Three Light

[beautyfromashes]

Agreed. There are all kinds of restrictions and clawbacks we should be adding to these incentives.

We're almost encouraging delay in a rapidly developing market. Lock up a good incentive, hold it for several years while the market materializes and then build for a huge windfall.

[GRID]

From an aesthetic point of view only, if this thing is going to be the same size or slightly smaller than 2 Light, you may as well make it 8 floors or something. I just think another building similar in height and mass to 2light will look terrible there. A shorter building would at least allow you to see the taller buildings behind from the south and not have such a "wall" effect. Again, just from aesthetics of the skyline etc. I know that may not matter, but when you drive into downtown from the crossraods, all you are going to see is the two squatty 2 and 3 light, most the rest of downtown will be behind them. The original plans for 35 story building would have at least complimented the skyline as it tiers higher toward Main Street and not look so squatty.

[DColeKC]

Why are the timelines allowed to be so fluid from approval of incentive to the beginning of construction? There shouldn't be years between. Put a restriction in each incentive package agreed to that if construction doesn't start within a year, the incentive has to be revisited and reapproved. Developers would rush to meet the deadline not wanting to risk the incentive and terms that would be less favorable.

I think normally they're not as fluid but when the city tries to change the game and go back on a previous agreement, the dominoes start to fall. Not only did the fight happen over 3L, but they were pushed to also do the Midland project and in the middle of this, got flat out disrespected by H&R in regards to the air rights for Strata. We've had two examples of Cordish timelines on two other towers, so we know this isn't typical of them.

[beautyfromashes]

I think normally they're not as fluid but when the city tries to change the game and go back on a previous agreement, the dominoes start to fall. Not only did the fight happen over 3L, but they were pushed to also do the Midland project and in the middle of this, got flat out disrespected by H&R in regards to the air rights for Strata. We've had two examples of Cordish timelines on two other towers, so we know this isn't typical of them.

Yes, but the problem seems to be the term of the agreement. The Cordish one was signed almost two decades ago. The H&R Block one was created around the same time. I suppose some of these long, long term agreements signed back in the day should expire soon with completion of the buildings and take care of this.

[KCPowercat]

I have no problem with the Cordish one. They took a big risk.

[beautyfromashes]

I have no problem with the Cordish one. They took a big risk.

Yes, they did. I do wish they would speed up realizing the return on it though. You made a great deal, cash it in and keep going.

[Midtownkid]

I do wish they'd spend half the money and creativity they do on the interiors, on the exterior.

People don’t pay market rate for how a building looks on the side they spend 1% of the time looking at. Out of all the complaints I’ve heard from residents, none have been about the exterior of the building.

Well it is no surprise that all you care about is money, that is why the buildings look as bland at they do. I'm talking about pride and aesthetics. Ya know, stuff people used to care about (and still want views of from their bland glass towers!)

[DColeKC]

I do wish they'd spend half the money and creativity they do on the interiors, on the exterior.

People don’t pay market rate for how a building looks on the side they spend 1% of the time looking at. Out of all the complaints I’ve heard from residents, none have been about the exterior of the building.

Well it is no surprise that all you care about is money, that is why the buildings look as bland at they do. I'm talking about pride and aesthetics. Ya know, stuff people used to care about (and still want views of from their bland glass towers!)

Too bad more people like you didn’t have unlimited funds for vanity projects to build beautiful buildings that you could financially afford to not make your money back. It would be utterly irresponsible for a developer to build something they can’t afford only to impress a small subset of people who put exterior and grand design over actual functionality and financial success.

Trust me, Cordish has listened to input from the public (including members of this forum) and still take great pride in their buildings. Especially when they win design awards and fully lease up shortly after opening.

[KCPowercat]

The webster house garage once won a development award.

Not equating anything just don't put a lot of importance on those awards. I'm also very happy overall with cordish and their impact in kc. Always room for improvement.

[Chris Stritzel]

I find something nice about simplicity. The Light towers are simple, and I like them for that. Pretty minimalist in my book and add something to the skyline.

Architecturally significant buildings, like Power and Light and 909, really stand out as-is. They, and others, were modern for their time. Just as we look back at them as beautiful examples of the Art Deco style, people in the future will look back on the "simple and bland" buildings of the 2000s-whenever as significant in the contemporary style (or whatever people will call it in the future).

