City Hall needs to recognize the need to save old buildings

[kid a]

You guys who want to save everything should get a group of investors (including yourself) and do something about it. Don't wait for someone else to do something to a 'historic' building that has been vacant and falling apart for a number of years. Knock yourself out. It is easy to say how a historic building shoud be this or that. Of course as soon as someone takes on a project, you complain about its design or lack of trees, lighting etc.. typical Easiest thing is to do it youself and not have anything to bitch about

it is not bad to express your opinions on what is being done or not in downtown by developers or the city, there is some great stuff being done, but some i wonder if developers or the city really explored all other options . to say"knock yourself out" & "do it yourself" mentality is a bunch of crap.
i f i had the funds or knew others interested in buying a large historic building(like the law building) you'd bet i'd be on it. for most people that is not realistic, what is realistic is people voicing their opinions to city hall and let them hear your concerns. there is a lot of great insight that is being thrown around in these forums. is everyone expressing these to city hall ? with enough people voicing their opinions or a group, you would hope that that could have an effect on on the mindset of city hall and then it gets passed onto developers who do come into kc with their financing and do the right thing by thinking about the historic preservation of kc. not just lining their pockets. this is a nationwide problem, its' a shame that america has let itself become a throw away society.

[diamond]

i f i had the funds

this is always true for people bitching

but let me guess, if you did take on a project and lined your pocket it would be ok right?

Don't get me wrong, I am for preserving historic buildings, at least the ones that make economic sense. I just understand that it is not always the best interest to try to 'save' a historic piece of shit building, no matter what it is.

Also, out of town developers are not in the not for profit sector.

[kid a]

i f i had the funds

this is always true for people bitching

but let me guess, if you did take on a project and lined your pocket it would be ok right?

Don't get me wrong, I am for preserving historic buildings, at least the ones that make economic sense. I just understand that it is not always the best interest to try to 'save' a historic piece of shit building, no matter what it is.

Also, out of town developers are not in the not for profit sector.

who's bitching? maybe you should read through the messages again, people here are voicing their opinions and are making a lot great points. are you offended by that? this city has had poor city planning for decades and that is why it is in the shape that it is in. that is why you see parking lots all over this city, it's much easier to tear down a building than to do something creative with it. yes, you are right, developers are not in the not for profit sector but they would rather tear down something that has character and history and put up some bland, uninspiring, cheap piece of crap that will only last about two decades.
It isn't always easy to find a productive use for an empty old building, but tearing it down makes that outcome impossible.

getting people together to purchase a building is not a bad idea, i don't know how many would actually follow through . the point i was making is that some of the thoughts in this forum should be heard by city hall, it offers a different perspective that they are probably not use to getting.
i never explored the idea of purchasing a building, i really never considered myself a "developer", but i do consider my self a preservationist and have been voicing my concerns to city leaders and preservation planners.

do you think the twa building and the law building was a " historic piece of shit building" ?

[Long]

[quote="diamond"][/quote]

Good job taking that quote out of context.

[staubio]

i f i had the funds

this is always true for people bitching

but let me guess, if you did take on a project and lined your pocket it would be ok right?

Don't get me wrong, I am for preserving historic buildings, at least the ones that make economic sense. I just understand that it is not always the best interest to try to 'save' a historic piece of shit building, no matter what it is.

Also, out of town developers are not in the not for profit sector.

It isn't always the best interest, no. You have to realize, however, that this is much bigger than a building by building concern. People live in urban areas because of historic and diverse buildings. This is just like your neighbor in a snooty neighborhood building an ugly house and destorying the neighborhood, only amplified 100 times when it is downtown. Not only that, but whatever makes the "most economic sense" is irreversible, so you can't make that building ever magically appear again. Most would feel as if a city had some sort of collective ownership over its history and heritage, which means they have a right and obligation to speak up when a private developer wants to do damage.

Downtown is nothing special without a balance between private concerns and a unified strategy working in tandem.

[diamond]

[quote="kid a"]it isn't always easy to find a productive use for an empty old building, but tearing it down makes that outcome impossible.

I wasn't talking about Law bldg.. but since you say that, what would you suggest to do with that bldg. Developers have said a few times it needed so much work that financially it could not been done.

would you rather have that bldg just sit there forever(and be historic)or torn down and something new built?

