Bannister Mall/Cerner

[earthling]

double post

[earthling]

When done correctly, at least new urbanism allows you to walk to retail/bars/eats very easily and maybe work, one of the major reasons people prefer living in urbanity. New urbanism is not _as_ car dependent as sprawling suburbia and even less so if it has good bus/transit to other parts of city. Most new urbanism not connected to major transit cities are still car destinations and lack enough residential above (like Zona Rosa). But then again, The Plaza caters more to car destined customers than residents who live/work around it as does most power centers in any city outside the few with near perfect transit.

Ultimately it would be nice if one of the projects in that area goes for it. If done well (like The Domain but maybe with more housing/office than retail to start with), it would be a unique product in _suburban_ KC metro.

BTW, Fang, could you change your long links to tiny urls, it messes up the page formatting. Check tinyurl.com or embed them to a linked word. Thx.

[pash]

.

[earthling]

I hear ya but I'd make a little more distinction with new urbanism and old suburbanism than you do. Old burbs tend to have a pedestrian scale retail strip/center with mostly single family homes immediately surrounding it and not major office space, like Brookside - though granted E Coast inner ring burbs may have more mixed use. Well done new urbanism has multi-story living/offices above retail at the base - however there are some that have single family homes nearby, which may have its place if at a village like pedestrian scale.

I'm not entirely sold on new urbanism, though might live in one before a more car dependent area. If a power center is going to be built in the burbs, well designed new urbansim has its place over more sprawl.

[FangKC]

For my part, it's not the lack of architectural variety alone that puts me off "new urbanist" developments. Rather, it's that new urbanism is really just suburbanism. Yes, there are some obvious differences from the rest of today's suburban developments, but those differences don't go very deep. New urbanist developments are planned from the ground up by a single developer in the same manner as any suburban subdivision; there's no room for any real diversity in the built environment or in the styles of living such neighborhoods accommodate. Variety is the spice of life, and the essential ingredient in any genuine urban community.

Now, that said, I do think new urbanist neighborhoods might age much better than most contemporary suburbs. It's true that many neighborhoods earn their urban character only with time. Kansas City has many old 'hoods that when new must have felt much like one of today's new urbanist neighborhoods; these include neighborhoods built by J.C. Nichols and fetishized by some new urbanists. There are parts of Waldo and the Country Club district, especially, where it's block upon block of one or two basic houses disguised behind four or five different facades. (And do people not realize that Brookside's Tudor style embodied the same sort of architectural historicism then than new urbanist neighborhoods do now?) So it is with new urbanist neighborhoods, and with luck, those will age similarly well, with their worst Pleasantville aspects fading as structural additions and modifications add architectural diversity and social entropy adds real diversity.

Certainly most new urbanists would be happy to imagine their constructions ending up looking like the old-line suburbs that inspired them. But it should be obvious that "new urbanism" is a particularly inept misnomer—it's old suburbanism, to a tee.

I tend to agree that many new urbanism development are just sort of plopped down in a suburban environment, and become a sort of mini-node situation. I think the goal of this movement though is that more dense urbanism development will continue to grow around the original development, and spread outward. It's sort of like planting one flower that re-seeds itself.

As far a picking old Tudor styles, or any historical style, in a development like J.C. Nichols did, buildings have been reusing architectural styles and influences from the beginning of civilization. One of the reasons for this is that there is something psychologically pleasing to humans about the style. I don't know if it's the embellishment, or sense of comfort. Developers tend to look back historically and recreate what makes humans happy and comfortable. Another reason is these types and styles of houses have worked for a long, long time. People tend to not like drastic change. Otherwise, the geodesic dome house would have caught on, or Arcosanti housing, or any other modernist trend that sputtered out. We are still building Colonial-style houses, and log cabin houses, and probably always will.

People also still like houses with big columns on the front--even if they serve no practical function.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcosanti

I've looked online and on Google Streetview at new housing developments in the UK for example, and the British are still building houses in a very similar style to how they always have--especially in their suburbs.

I think a lot of people seek utility and efficiency in their house, and are less interested in making a statement by adopting some modernist futuristic architectural style. That said, people like their curb appeal and traditions. In reality, the most efficient type of house would be built mostly underground in some sort of passive Earth environment. True adobe houses are very efficient too. They are easy to heat and cool and use much less energy, and require a lot less maintenance over long periods if built well. The problem is most people don't like the way they look. They might if it looked like a charming Hobbit dwelling. I don't know. LOL. If every American adopted this type of home, we could all probably get by with just wind and solar mostly powering our homes.

