KCRag Forum

Platt is 100% right about this hampering the RM. After reading that article honestly it's a miracle they got City Harvest approved.

Good thing is there's still a ton of projects about to break ground in RM. I don't understand how the boutique hotel is in violation of anything FAA.

How is Dallas able to make it work with Love Field? Those southwest planes fly right over their downtown area



For reference, the Dallas Performing Arts Center and the Dallas Fed are both captured in this shot

Chris Stritzel wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 11:40 am I'm not too upset with the FAA about this decision simply because 520ft, on a hill, surrounded by 2-3-story buildings and the Kauffman Center is excessive.

Can you explain what this means? Why would we have to limit the height of any development? Density should always be the goal.

beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 2:45 pm

Chris Stritzel wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 11:40 am I'm not too upset with the FAA about this decision simply because 520ft, on a hill, surrounded by 2-3-story buildings and the Kauffman Center is excessive.

Can you explain what this means? Why would we have to limit the height of any development? Density should always be the goal.

Certainly. KC’s skyline is very picturesque and perfect in my view. The buildings all seem to rise towards a central peak at 12th and Main. This view is clear from the north, south, and west. The buildings naturally step down on all sides (save for a brief bump on the east). The smaller buildings that define the outer rings of downtown aren’t out of place, but placing a 500ft building next to them would look ridiculous (look at how unbalanced the OKC skyline is thanks to the Devon Tower). This is true from the south, east and west (but not the north due to the taller buildings in downtown).

Since the building at 1650 Broadway would be closer to Liberty Memorial, and on a hill, it would give the illusion of a 600ft+ tall building in a “sea” of 2-4-story buildings. Therefore, a 350ft tall building would appear to be in the 400s.

I’m talking from an aesthetic standpoint and not a density standpoint. In terms of density, the plan previously seen is ambitious and dense (and I like that), but such a prominent building needs to have a better design and use the space a bit wiser. If they were to build at 520ft, like they had hoped, I would’ve hoped for a design that didn’t resemble a 1990s Overland Park office tower.

This brings me back to the 350ft building comment I made earlier. I hope that the expectations set by the FAA of limiting height to 350ft lead to a product that’s beautiful and dense and not just tall for the hell of it. I don’t support the wide-reaching height limits the FAA has over the downtown area, but this part of the Crossroads would benefit from a height limit of 350ft (which is way taller than anything else nearby). Keep the picturesque look going, but enhance it.

But isn’t skyline value really in the eye of the beholder? Every tall building has those who feel sentimental about what they think the skyline should look like based on nostalgia. I guess I’m surprised you’re more interested in that aspect than I am, someone who’s lived here forever. I’m sure people hated the Shard or the Gerkin or Sears Tower, said the Chrysler was audacious. For me, the higher the better. More people, more life. I’m more sick of our inactive streets than in love with the look when I stop at the Liberty Memorial deck everyday.

Three 15-20 story buildings at that location would look 100 times better than one 40-50 story one, especially if the one tall one is sitting on a massive parking pedestal.

Speaking of that. I really hope the developers are able to use/share the parking structure under the Kauffman Center. That garage is so large and is rarely used.

KC's skyline could really use another 500 footer though, but it sure would be nice to see something go up east of Grand to contrast to all the 1930s-1950's buildings and of course fill in an area that is 50% empty.

The biggest issue with the Arts District Garage is that it actually fills up 5-6 times per year when there are performances in both halls, thus the city is hesitant to make long-term commitments. I doubt they would be able to support an office tenant or large apartment complex.

The inactive streets in KC are due to the fact many are too wide for the traffic they receive at any time of the day and the "postcard" shot from Union Station proves this with Main and Pershing. Lack of pedestrian activity is rooted in lack of residential density in particular areas. Where I live in downtown, people walk whenever it's nicer out (and some even do on days like today). Down near Union Station, fewer people walk because the residential density isn't there and those who could walk outside use the skybridges.

On the aesthetic argument, Chicago comes to mind as a city that has a beautiful skyline that's pleasing to look at from multiple angles. The three "peaks" (Sears/Willis, Trump and Hancock) are supplemented with buildings that seemingly step up to meet those. Certain angles lend themselves well for "cascading" effects (like the northwest corner of Grant Park). From the aesthetics standpoint, Chicago has it nailed just as it has density and street activity. Streets aren't overly wide for the traffic they receive, and the residential density is there to support a steady flow of pedestrians on sidewalks in downtown and on commercial corridors in their neighborhoods (like, for example, Milwaukee Avenue).

