KCRag Forum

Right. It's not even the nicest church on that part of 47th (Unity is).

So nobody thinks I'm trolling, I'm advocating that we be more critical about the quality of a building before rushing to save it. By that standard, we could also lose the Tomfooleries building and the Lockton building (though, no, nobody will probably ever fight to save those). Not doing that clutters up the city with marginal buildings and makes it harder for an area to evolve.

BTW, has anyone noticed that the building on the NE corner of Belleview and 47th seems to be sinking? Check out the fractures in the windows next time you're over there.

Why are we tearing it down again?

MidtownCat wrote: ↑Fri Feb 01, 2019 4:38 pm Why are we tearing it down again?

To build a mixed-use tower that includes a (the) church.

chaglang wrote: ↑Fri Feb 01, 2019 2:42 pm Right. It's not even the nicest church on that part of 47th (Unity is).

So nobody thinks I'm trolling, I'm advocating that we be more critical about the quality of a building before rushing to save it. By that standard, we could also lose the Tomfooleries building and the Lockton building (though, no, nobody will probably ever fight to save those). Not doing that clutters up the city with marginal buildings and makes it harder for an area to evolve.

BTW, has anyone noticed that the building on the NE corner of Belleview and 47th seems to be sinking? Check out the fractures in the windows next time you're over there.

I am torn on this and I see your point, but at the same time, urban KC sees very little urban development so I'm used to settling for less I guess. The plaza needs to evolve and even though it's one of the neatest urban districts in the country IMO, it grows very slowly compared to similar areas in other big cities.

Again, I would much rather see the development on an empty lot and save the church, but if the development is killed and the alternative is nothing gets built anywhere, then I would go with replacing the church.

chaglang wrote: ↑Fri Feb 01, 2019 2:42 pm Right. It's not even the nicest church on that part of 47th (Unity is).

And the building replacing it is anything special? An ugly box.

The reason people are so defensive of old buildings isn't necessarily that they were transcendentally good, but that the alternative to them is almost guaranteed to be uninteresting.

Thus you get some strange situations, like a forum of development enthusiasts and advocates (me included!) who are generally opposed to the replacement of a fairly young and typical church building with a taller shiny new office building. How bizarre!

We should be able to design buildings that, at the very least, match the quality of pre-war architecture, if not exceed it, but we just don't

TheLastGentleman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 01, 2019 7:47 pmWe should be able to design buildings that, at the very least, match the quality of pre-war architecture, if not exceed it, but we just don't

I get what you're saying, but I wouldn't use the word quality. What you're wanting is the detailing of pre-war architecture. The quality of today's buildings is the same if not better than the buildings of 50-100 years ago. New buildings are safer and more inclusive (ADA) than older structures. The problem is that those "non-sexy" items have to make up their cost elsewhere, so detailing gets stripped out.

Who's to say that they can't detail out the pedestrian experience to be high quality? We just don't know yet. If I was in a spot to be advocating, this is where I'd apply pressure. Make the developer prove that it will be a highly-detailed location. We know BNIM has the design chops to make it happen, the developer just needs to support that.

horizons82 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 10:59 am

TheLastGentleman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 01, 2019 7:47 pmWe should be able to design buildings that, at the very least, match the quality of pre-war architecture, if not exceed it, but we just don't

I get what you're saying, but I wouldn't use the word quality. What you're wanting is the detailing of pre-war architecture. The quality of today's buildings is the same if not better than the buildings of 50-100 years ago. New buildings are safer and more inclusive (ADA) than older structures. The problem is that those "non-sexy" items have to make up their cost elsewhere, so detailing gets stripped out.

Who's to say that they can't detail out the pedestrian experience to be high quality? We just don't know yet. If I was in a spot to be advocating, this is where I'd apply pressure. Make the developer prove that it will be a highly-detailed location. We know BNIM has the design chops to make it happen, the developer just needs to support that.

While that's true, it does suggest we should at least attempt to save what we can of that architecture as it will never be built again. I love the aesthetics of the church. It may not be all that historical or even remarkable but it's a nice backdrop to the modern, mostly uninspired architecture that's been built around the plaza in the last 30 years.

It is true that it was cheaper to create the detailing and craftsmanship in those old buildings. Many of them were built before, or during the Great Depression, when wages were much lower, or artificially low during the Depression. Even those built before the Depression cost less, because there weren't any strong labor unions or minimum wage laws. The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 allowed workers to legally organize labor unions. In 1938, a federal minimum wage went into effect under the Fair Labor Standards Act. So labor started to become more expensive after that. From 1942 on, many commodities and materials were rationed. Steel, for example, was needed for the war effort, so the price increased through 1945. After the war through the 1950s, pent-up demand for many consumer goods also increased the price of steel. Architects, and builders, tried to cut costs in other ways to make up for the increased price of building materials.

Part of it was also that decoration lost popularity amongst architects in favor of the minimal International Style, so all the industries that were producing affordable stonework, terra cotta, etc quickly vanished from lack of demand

True dat. Kansas City had several manufacturers of terra cotta stonework: Western Terra Cotta Co., Kansas City Terra Cotta Co. (purchased by NW Terra Cotta), and National Terra Cotta Co.

beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Fri Feb 01, 2019 7:35 pm

chaglang wrote: ↑Fri Feb 01, 2019 2:42 pm Right. It's not even the nicest church on that part of 47th (Unity is).

