KCRag Forum

I have no problem with the design either.  The tower portion mimics that of the Traders on Grand Building, and it's consistent with the design of the Board of Education building on the east side.

I still don't see why they need to tear down the Gigi Wigs building though.  It could be incorporated into the existing design.  I'd even save the old narrow facade would make a good building entrance mixed with modern around it.  It would distinguish the entrance and make it obvious.

I like the design just fine. Good to hear they are committed to getting it done.

Pretty plain jane, cookie cutter 2000's looking building.  Oh well, at least it does have what appears to be retail.

Nothing special but certainly nothing horrible.  Perhaps they'll "engineer" the columns to handle another highrise tower to the left of this one pictured...and take 10 plus years to complete it.

tell me that's sarcasm, Midtownkid
cookie cutter?  where else in KC have you seen this?
it still is the 2000s, btw

it reminds me a little of the Plaza Library, though a lot more exciting (more depth in the facade)
I think this will look great next to the contemporary College BBall HOF & Sprint Center

There is a lot of visual interest on the two facades.  If it is detailed exquisitely, it should be a fantastic addition to downtown.

Probably just a placeholder design.  Sounds like they are still shopping around for a tenant as they use the descriptive "development opportunity."  Looks as off the shelf as the first boxy renderings for the Block Building.

Well, to a degree.  There is some contextual sensitivity happening with this project, as Critical_Mass so eloquently put it.  It may be a place holder design, but it seems to involve more thought than the initial renderings of the Block Building.

The building does attempt somewhat to be interesting visually.  It's not just a plain glass building like the Flashcube Building.

Critical_Mass wrote:
it reminds me a little of the Plaza Library, though a lot more exciting (more depth in the facade)
I think this will look great next to the contemporary College BBall HOF & Sprint Center

That's exactly what I thought.  And, IMO, the plaza library/Blackwell Sanders Building is a very attractive addition to the Plaza.

Now, I know that Danny Edwards and Gigi whig are architectural masterpieces and their destruction will be devestating, but I think this building will hold it's own.  I mean, I hate highrises with street level retail as much as the next guy, but in the name of critical mass, I'll bite my tongue. 

I'm not saying that Danny Edwards former buildings is worthy of saving.  But the Gigi Wig building is interesting, and it's one of the last old 1900-era retail buildings on Grand inside the loop.  Go look at it someday, it's a nice little building that has been maintained well. 

A good architect could incorporate it into a new design and create an interesting visual experience that combines old and new.

FangKC wrote: ...and it's one of the last old 1900-era retail buildings on Grand inside the loop.  Go look at it someday, it's a nice little building that has been maintained well. 

Not to get off topic, but a quick question.  North of Traders on Grand surface lot, there stands a really interesting and attractive building.  What is it?  Why is it unoccupied?  Are there any plans for its redevelopment?  I think right now it has a lofts advertisement hanging on its south face.   

That is the former Gate City National Bank building. It was also Trader's National Bank at one time. It's owned by the Alexander Co. which redeveloped the Professional Building.  It's slated to be redeveloped as part of that plan.  I believe the upper floors will be for sale condos.  The last occupant of that building was Club Chemical, then another nightclub called Ultra.

I'd like to see Copaken build something more substantial though to continue the building wall along Grand.

Facade facing Grand



Side view



Facade facing McGee



Aerials at night

Umm, gravel parking lot or office tower.

I'll take the office tower.  It looks like they wouldn't mind adding a condo or hotel component according to their website and I would think that would go on the north portion atop the garage.

But again, KC is simply still in no position to demand "perfect urban design" when commercial construction downtown is still practically non existant.

I just hope it gets built.  Copaken is not exactly an aggressive developer and we have a gravel lot at 12th and Grand, quite embarrassing.

Why did they dear down the Law building again?  That is where the city screwed up, allowing a building to be torn down that was obviously able to be restored because it was in the middle of being restored when it was torn down all for a development that has a very unsure future.

We can not keep tearing things down for "future" development.  Tower Properties and even DST, you hear that?  :).

Build the project asap and try to land a second tower on the north portion of the block, but build something there.  12th and Grand looks ridiculous right now.

And honestly, this project is not that bad, even in its current design.  But yea, I don't see why they wouldn't do everything possible to add more density to the project or simply build all of the garage under the tower and let the north half the block be developed into something else.

I mean with all the developers fightng to get into KC, that shouldn't be a problem, right?

The Law Building was on the National Register of Historic Places, and a landmarked building. A demolition  permit should would have flagged that building for review.  The City knew it was going to be demolished.  They had the power to take it through eminent domain, and conserve it.  Barnes knew and did nothing.  She did a lot for this city, but this was one of her failures, and it needs to be noted.

It is in the interest of the developer to build an architecturally-pleasing building. Signature buildings are more attractive to tenants.

FangKC wrote: It is in the interest of the developer to build an architecturally-pleasing building. Signature buildings are more attractive to tenants.

Yeah, but the rendering above does appear to be "architecturally-pleasing."  While it is not signature or overtly unique, it is an attractive building and will be a nice addition to the loop.  Could the design be better?  Yeah, I guess.  But the same can be said for every building.  H&R Bloch could have been taller.  PAC could have retained the third concert hall.  And on and on. 

I'm not saying it isn't architecturally-pleasing. I was responding to GRID's comment about Kansas City not being in the position overall to demand good architecture.  Kansas City shouldn't have to because it's in the developers' interest to produce good designs that attract tenants.

Right on.  I agree.