupid thing (on the surface at least) is having a city-funded 500 space parking garage for a 288 unit complex. Hopefully, the excess parking at Two and Three Light can be utilized by 4 Light.

There is no excess parking at Two Light. Honestly, could use more public parking for tenant guests and retail customers. In 2L, the public parking is almost always nearly full. One of the bigger residential complaints is the lack of cheap parking for guests.

I'm guessing 3L will have a retail tenant that will need even more customer parking.

Most of the parking at 3L is dedicated residential. Seems like they could have shifted it to the public if there was the demand? I can see Light residents, with their presumably higher incomes, owning multiple cars. However, the dedicated residential parking ratio seems out of line with other developments downtown that are around 1-1 or below.

It's all a learning process and they will utilize the data they've acquired with 2L to modify the 3L garage to adjust the public/private ratio.

The majority of unit residents have one car per person. There are a lot of couples and families with 2 cars/unit. The penthouse residents tend to have more with a few people I know having up to 4 spaces rented. I could find out, but I think there are very few unused parking spots in the nested area.

[KCPowercat]

Yeah... I don't think that's how it works. More public parking, more revenue for the city. The parking garage for 3L isn't any bigger than the one for 2L.

You may have noticed there is a lot of discussion here and at city hall that the concern is city funding of parking garages. In no way is that expense mitigated by parking income. Waddell and Reed, 3L, etc etc.

I'm not implying any justification for the deal the city struck with the developers. They made a deal, developers are going to use it.

What I am saying is there is no, "developer needs more parking" situation where a developer is just being greedy and trying to squeeze the city for more help. The parking garage at 3L will have one more parking spot than 2L.

I'm totally behind the city honoring what they signed. That said they need to be critical in what is proposed and what is really required. If the developer needs more parking (as you alluded to for 2L) then that would be on the developer to make their building more marketable.

[TheLastGentleman]

There is a lot of disinformation floating around about this building. I have the plans, and the height reduction was only about 31ft. This translates to a reduction of only three floors, substantially less than the 6 floors reported in CitysceneKC.

Here are some bits of the drawings. As you can see, without a side-by-side comparison, the new plan looks almost identical to the original.

[TheLastGentleman]

As an aside, 3 Light's original height often got referred to as 32 floors. This isn't quite right. It was 28 habitable floors, with the last 3 being unoccupied or decorative, and no floor 13. The new design is 25 inhabitable floors with the same 3 "false" floors.

So if the new design was being measured the same way the original design was, it would be 29 floors. Still nice!

Also, 3 Light, from what I can tell, is now about 301ft tall. The original design was 332ft.

[TheLastGentleman]

Also, here's a NEW rendering.



Compare it with the OLD rendering

[GRID]

I still like the design, but honestly, three floors makes a pretty big difference in this building. It looks more squatty now. It's starting to look like KC has a 300' height limit that was passed in like 1989 or something since all of KC's new buildings are in the 250-300' range. I'm just glad the project is still a go.

[KCPowercat]

Good we have a lot of parking lots to fill

[GRID]

Good we have a lot of parking lots to fill

True

[Chris Stritzel]

There is a lot of disinformation floating around about this building. I have the plans, and the height reduction was only about 31ft. This translates to a reduction of only three floors, substantially less than the 6 floors reported in CitysceneKC.

Here are some bits of the drawings. As you can see, without a side-by-side comparison, the new plan looks almost identical to the original.

Thanks for posting this. Happy to see it clear up some things. 31ft isn't much and I think the rendering does a bad job showing it in relation to Two Light. It will look taller, and that's one of the things that matters. The different colored glass and roofline helps as well to differentiate 2 and 3.

[kboish]

Good we have a lot of parking lots to fill

With more parking lots on the way!