OFFICIAL - Bartle Hall Expansion construction

[Thrillcekr]

There is a story in this week's Biz Journal about building the proposed 5 story glass atrium on 14th street along with the ballroom expansion planned for this spring.

A funding source is still needed but the CVB and oversight committee want to build it right away. One plan calls for leasing retail space inside the atrium to pay for it. Cost is $35-60M.

Plans call for a 5 story glass atrium to replace 14th street between Central and Wyandotte that would hook all 3 major convention buildings together (Bartle, Muni, new ballroom).

This would also act as the new main entrance for the convention complex and put it closer to the P&L district.



Not many details beyond that. I think this could work well to link all 3 buildings together but worry about the convention center keeping people in with it's own retail/restaurants and not letting them out onto the streets to explore the rest of downtown. Sounds like it would be a big help in bringing in conventions with everything essentially tied into this one glass atrium.

I sure hope they do that. That would make all the difference in the world on how that place looks. I wish they would get rid of those stupid little rubik's pyramid thingies on the outside too but the atrium would be enough to make me content for now.

[trailerkid]

In looking at the street closure story in the Star today...I was confused. Will portions of the 670 close as they construct the Bartle expansion?

[KCPowercat]

no just the onramp from 670 to Central and the off ramp from Truman to 670 around Wyandotte.

although I wouldn't doubt there could be some lane closures on 670.

[GRID]

In looking at the street closure story in the Star today...I was confused. Will portions of the 670 close as they construct the Bartle expansion?

Except for a possible late night beam placement, I don't think so.  Well actually...

That map does not even show the 670 overpass replacements and that might happen about the same time the ballroom expansion is at the peak of it's construction.  So the map does not show it correctly, but there will be times when 670 will close or be totally closed for long periods in the next couple of years.

[KCPowercat]

grid...yeah didn't think of bridge replacements....might have some closures there.  Any word if they will engineer these new bridges for the possibility of the city building decks over 670?

[trailerkid]

grid...yeah didn't think of bridge replacements....might have some closures there.  Any word if they will engineer these new bridges for the possibility of the city building decks over 670?

On a totally different note...it pisses me off that we're replacing all those freeway bridges. Doesn't the entire downtown freeway loop need to be brought into the 90s? We need to cover the freeway and also make sure the roadway is up to date. I know I'm talking about a Billion dollar project, but why continue fixing something needs to be destroyed and rebuilt?

[Gladstoner]

Maps showing current and near-future road and lane closures in the loop can be found at the KC CIMO page at:

http://www.kcmo.org/cimo.nsf/web/dtconst

[tat2kc]

does anyone remember how long 670 was closed during the Bartle expansion? I wasn't living here at the time.

[aknowledgeableperson]

Don't believe it was closed at all, at least for extended periods of time.  A lot of the deck work was done at night with some lane closed at other times.  This should be the same situation for this project.  However the ramps to and from Central and Wyandotte will be taken out (at least what was in the plans for years even before the ballroom expansion.

[GRID]

grid...yeah didn't think of bridge replacements....might have some closures there.  Any word if they will engineer these new bridges for the possibility of the city building decks over 670?

I think Downtown residents better wake up and make sure the city and modot builds something more than concrete pads in place of those bridges and worry about decking 670 later.  Those bridges are on a super fast track and they might not get all the fancy railings, lighting and landscaping they need to blend in better with urban fabric of Downtown.  We really need to get some nice bridges in there.

[Gladstoner]

I think Downtown residents better wake up and make sure the city and modot builds something more than concrete pads in place of those bridges and worry about decking 670 later.  Those bridges are on a super fast track and they might not get all the fancy railings, lighting and landscaping they need to blend in better with urban fabric of Downtown.  We really need to get some nice bridges in there.

Yeah. If Boston can net $14.6 billion (and counting) to pretty-up their downtown freeway, I don't think it should be too much to ask for some rusticated stone and antique-style lamps.

[Gladstoner]

It seems the ballroom expansion's current design is somewhat dependent upon that of the PAC. According to KCMO's website, the design is supposed to compliment and contrast the PAC and be deliberately subdued so it won't compete with it for attention. Now if the PAC is never built at 16th/Central, I wonder if they might spruce up the design a little.

Ballroom design info at:

http://www.kcmo.org/__86256AC0007224F5. ... 2,ballroom

[KCK]

I doubt it gladstoner, they probably will scale the ballroom back even more soon. We don't need anything that sticks out or is impressive in any way in the city.

[Gladstoner]

I doubt it gladstoner, they probably will scale the ballroom back even more soon. We don't need anything that sticks out or is impressive in any way in the city.

Yeah. They'll probably just put a large tent canopy over the parking lot, string up some chili-pepper lights, and call it the new ballroom.

[KCK]

After all, everyone here says that we don't need an iconic structure in KC, instead we should build something that is bland and tasteless.

[kevink]

After all, everyone here says that we don't need an iconic structure in KC, instead we should build something that is bland and tasteless.

DMW - there's a difference between iconic and good. Just b/c a building doesn't scream out for attention, doesn't mean it can't be well designed, beautiful and urbane. Our city is filled with hundreds of buildings like this, as all good cities are.

The problem is that some seem to argue for EVERY building to be iconic, no matter what it is. Imagine what this city would be like if that were the case, and compare it to places that you really enjoy going to. In order to have great landmark buildings, you need a great background to view it against. Gehry's Bilbao museum would be nothing if it were set in a typical American city. What makes it so great is the fantastic urban fabric of Bilbao, and the contrast between foreground and background. What we desperately need to work on in KC is the background stuff that actually makes a city worth living in, interesting, and vibrant. That can still be just as beautiful, and just as worthy (if not more so) of a postcard than any shining structure on a hill.

New Orleans kills KC for convention business, and it's not b/c of fantastic, iconic structures-

[ComandanteCero]

Personally, i don't think they should be expanding Bartle at all.  Someone should build a hotel, with a ballroom inside, and work out an agreement with Bartle to have their events in there.  Why does everything have to be in-house with Bartle?  Why do we need this already monstrous complex to keep growing onto surrounding blocks?  Bartle is the worse example of a superblock facility if there ever was one.  They need to be breaking bartle up instead of continuing to feed it.

[Long]

DMW - there's a difference between iconic and good. Just b/c a building doesn't scream out for attention, doesn't mean it can't be well designed, beautiful and urbane. Our city is filled with hundreds of buildings like this, as all good cities are.

The problem is that some seem to argue for EVERY building to be iconic, no matter what it is. Imagine what this city would be like if that were the case, and compare it to places that you really enjoy going to. In order to have great landmark buildings, you need a great background to view it against. Gehry's Bilbao museum would be nothing if it were set in a typical American city. What makes it so great is the fantastic urban fabric of Bilbao, and the contrast between foreground and background. What we desperately need to work on in KC is the background stuff that actually makes a city worth living in, interesting, and vibrant. That can still be just as beautiful, and just as worthy (if not more so) of a postcard than any shining structure on a hill.

New Orleans kills KC for convention business, and it's not b/c of fantastic, iconic structures-

Good point, but I think Bilbao is about the worst example you could use to back it up . . . . .

[kevink]

Good point, but I think Bilbao is about the worst example you could use to back it up . . . . .

Elaborate...

[voltopt]

i think a good example of this new background in our own city would be the development along gilham road and mcgee trafficway.  it doesn't stand out, and as a form isn't particularly interesting, but it certainly is creating a neighborhood out of nothing and provided much needed low scale density in a neighborhood that is designed for it.