NE Corner of 14th & Wyandotte (300 unit apartment)

[WoodDraw]

I think people might be over indexing on these "renderings."

I don't find the density objectionable and I'm always skeptical of protecting views.

I'll wait for a more fleshed out project before opining.

[earthling]

^The discussion hasn't been about protecting views that I'm aware of. It's mostly about butting up a building against P&L essentially changing it's character. Do you think if Empire State or Chrysler building had a building butted up against it nearly to the top there wouldn't be some discussion on improving before final designs are out and it's too late? Would think there'd be more public outrage than demonstrated here.

Now's the time to discuss some options so they get some feedback for next iteration of renderings.

[mRoyal]

Would love to see them match the vertical elements of the P&L but with a modern twist instead of the offset glass blocks. Time will tell.

Something like this (but obv not this tall):

[earthling]

^I think this is generally what you're talking about, which could have more 'steps' to it. It might take away alot of units unless going much taller.

[WoodDraw]

^The discussion hasn't been about protecting views that I'm aware of. It's mostly about butting up a building against P&L essentially changing it's character. Do you think if Empire State or Chrysler building had a building butted up against it nearly to the top there wouldn't be some discussion on improving before final designs are out and it's too late? Would think there'd be more public outrage than demonstrated here.

Now's the time to discuss some options so they get some feedback for next iteration of renderings.

It was built to have a building against it.

[Critical_Mass]

#SaveOurElevatorShaft

[mRoyal]

^I think this is generally what you're talking about, which could have more 'steps' to it. It might take away alot of units unless going much taller.

It's not the steps. I'd like to see the rendering's gold glass be uniform and continuous from ground to top in a modern nod to art deco to match P&L's "columns".

[earthling]

^The discussion hasn't been about protecting views that I'm aware of. It's mostly about butting up a building against P&L essentially changing it's character. Do you think if Empire State or Chrysler building had a building butted up against it nearly to the top there wouldn't be some discussion on improving before final designs are out and it's too late? Would think there'd be more public outrage than demonstrated here.

Now's the time to discuss some options so they get some feedback for next iteration of renderings.

It was built to have a building against it.

Not that building, and a boxy one at that. edit: It was supposedly supposed to be a dual tower building of same design. Apparently not the case.

Would you agree now is the time to discuss options rather than wait for a later design they become more attached to?

[beautyfromashes]

It was built to have a building against it.

I feel like we had an argument on here about this about a decade ago and it was proven not to be the case, that there was a rendering, but it was just someones outside project and not part of the original project. But it's been a decade, I could be wrong.

[earthling]

^The claims I've heard is that P&L was supposed to be a dual tower but the Depression hit so they built half or something along those lines. Sounds odd and questionable but I've heard that more than once and maybe too easily accepted it.

[FangKC]

The claim that the P&L Building was to have a dual tower built has been debunked.

Duane Hicks, a partner at Independence-based Hicks Fowler Architects, emailed me after the piece was posted online, telling me that the twin tower story in the research simply is not true.

Hicks, a Kansas State University graduate, said he researched the tower in 1985 as part of a project. He said he looked over original site plans, Kansas City Power & Light Co. company newsletters, microfilms and other documents and saw no plans or drawings indicating a second tower was ever planned.

Hicks even interviewed Clarence Kivett, a founder of influential Kansas City architecture firm Kivett and Myers, about the mysterious second tower. He said Kivett, who was working for Kansas City firm Hoit Price and Barnes at the time of the Power & Light Building's construction, was emphatic there were never plans for a second tower.

https://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/ ... lding.html

That said, The blank wall indicates that another building might be built up against or near it. The owner of the adjacent property is under no obligation to not build up to the top of the P&L Building or even exceed it in height, or even double its height unless the owner of the P&L Building purchased air rights to the adjacent parcel that limited its elevation to a certain point. As long as the owner adheres to the parcel's zoning, they can do what they want. If the developer is not seeking incentives, even the City can't stop it unless the zoning has been changed to limit the height on that parcel.

The new building should attempt to do something like the building on the bottom of the photo below does to the building on top. It doesn't have to match the design or facade materials though. I'm just using this as an example.



https://www.google.com/maps/place/117+W ... 11bw3xcbfs

[earthling]

^Was expecting for you to validate! Thanks.

Not aware of calls for obligations, rather discussing reasonable options for considering P&L's unique identity with some separation. The density can be shifted to the west face and optionally built taller for more density than planned. Lots of options for compromise w/out impacting density.

[FangKC]

That corner does call for some contrast.

https://www.ramsa.com/projects/project/ ... -high-line

https://www.ramsa.com/projects/project/clarendon

https://www.ramsa.com/projects/project/tribeca-green

https://www.ramsa.com/projects/project/ ... ley-street

https://www.ramsa.com/projects/project/chatham

I like this black brick facade and what they did with the night lighting.

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/2674081020521695/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gt8MQOy85HQ&t=2s

[earthling]

^Some good examples.

Here's a scenario adding a northwest tower that is taller than P&L and nicely spaced catty-corner placement. Several floors dropped in midsection of West face to give more variation instead of a mega wall. A circular restaurant could be added to top of new tower that is subtle in comparison to P&L tower. Of course this might be more costly. Setbacks or tiered tower could be included too per examples above but would be a lot of work to modify the drawing.

Left side is south face, right side is west face.


Original drawing...

[Cratedigger]

I feel like no one is giving the Power and Light building any credit. That lady will shine no matter who is standing next to her.

Future project site from the old KC Club rooftop

[TheUrbanRoo]

"The City Plan Commission is set to review Lux's plan in early April. The developer targets a 28-month construction timeline, beginning in January 2024 and ending in May 2026."

https://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/ ... -loan.html

[moderne]

incentives? If it is going to plan commission first, will incentive shopping come next?

[FlippantCitizen]

I've been sitting with this a while. I'm not entirely sure the stepping of the building actually looks good to my eye. Might just prefer the uniform height. I think the examples Fang gave are great looks in terms of getting materials other than glass into a new construction high rise project which I would say we sorely need in KC.

[WoodDraw]

I'm not sure this fits with planning. They're not an architecture firm. It seems okay to me on that basis.

For all of the actuallys above, I know. And it's not what I said. Just said this building was built with a building allowed to go against it. Not a fucking parking lot.

"May this building stand in perpetuity, be admired from a parking lot on wyandotte", the architect spoke.

[bspecht]

Build it.