KCRag Forum

ldai_phs wrote:Is the timeline still to build 4 once 3 is close to being done? I would think that all the demand would lead to bigger buildings and faster start times.

They're probably doing exactly what you would think, doing a demand forecast with each new building and adjusting their schedule.

Like if Two takes 2 months longer to lease to a certain point they delay Three. If it takes 2 months less they start it sooner.

KC council needs to push for a better design than a copy/paste of 2 Light. St. Louis's first Cordish tower is 30 stories or so and looks much better. Plus another developer is proposing a 33 story apartment tower by the ballpark.

KC_JAYHAWK wrote:KC council needs to push for a better design than a copy/paste of 2 Light. St. Louis's first Cordish tower is 30 stories or so and looks much better. Plus another developer is proposing a 33 story apartment tower by the ballpark.

I think that 3-4 light may not be receiving near as many incentives that the STL towers will. In theory, our high levels of demand should support
Taller 3 and 4 lights. But I guess that could also just mean we get 5 and 6 light instead of taller towers

http://www.kansascity.com/news/business ... 33694.html

...More information about Three Light, which would be built just west of Two Light, will be announced in early January. A measure spelling out Kansas City’s financial contribution is supposed to be introduced at City Hall the second week of January.

ah, the cordish development agreement. the gift that keeps on giving. thanks, wayne!

that's why i thanked wayne, our city manager at the time who was NOT a good negotiator.

What day will this be announced?

According the article it is supposed to be introduced this week (to be heard in committee next week). If that is the case, usually it is posted Thursday afternoon at the latest.

kboish wrote:According the article it is supposed to be introduced this week (to be heard in committee next week). If that is the case, usually it is posted Thursday afternoon at the latest.

https://twitter.com/kcdowntowners/statu ... 6244082688

Confirmed
Quoting city manager

flyingember wrote:

kboish wrote:According the article it is supposed to be introduced this week (to be heard in committee next week). If that is the case, usually it is posted Thursday afternoon at the latest.

https://twitter.com/kcdowntowners/statu ... 6244082688

Confirmed
Quoting city manager

Correct. Ordinance being introduced tomorrow at city council. If it receives approval, it will move forward.

But when will we get those renderings

The more I look at Two Light the uglier it becomes.
From a distance it just doesn't fit in the skyline.
The white lines separating the floors are as ugly as anything I've ever seen on a tall building.

If only it was twice as tall and less "blocky."

NorthOak wrote:The more I look at Two Light the uglier it becomes.
From a distance it just doesn't fit in the skyline.
The white lines separating the floors are as ugly as anything I've ever seen on a tall building.

What would you have done instead? The rent on this thing is already high enough, can't imagine raising it higher to pay for a more elaborate facade.

NorthOak wrote:If only it was twice as tall and less "blocky."

If only this was Chicago...if only.

horizons82 wrote:

NorthOak wrote:If only it was twice as tall and less "blocky."

If only this was Chicago...if only.

That's a silly exaggeration.
A city doesn't have to be "Chicago" size, stature or economy to build a 30-40 floor apartment building.

The "blockyness" and color of Two Light from the distant south makes the building look very bland and featureless.
It does look much better up close at street level.
I'm hoping Three Light uses a mix of exteriors, maybe something like this.

^Bingo. Hoping Three Light will look nothing like Two Light, but most don't seem to care so a wall of Two Light is what we'll likely get. And if no one cares, the bland wall of monotony is what we deserve. At some point we need to start expecting developers to raise the bar and stop accepting utilitarian looking buildings just because they add more residents. There's just enough momentum now to start expecting better, demanding better - or at least completely different in this case. A completely different bland building is better than 2 nearly the same next to each other. Apologies for the broken record (skipping CD? rebuffering stream?) but I'll continue to bring this up once in a while.

That example image is the materials two light is made from. It already has a stone veneer on a large portion of it.

Yet looks so much better with the dark trim around windows and more texture. Subjective but it's a far better looking building. Ideally Three Light doesn't even use same materials. But if it does, the above is something to shoot for.

Window prices though

NorthOak wrote:

horizons82 wrote:

NorthOak wrote:If only it was twice as tall and less "blocky."

If only this was Chicago...if only.

That's a silly exaggeration.
A city doesn't have to be "Chicago" size, stature or economy to build a 30-40 floor apartment building.

The "blockyness" and color of Two Light from the distant south makes the building look very bland and featureless.
It does look much better up close at street level.
I'm hoping Three Light uses a mix of exteriors, maybe something like this.

Until KC has a far more robust metro-wide transit system, most developers are going to need to provide structured parking for hi-rise, otherwise they're not getting their financing. Again, at roughly $17,000 a space you're looking at an even higher-price point, when this thing is already one of the priciest in the metro. Nevermind asking for more city subsidy, that'd go over well.

I'm all for dozens of 40+ story buildings with exciting facades, but I feel like this board gets greedy with short term turnaround. Focus it out, support a bistate transit plan & exterior material requirements. Have city hall create a road map for city design; at set city density points (35k residents, etc) new reg's are implemented. That way the city architecture is ensured to get better over time, without scaring away developers and their lenders.

horizons82 wrote:

NorthOak wrote:

horizons82 wrote:

If only this was Chicago...if only.

That's a silly exaggeration.
A city doesn't have to be "Chicago" size, stature or economy to build a 30-40 floor apartment building.

The "blockyness" and color of Two Light from the distant south makes the building look very bland and featureless.
It does look much better up close at street level.
I'm hoping Three Light uses a mix of exteriors, maybe something like this.

Until KC has a far more robust metro-wide transit system, most developers are going to need to provide structured parking for hi-rise, otherwise they're not getting their financing. Again, at roughly $17,000 a space you're looking at an even higher-price point, when this thing is already one of the priciest in the metro. Nevermind asking for more city subsidy, that'd go over well.

I'm all for dozens of 40+ story buildings with exciting facades, but I feel like this board gets greedy with short term turnaround. Focus it out, support a bistate transit plan & exterior material requirements. Have city hall create a road map for city design; at set city density points (35k residents, etc) new reg's are implemented. That way the city architecture is ensured to get better over time, without scaring away developers and their lenders.

Or large city provided shared use garages. *shudder*