KCRag Forum

Worn Copy wrote:

DaveKCMO wrote:

Demosthenes wrote:The only thing I don't like about that rendering is the lack of doorways. There should be more places where people can enter and exit the street. The building already is made to look like rowhomes, why not make them actual rowhomes with individual doors for each building? They can still be flats and hold the same number of apartments they are looking for.

Otherwise though, I like it.

after having lived in a controlled access building downtown, i would never consider an outside door to my home again. the added security (and quiet) is priceless.

Controlled access for five+ stories and/or developments with smaller footprints is fine; in this context and block-sized scale, the rowhouse typology is more appropriate.

And having lived for many years in rowhouses in (much larger) cities: noisier perhaps, but rowhouse streets are inherently safer because they are more active.

So, three cheers for housing choice.

Nice contribution. Welcome...

loftguy wrote: Nice contribution. Welcome...

Thank you.

Worn Copy wrote:rowhouse streets are inherently safer because they are more active.

Entire zip codes in Baltimore disagree with you.

Run around this area quite a bit...glad to see something going on these lots...these will feel pretty removed from the rest of downtown...guess close walk to Westside. Hopefully this spurs some retail.

chingon wrote:

Worn Copy wrote:rowhouse streets are inherently safer because they are more active.

Entire zip codes in Baltimore disagree with you.

Please explain why.

Worn Copy wrote:

DaveKCMO wrote:

Demosthenes wrote:The only thing I don't like about that rendering is the lack of doorways. There should be more places where people can enter and exit the street. The building already is made to look like rowhomes, why not make them actual rowhomes with individual doors for each building? They can still be flats and hold the same number of apartments they are looking for.

Otherwise though, I like it.

after having lived in a controlled access building downtown, i would never consider an outside door to my home again. the added security (and quiet) is priceless.

Controlled access for five+ stories and/or developments with smaller footprints is fine; in this context and block-sized scale, the rowhouse typology is more appropriate.

And having lived for many years in rowhouses in (much larger) cities: noisier perhaps, but rowhouse streets are inherently safer because they are more active.

So, three cheers for housing choice.

I agree. In a block long development like this I think row homes would work much better. It would make the street much more active. All those doors on the street add to the "eyes on the street" safety point for urban streets, but takes it entirely to the next level. Eyes on the street do little good when there is no way to access the street easily. Tucked away in your apartment building, with elevators separating you from the street, there is more of a chance you look the other way when you see trouble. With just a short walk to the front door separating you from the street in the row house, you are more likely to do something.

I lived in an apartment building with a door accessing the street in the crossroads, and man I thought it was awesome.

chingon wrote:

Worn Copy wrote:rowhouse streets are inherently safer because they are more active.

Entire zip codes in Baltimore disagree with you.

Inherently safer doesn't mean there aren't exceptions to the rule. Baltimore also has really nice areas that are full of row homes.

Both of these sites could be developed in a manner to offer both types of housing. Garages in the center of the block surrounded by townhouses with apartment towers sitting atop the garages. Both sites could be excavated to provide additional parking below grade. Townhouses would provide doors on the street, and the apartment towers would have controlled access entrances.

Demosthenes wrote: Inherently safer doesn't mean there aren't exceptions to the rule. Baltimore also has really nice areas that are full of row homes.

St. Louis is the same way.

DaveKCMO wrote:

Demosthenes wrote:The only thing I don't like about that rendering is the lack of doorways. There should be more places where people can enter and exit the street. The building already is made to look like rowhomes, why not make them actual rowhomes with individual doors for each building? They can still be flats and hold the same number of apartments they are looking for.

Otherwise though, I like it.

after having lived in a controlled access building downtown, i would never consider an outside door to my home again. the added security (and quiet) is priceless.

I used to rent one of the rowhomes in quality hill with street access to my front door. never felt unsafe and never had a stranger knock on my door. In my controlled access building, there are people always sneaking in, people there to see a friend/boyfriend/etc and they wait until someone else is coming or going and "sneaks" in then rather than wait for their contact to come let them in. It's a problem I've seen happen in every controlled access building I've lived in.

Best I've heard, 'I knew I shouldntve let him in, but he was really cute.'

The latest City Plan Commission with Staff Reports document available at the KCMO Data site has much more detailed plans for this site. I don't have the time to extract all of the information from this PDF but here is the link: City Plan Commission with Staff Reports. This file is 170+ MB, so it takes forever to download. Start on page 309 for this development.

KCDowntown

Downtown Development Map

There are a couple updated renderings on Cityscape Residential's website.

KCDowntown

kudos to the downtown neighborhood association for pressuring for a better interaction with the street!

DaveKCMO wrote:kudos to the downtown neighborhood association for pressuring for a better interaction with the street!

Thank you. We have a long ways to go. And no word yet on revised site plans, where the real problems lie...

Green light-
construction to begin in January

http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/n ... ments.html

First permit in a long while came across today for this site. This one is a review of the building and site plans to make sure that the building is up to city code. Most of the time this permit indicates that construction is a couple months out but also a 'go.'

KCDowntown

KCDowntown wrote:First permit in a long while came across today for this site. This one is a review of the building and site plans to make sure that the building is up to city code. Most of the time this permit indicates that construction is a couple months out but also a 'go.'

KCDowntown

So I guess this means construction isn't starting in January anymore?

Once this project gets underway it will double the amount of units under construction downtown according to the Ongoing Projects thread.

.

According to city rules about residential development, the developer also must contribute nearly $50,000 related to the Summit project for parkland use. City officials indicated that the funds are likely to be used for West Terrace Park.

Midtownkid- hit them up for your park clean up.

kboish wrote:

According to city rules about residential development, the developer also must contribute nearly $50,000 related to the Summit project for parkland use. City officials indicated that the funds are likely to be used for West Terrace Park.

Midtownkid- hit them up for your park clean up.

and/or the dog park?