There's no reason KC can't have an aesthetically pleasing skyline (which it has) and have active streets without dropping a 500ft skyscraper on the edge of downtown and the Crossroads. The root of transforming our streets from quiet and desolate to bustling is by narrowing those that are too wide, building more residential buildings, and creating a tree canopy (so that days like today aren't as miserable to be out in). These are keys to success. On the "bigger picture" side of things, like how we look to outsiders when they see KC, we need to take the approach like Chicago has and be extremely deliberate in the skyline we wish to create. It almost seems as though Chicago has a requirement for this, but they apparently don't. Tradition is followed. Here in KC, tradition can be followed without becoming a detriment to the future of the city.

Everything works together to form a city that's pleasing to walk, scooter, bike, and drive around in as much as it's pleasing to look at and photograph. A 500ft tall building on Broadway would mess a lot of things up. Now, if, say, Cordish proposed a 600ft tall building for Four Light, I wouldn't be bothered by it because it stacks up to the "central peak" of the skyline. The geography of the Four Light and 1650 Broadway sites lend themselves differently to the different heights. Where something tall might work at Four Light and 13th/Grand, something of similar height would look out of place and not work well at 1650 Broadway.

TLDR: Two things can be true at once. One being density that leads to vibrancy can be created without needing to build 500ft+ tall buildings on the edges of downtown and the other being we can eliminate our "desolate roads" by narrowing them and investing in trees.

beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 5:56 pm .... For me, the higher the better. More people, more life. I’m more sick of our inactive streets than in love with the look when I stop at the Liberty Memorial deck everyday.

One of the most inactive blocks downtown is near three tall buildings along Walnut. It is more of a service alley than an active city street.

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.098876 ... ?entry=ttu

Height isn't always the solution for creating density. It depends on the details. If the tower is monolithic with horrible street interaction and requires a huge parking garage, you lose active street life. In a place with high transit usage and capacity, you can have taller buildings because they don't require huge parking garages and blank street walls.

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0994251 ... ?entry=ttu

This leads me back to that tall building in Omaha. Omaha doesn't need a really tall building downtown. What they need is to fill in blocks of surface parking lots with smaller buildings to create the connectivity active downtowns should possess. Instead of a 44-floor tower, they need four 11-story buildings or six 7-story buildings.

Like this.

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1046901 ... ?entry=ttu

Blocks of buildings of this size create plenty of density and the sense of a functioning, healthy downtown.

In downtowns like Kansas City, Omaha, Oklahoma City, and Tulsa, when you build one really tall building, it draws the limited pool of tenants into that one big building on one block instead of filling up three or four blocks with smaller buildings.

It reminds me of that town in Alaska where everyone lives in one building.

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2015/07 ... can-story/

I'm impressed. I gotta say when I first read the KC Star article I thought we'd see a massive doom freakout on this forum but actually basically everyone is in agreement that this height reduction is actually fine. Very cogent.

Agreed on the Star/CM height freak-out. We don't need height for density. And there are LOTS of tall buildings that do nothing for building a vibrant neighborhood (ahem, One KC Place).

FangKC wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 7:04 pm

beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 5:56 pm .... For me, the higher the better. More people, more life. I’m more sick of our inactive streets than in love with the look when I stop at the Liberty Memorial deck everyday.

One of the most inactive blocks downtown is near three tall buildings along Walnut. It is more of a service alley than an active city street.

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.098876 ... ?entry=ttu

Height isn't always the solution for creating density. It depends on the details. If the tower is monolithic with horrible street interaction and requires a huge parking garage, you lose active street life. In a place with high transit usage and capacity, you can have taller buildings because they don't require huge parking garages and blank street walls.

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0994251 ... ?entry=ttu

This leads me back to that tall building in Omaha. Omaha doesn't need a really tall building downtown. What they need is to fill in blocks of surface parking lots with smaller buildings to create the connectivity active downtowns should possess. Instead of a 44-floor tower, they need four 11-story buildings or six 7-story buildings.

Like this.

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1046901 ... ?entry=ttu

Blocks of buildings of this size create plenty of density and the sense of a functioning, healthy downtown.

In downtowns like Kansas City, Omaha, Oklahoma City, and Tulsa, when you build one really tall building, it draws the limited pool of tenants into that one big building on one block instead of filling up three or four blocks with smaller buildings.

It reminds me of that town in Alaska where everyone lives in one building.