Back to 3 Light, what we have seen in the most up to date renderings differs a bit from 2 Light, and that's a good thing. Something that is slightly different but still visibly a sister property.

[flyingember]

Exactly, beauty is in the eye of the beholder

https://mcmansionhell.com/post/18635866 ... troduction

No style of architecture so passionately divides even the most good-natured and level-headed people as Brutalism. The discourse surrounding Brutalism being “good” or “bad” is fierce and polemical. The “for” crowd lobbies on both aesthetic grounds – posting pictures of incredible and obscure structures and saying “I mean LOOK at this” – as well as political ones, citing in particular, how Brutalism was used to house thousands of people during the postwar period.

On the other hand, the “against” crowd brings up the failed urbanism of Le Corbusier that gave us the freeways and slum clearance that split and displaced entire swaths of city fabric, proclaiming that only architects or architecture enthusiasts like Brutalism, and that this is a testament to how out of touch they are with everyday people. “If you had to live or work in these buildings,” they say, “you’d feel differently.”

People are repeating the same argument used over and over about every new form of archiecture.

Go back far enough and there were people who hated Art Deco when it was new.


What should be focused on is quality of the structure. How does it interact with the environment around it and not the aesthetics.

[Riverite]

Exactly, beauty is in the eye of the beholder

https://mcmansionhell.com/post/18635866 ... troduction

No style of architecture so passionately divides even the most good-natured and level-headed people as Brutalism. The discourse surrounding Brutalism being “good” or “bad” is fierce and polemical. The “for” crowd lobbies on both aesthetic grounds – posting pictures of incredible and obscure structures and saying “I mean LOOK at this” – as well as political ones, citing in particular, how Brutalism was used to house thousands of people during the postwar period.

On the other hand, the “against” crowd brings up the failed urbanism of Le Corbusier that gave us the freeways and slum clearance that split and displaced entire swaths of city fabric, proclaiming that only architects or architecture enthusiasts like Brutalism, and that this is a testament to how out of touch they are with everyday people. “If you had to live or work in these buildings,” they say, “you’d feel differently.”

People are repeating the same argument used over and over about every new form of archiecture.

Go back far enough and there were people who hated Art Deco when it was new.


What should be focused on is quality of the structure. How does it interact with the environment around it and not the aesthetics.

Absolutely, I’d take quality over design any day. If it’s ugly it can always be reclassified (although again beauty is subjective) if it’s brittle it’ll go

[Chris Stritzel]

Found this on the Humphrey's and Partners website.

Listening to the video attached with the webinar, it seems like this is a concept to demonstrate the capabilities of their "Stak" concept for high-rises, which is a highly efficient modular build system. I highly doubt that this design is in the running for 3 Light. Rendering looks to be older as construction fencing is still around 2 Light.

As a reminder, Humphrey's did One Light.

[normalthings]

These drawings share a lot of similarities with the HCM drawings. There is too much overlap for Humphreys to have come up with this on their own. Either Humphrey’s originally bid on this project or they were brought in during a recent redesign.

Similarities:

1. Pool in the same location and same size
2. Garage facade extremely similar to HCM’s
3. Floor count is the exact same as the confirmed reduced height proposal.
4. Pedestrian bridge between Two and Three

[zonk]

^yep....I thought HCM was the arch of record.

[GRID]

I hope that's not the new design. The original looks so much better:

[KCPowercat]

of course it does, it hadn't been VE'd yet.

[DColeKC]

I think that’s old because they wanted to get away from spelling out the building names and go with simply 3 or 3L.

[GRID]

I think that’s old because they wanted to get away from spelling out the building names and go with simply 3 or 3L.

That and 3 Light keeps getting downsized. I'm sure the newest rendering will be shorter than 2L and that rendering has it taller. At this point, anything would be nice I guess because it's been delayed so many times, but that modular looking building on top a pedestal is ugly as hell. At least try to incorporate the garage aesthetically into the tower. All these huge above ground garages at the front door of downtown are hidious IMO.

[GRID]

This new tower in Baltimore does a better job of incorporating the garage. The tower actually touches the ground rather than only having the building on top the garage.