[ComandanteCero]

it's hard to believe it would sit empty forever, i admit no one knows the future, but the way things are going right now downtown is one the upswing, not declining. Market conditions do change, and sometimes the numbers don't work, but sometimes they do. If demand for downtown living and retail continued to rise i'm sure that building would eventually been ripe for redevelopment. A few months ago there had been a mixed use plan, even though the financing fell apart it had more to do with the market rather than the building itself.

[kid a]

i was making an example out of the law building.
i would have rather seen the building sit for a bit longethan have it leveled for another parking lot , which is now the fate of that site. nice waste! did you see the image fang provided above? that area has changed so much and not in a positive way. looks like a wasteland now! even if that area is redeloped now, it will never have the original feel it once had. i guarentee it will be bland, souless structures.

how much are condos going for downtown and on brookside blvd. , the cadillac lofts?
some or more than $500,000.00. without really knowing what was wrong with the law building, i can't say what i would exactly do, what about partnering? that building was large enough for housing and retail. the city did a poor job informing the public about the law building. when abbott's financing fell through, the next thing you know it's in the paper and a week later early stages of demolition. i used to drive past that building everyday, never knew it was having problems financially. it could have been saved if the situation was known to potential buyers and the public in general. not progressive thinking on kc's part. imagine that...

[Long]

i was making an example out of the law building.
i would have rather seen the building sit for a bit longethan have it leveled for another parking lot , which is now the fate of that site. nice waste! did you see the image fang provided above? that area has changed so much and not in a positive way. looks like a wasteland now! even if that area is redeloped now, it will never have the original feel it once had. i guarentee it will be bland, souless structures.

how much are condos going for downtown and on brookside blvd. , the cadillac lofts?
some or more than $500,000.00. without really knowing what was wrong with the law building, i can't say what i would exactly do, what about partnering? that building was large enough for housing and retail. the city did a poor job informing the public about the law building. when abbott's financing fell through, the next thing you know it's in the paper and a week later early stages of demolition. i used to drive past that building everyday, never knew it was having problems financially. it could have been saved if the situation was known to potential buyers and the public in general. not progressive thinking on kc's part. imagine that...

I can almost guarantee there was nothing wrong with the Law Bldg. . . they had already started work on it. They had cleaned out the interior (I think they had even powerwashed the interior) and had cleaned and tuckpointed a portion of the exterior.

[kid a]

long- i had heard similar info, some interior work was started and some exterior.
i am trying to make the law building an example to the city, so this won't happen again to another building. people thought it was an eyesore, but it was neglected for about two decades. everything starts to falls apart eventually when neglected. it was city hall's ignorance that decided the fate of that building, like so many other buildings kc has lost.
they are selling the cadilllac lofts on gillham somewhere between $300,000.00 to over $700,00.00. an owner or owners of the law building could totally get that in that area if not more. it doesn't make sense to me.

[diamond]

kid- you said you werent a developer. But with your knowledge of the market etc, I suggest you become one quickly. I think there is a chance to make a lot of money.

[FangKC]

Yes, the Cadillac Lofts and that other building across the street that they renovated both used to be car dealerships back in the day. Now people are paying $500,000 to live in old car dealership buildings. What happened to the Law Building was sneaky and low-down, and the City should be ashamed of itself for issuing a demolition permit.

[kid a]

diamond- i'm sure there is a lot of money to be made and that would be nice, maybe in the near future it would be worth checking into. for now, i'm just trying to keep in contact with city leaders to convince them that historic preservation should be the main focus to move forward with the future of downtown.

[kid a]

Yes, the Cadillac Lofts and that other building across the street that they renovated both used to be car dealerships back in the day. Now people are paying $500,000 to live in old car dealership buildings. What happened to the Law Building was sneaky and low-down, and the City should be ashamed of itself for issuing a demolition permit.

that is an excellent example of reusing an old structure instead of just tearing it down.
$500,000.00 is a liitle rich for my pocketbook, but i am glad to see that people are moving into and appreciating an old building. if i could convince city hall, i would imply not tearing down anymore old structures, rehab them and then start developing the empty pockets throughout the city and the architectural materials should reflect and/or compliment those that are historically predominate in the area such as brick, stone, etc..
if future generations continue with the current way of thinking, kc will only have a few historic buildings.
i do think there is something sneaky about the law building, too. it was too "behind the scenes". i've emailed kevin collison at the star just last week and he is still trying to dig for info on the site, the purchaser, etc. seems strange to me.