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2015/07 ... can-story/

One of the first Urban Lab posts that caught my eye illustrated this concept with Reverb used as an example:

https://www.instagram.com/p/CjL-HVcPlsw ... BiNWFlZA==

Full disclosure I’m a fan of Reverb by and large, but this graphic made me think differently about height equaling density

TheUrbanRoo wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 7:42 pm I'm impressed. I gotta say when I first read the KC Star article I thought we'd see a massive doom freakout on this forum but actually basically everyone is in agreement that this height reduction is actually fine. Very cogent.

The height reduction is fine if the developer agrees and builds three buildings instead of a taller one, like we suggest. But, from the article, that’s not what’s happening. Developers are just choosing not to build at all. And, of course, street front engagement is a big determinant of pedestrian activity. But, killing a building because it messes up some skyline viewpoint formula ends us with the same empty lot.

beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 11:25 pm

TheUrbanRoo wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 7:42 pm I'm impressed. I gotta say when I first read the KC Star article I thought we'd see a massive doom freakout on this forum but actually basically everyone is in agreement that this height reduction is actually fine. Very cogent.

The height reduction is fine if the developer agrees and builds three buildings instead of a taller one, like we suggest. But, from the article, that’s not what’s happening. Developers are just choosing not to build at all. And, of course, street front engagement is a big determinant of pedestrian activity. But, killing a building because it messes up some skyline viewpoint formula ends us with the same empty lot.

Th article spells doom because of these FAA regs, but there are 3-4 projects in the river marker breaking ground this year. 4 for sure if Atlas is allowed to go. So I don’t think it’s a gloomy as it’s leading on.

Really after reading it, it just seems to be entirely about 1650 Broadway.

I can’t see the developer giving up at 1650 Broadway even if the height they wanted is denied. They spent good money on acquiring the land and demolishing a building. The developer gets things done. So why they may be upset now, they now have a defined roadmap for success, which is more than they had when they started the process.

Chris Stritzel wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 11:46 pm I can’t see the developer giving up at 1650 Broadway even if the height they wanted is denied. They spent good money on acquiring the land and demolishing a building. The developer gets things done. So why they may be upset now, they now have a defined roadmap for success, which is more than they had when they started the process.

You're more confident than me. We've seen it several times where properties just sit after a proposal for construction gets shot down.

TheUrbanRoo wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 11:41 pm

beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 11:25 pm

TheUrbanRoo wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 7:42 pm I'm impressed. I gotta say when I first read the KC Star article I thought we'd see a massive doom freakout on this forum but actually basically everyone is in agreement that this height reduction is actually fine. Very cogent.

The height reduction is fine if the developer agrees and builds three buildings instead of a taller one, like we suggest. But, from the article, that’s not what’s happening. Developers are just choosing not to build at all. And, of course, street front engagement is a big determinant of pedestrian activity. But, killing a building because it messes up some skyline viewpoint formula ends us with the same empty lot.

Th article spells doom because of these FAA regs, but there are 3-4 projects in the river marker breaking ground this year. 4 for sure if Atlas is allowed to go. So I don’t think it’s a gloomy as it’s leading on.

Really after reading it, it just seems to be entirely about 1650 Broadway.

It’s as if the article covered how many of those projects are not moving forward until they get approved or had massive delays because of the need to get approved.

langosta wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2023 3:37 am

TheUrbanRoo wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 11:41 pm

beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 11:25 pm
The height reduction is fine if the developer agrees and builds three buildings instead of a taller one, like we suggest. But, from the article, that’s not what’s happening. Developers are just choosing not to build at all. And, of course, street front engagement is a big determinant of pedestrian activity. But, killing a building because it messes up some skyline viewpoint formula ends us with the same empty lot.

Th article spells doom because of these FAA regs, but there are 3-4 projects in the river marker breaking ground this year. 4 for sure if Atlas is allowed to go. So I don’t think it’s a gloomy as it’s leading on.

Really after reading it, it just seems to be entirely about 1650 Broadway.

It’s as if the article covered how many of those projects are not moving forward until they get approved or had massive delays because of the need to get approved.

The little boutique hotel and 3rd & Oak? I bet you anything even without FAA most of still wouldn’t do shit otherwise. Just an excuse. The only significant one I sense actually wants to build if not for the FAA is 1650 Broadway

Weren't the renderings already shared in this thread the 350ft version? It seemed like that was all they really counted on. The application for 520ft was just to test the waters.

But the FAA’s response to the city’s proposal, which arrived at City Hall Thursday morning, appeared at first glance to provide developers more guidance than they’ve had in the past, said Platt assistant Morgan Holecek. She planned to spend the rest of that day studying the more than 100-page report to see how helpful it might be. As Platt told The Star earlier in the week: “Fingers crossed.”

Interesting part from the article.

https://www.kansascity.com/news/politic ... rylink=cpy