KCRag Forum

The same look is about being cheap and lazy. It's the urban equivalent of suburban rows of same looking McMansions. If they design Three to look completely different using different external materials, it takes the chances of 'the projects' look out of the equation - and a contiguous wall as well. Just do it!

Not different materials, different finishes, change the glass color slightly, different details. They don't need to be crazy different to be different enough.

There's now five buildings with blue-green, blue or green glass downtown in a small area (One Light, 1200 Walnut, One KC Place, Town Pavillion and Two Light).

If they needed to look completely different you would have brought all of them up.

The other glass buildings do look different and shaped differently. The nature of 2/3/4 looking about the same on one stretch will have more of a 'the projects' look (or urban equivalent of McMansions, or Chinese conformity architecture), and in this case a contiguous wall appearance. One Light is already within surrounding mixed design. Lots of people love rows of similar looking McMansions in the burbs too, so if that's what you want...

And the same can be said for rows of nearly identical suburban ticky tacky McMansions. It's practical for developers afterall so is awesome. If that's what you like, that's what we'll get. And a wall of this in front of the skyline from S view.

earthling wrote:And the same can be said for rows of nearly identical suburban ticky tacky McMansions. It's practical for developers afterall so is awesome. If that's what you like, that's what we'll get. And a wall of this in front of the skyline from S view.

I like how apparently multiple skyscrapers are compared to McMansions. Ignoring that not all houses are described that way

Indeed. Very satisfying...

I can't take serious cherry picking a single development in China

Shanghai or Hong Kong would be just as good of examples

Have just been pointing out that making each different takes the potential 'the projects' look out of the equation. I would encourage the developers to make each unique instead of settling for what is practical - 4 in a row about the same, directly in front of skyline from S view.

BTW, what's your affiliation with Cordish? You seem to be associated based on your posts.

I was told by one of the contractors on 2 Light they would start 3 Light after 2 Light is topped out, at which time the crane will be moved to the other lot. Interior work will continue on 2 Light while they start 3 Light.

Is all subjective of course but hey, when this is done and many complain about the wall of monotony, remember it could have only been avoided (at best) if someone criticizes the design. Allow the criticism. Would be nice if they had various proposals of different designs for public input. If they also include designs where each building is drastically different, would think most would not choose a monotonous glass wall (expect maybe people who love ticky tack homogeneity like rows of McMansions or Asian public housing).

Ah, so you do seem to represent Cordish in some manner. Avoid public input or even accepting of any criticism. I'll digress, there are bigger problems in KC. After one more parting shot.... would be nice if there wasn't an overpowering glass wall planned downtown.

StrangerThings wrote:...I can assure you that your perspective is a unique one.

Wrong! It's been mentioned several times on this board that a row of buildings with very similar looks would be regrettable. I've heard it so much, I'm reluctant to chime in and rehash it for another episode.

To be fair, "popular on a development forum frequented mostly by urban planning and development nerds" and "popular amongst the general public" aren't really the same thing. If you just polled opinions on this forum, you'd expect KC would have a comprehensive transit network, bike lanes everywhere, a single terminal airport, etc. I'm not saying those opinions are wrong, just that they aren't necessarily representative. Most of my friends, and I assume most of most people who post here's friends, don't even know what a Two Light or Three Light are and don't really care.

mean wrote:To be fair, "popular on a development forum frequented mostly by urban planning and development nerds" and "popular amongst the general public" aren't really the same thing. If you just polled opinions on this forum, you'd expect KC would have a comprehensive transit network, bike lanes everywhere, a single terminal airport, etc. I'm not saying those opinions are wrong, just that they aren't necessarily representative. Most of my friends, and I assume most of most people who post here's friends, don't even know what a Two Light or Three Light are and don't really care.

Round one over. Winner: mean

mean wrote:To be fair, "popular on a development forum frequented mostly by urban planning and development nerds" and "popular amongst the general public" aren't really the same thing. If you just polled opinions on this forum, you'd expect KC would have a comprehensive transit network, bike lanes everywhere, a single terminal airport, etc. I'm not saying those opinions are wrong, just that they aren't necessarily representative. Most of my friends, and I assume most of most people who post here's friends, don't even know what a Two Light or Three Light are and don't really care.

Yep

The number one thing most people care about is having a job that pays the bills.

If the city can make it easier to be employed and afford to get there most people don't really care if the building is in a sea of parking in the suburbs or downtown reachable by transit. People generally don't care what the building looks like compared to their pay rate.

Three Light bringing a new employer downtown would get way more interest than the builder not paying property taxes for 15 years.

wall of monotony:

DaveKCMO wrote:wall of monotony:

Ew gross why didn't they use different color limestones? Disgusting conformity.

haha, point taken.

StrangerThings wrote:

earthling wrote:Have just been pointing out that making each different takes the potential 'the projects' look out of the equation. I would encourage the developers to make each unique instead of settling for what is practical - 4 in a row about the same, directly in front of skyline from S view.

BTW, what's your affiliation with Cordish? You seem to be associated based on your posts.

I understand what you're saying, I can assure you that your perspective is a unique one. Look at the new cerner campus for example. All buildings shapes are slightly different but finished in the same glass and style.

His perspective is not unique and using Cerner's suburban "campus" designs isn't helping your argument. I'd say the same if we would have had four art deco buildings right next to each other in a line.

mean wrote:To be fair, "popular on a development forum frequented mostly by urban planning and development nerds" and "popular amongst the general public" aren't really the same thing. If you just polled opinions on this forum, you'd expect KC would have a comprehensive transit network, bike lanes everywhere, a single terminal airport, etc. I'm not saying those opinions are wrong, just that they aren't necessarily representative. Most of my friends, and I assume most of most people who post here's friends, don't even know what a Two Light or Three Light are and don't really care.

We've both been on this board a long time and probably both recognize that most opinions on it are 10 years ahead of what actually happens. That said, you would think that developers in this city would have the same forward thinking point of view, especially if you're planning 3 or 4 high rises into the future. Cornish's planning seems shortsighted.