People tend to modify their homes over time. I was looking at Levittown, New York, about a month ago. It was the famous cookie-cutter model of development with blocks and blocks of the same house. Over time, the houses are less and less identical, and the effect has also been modified by long-term landscaping growth. I do think though that people tend to want their house to look different from their neighbors.

I tend to agree though that traditional urbanism type neighborhood so tend to age better. There is nothing that ages better than a simple brick house.

[pash]

.

[slimwhitman]

I'm really pleased with the state of contemporary architecture (that) manages to look good doing it.

...to an architect or to other design professionals. To a majority of the population, this is not typically true...and for good reason. I think 90% of architects are out of touch with mass opinion, and if you think I am wrong, you are part of the 90% problem. I am not saying we should design completely for the masses, but we need to better understand the masses and why they dislike what "we" like.

[pash]

.

[aknowledgeableperson]

The majority of the architects have never had good taste.

[chaglang]

I think 90% of architects are out of touch with mass opinion, and if you think I am wrong, you are part of the 90% problem.

[earthling]

Cerner now moving into WyCo location that will hold up to 4000. Local employment has now hit 9000, 1000 now in WyCo. They'll fill WyCo spot in a couple years at current rate (about 1500/year) so would think they'd push Bannister site to move ASAP if they keep growing at this rate. Maybe if delayed they'll lease downtown space in meantime - downtown Class A space is actually going for less than Class B in many areas. Healthcare industry could totally change though depending on results of next Pres election, then again, change of any kind is probably good for Cerner business.

http://m.kansascity.com/kcstar/db_1156/ ... ue#display

[chaglang]

Cerner's leasing the small space at Grand and Pershing where UMB used to be. Renovations ongoing.

[FangKC]

I'm also wondering what effect the newly-announced "world-class translational medical research institute" will have on development around Three Trails and Oxford on the Blue, or if it will be more centered around the UMKC Medical School, and Children's Mercy Hospital on Hospital Hill as was reported.

World-class research institute could come to Kansas City

Healthcare organizations in Kansas City, Mo., are hoping to have a new proposal on the election ballot this November.

Children’s Mercy Hospital, University of Missouri-Kansas City (UMKC), Saint Luke’s Health System and the Kansas City Area Life Sciences Institute (KCALSI) are partnering together to start a world-class translational medical research institute that would lead to the diagnosis, prevention, treatment and curing of diseases. The four organizations held a press conference at Children’s Mercy Aug. 8 to explain and discuss the next steps of this proposal.

http://northeastnews.net/pages/?p=20209

[earthling]

Cerner hits list of most innovative companies - 13th in world, 7th in US. They climbed one notch each from year before. It's just a Forbes list but still should help Cerner recruit quality talent into KC.

http://www.forbes.com/innovative-companies/list/

[Eon Blue]

http://www.kansascity.com/2013/08/16/44 ... us-at.html

Planned Cerner campus at Bannister Mall site would be the largest KC office development ever

According to an application filed with the Kansas City Tax Increment Financing Commission, the booming health care technology giant is planning a 4.5-million-square-foot campus covering 251 acres, to be built in 14 phases. When completed in 2024, it would be valued at $4.1 billion.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2013/08/16/44 ... rylink=cpy

It's not a perfect urban design, but at least it's being built on a grayfield instead of a greenfield in BFE.

[chingon]

"98th st."??? Jesus, is there not a single copy editor left at the Star. 50% of their articles have some glaring clerical error. It's like a fucking yearbook over there.

[earthling]

Was disappointing at first glance that they are surrounding with surface lots rather than garages but they can do future development with even more retail, housing in the future along with garages in those surface lots. Since it's a single tenant development, it makes sense to put most of the office space in the middle and then later add more retail, possibly housing surrounding it for public access.

It could've been a worse design, at least it's designed for further development outwards from center. They are simply staying inline with the mall infrastructure layout. All the power, sewer, water, electric, etc is already in center and E/S edges.

With this much TIF request, would of course rather see downtown. 5 towers could go in Phoenix bar area. Massive garages would be needed but TIF garages could go towrds public use at night. But that's a pointless conversation.

[pash]

.

[knucklehead]

This is a great concept, but....I wish they would move the parking to the east and move the buildings to the west, to make it look better from the freeway (how sad is it that I care what it looks like from the freeway?)

[grovester]

This is a great concept, but....I wish they would move the parking to the east and move the buildings to the west, to make it look better from the freeway (how sad is it that I care what it looks like from the freeway?)

I don't know about you, but if I can't see my parking spot from the freeway, I just keep on driving.