And the building replacing it is anything special? An ugly box.

TheLastGentleman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 01, 2019 7:47 pm The reason people are so defensive of old buildings isn't necessarily that they were transcendentally good, but that the alternative to them is almost guaranteed to be uninteresting.

Thus you get some strange situations, like a forum of development enthusiasts and advocates (me included!) who are generally opposed to the replacement of a fairly young and typical church building with a taller shiny new office building. How bizarre!

We should be able to design buildings that, at the very least, match the quality of pre-war architecture, if not exceed it, but we just don't

What he and he said...
90% of the old buildings the historic KC types want to save are nice, but not important structures. If they (we) were shown that the replacement building was prettier, interesting and respected the public realm & neighbors even better than the original, than most people would be happy to see the new building. The problem is that most new buildings are uglier, less interesting/ornamented and degrade the public realm/neighborhood more than the old building...so "we" fight to keep the old building. If these proposed buildings met the average person's tastes for loveliness, this would all be moot.

The problem is that most new buildings are uglier, less interesting/ornamented and degrade the public realm/neighborhood more than the old building

You were doing so good and then it became subjective.

flyingember wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 12:02 pm

The problem is that most new buildings are uglier, less interesting/ornamented and degrade the public realm/neighborhood more than the old building

You were doing so good and then it became subjective.

I think my statement is very accurate.

Are new buildings uglier than pre-war buildings? On average, yes. At least to non-architects.
Are new buildings less interesting/ornamented than pre-war buildings? On average, yes.
Do new buildings degrade the public realm or disrespect the neighborhood more than pre-war buildings? On average, yes. They tend to create boring streetfronts on larger parts of the first floor.

The average citizen may not be sophisticated, but they know when it feels better or worse. New buildings, on average, are less lovable than an older building. And that has nothing to do with history. It has to do with connecting to people's inherent preferences.

What makes your pre-war point funny is the Unity Temple wasn't completed until 1950, construction started in 1945.

flyingember wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 12:43 pm What makes your pre-war point funny is the Unity Temple wasn't completed until 1950, construction started in 1945.

I 100% agree with everything Hammond said and I am an architect.

The church is definitely part of the 'pre-war' mentality in design regardless of when it was actually completed.

Then there is also the concept of tearing down still functional buildings, and replacing them with another, simply because of location. Locations that are popular and the real estate values are high there. All the while--just blocks away--the city is full of surface parking and vacant, undeveloped lots that are producing little or no value. Sometimes the practice becomes bizarre if you think about it.

One example of this is the demolition of the entire block bounded by Main, Walnut, 10th and 11th streets. The block was comprised of smaller individual office and retail buildings that could certainly have all individually been renovated and repurposed. Instead, Commerce Bank wiped the block clean and built a new office tower there. Now this would not have been so strange in a denser city where it is hard to acquire property. Yet, Commerce Bank, through its' Tower Properties arm, controlled several surface parking lots in the North Loop that have been cleared since the 1950s, and still to this day remain undeveloped.

So instead of building on their properties that were already cleared, they decided to demolish another block of viable buildings that could have had the upper stories converted to loft apartments, and renovated the retail portions for new purposes.

The same thing happened with on the block where Town Pavilion was built. All the individual retail stores were knocked down instead of renovated and repurposed. At least the Harzfelds and Boley buildings were saved on that block. Again, looking at aerial photos around that time, there were a lot of surface lots where Town Pavilion could have been built without demolishing an entire, existing block of buildings.

The same thing with the block 1201 Walnut is on. Why 10th-12th Street between Main and Walnut was the only place to build new buildings in KCMO, I will never know.

Then, years later, because downtown had lost so many retail spaces, the Power & Light District had to be built from scratch to provide new retail to service hotels and downtown residents.

It's the same with the Plaza. A few square blocks where developers want to build. But not in other locations. Not along the Main Street corridor. Not that lot north of the Plaza Marriott. Instead, tear down something and rebuild. Not build on a vacant lot elsewhere.

Shields has put in an application going to the CPC tomorrow which would make the 1989 plaza bowl recommendations an ordinance: https://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/ ... nance.html

Clearly, this is in response to the Legacy development proposal. Regardless of your opinion of that proposal, shouldn't it have immunity since their plans were submitted in November?

Critical_Mass wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 7:38 pm Shields has put in an application going to the CPC tomorrow which would make the 1989 plaza bowl recommendations an ordinance: https://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/ ... nance.html

Clearly, this is in response to the Legacy development proposal. Regardless of your opinion of that proposal, shouldn't it have immunity since their plans were submitted in November?

I'd think so. Also, this is a dumb idea. I can appreciate having the tallest buildings around the edge, but as we've all discussed here many times, adding some height/mixed-use in the middle of the Plaza would be a good way to ensure its long term vitality. But Shields' view from her couch might change?

CPC agrees with you! Rejected: describes boundaries as 'arbitrary' and 'political.'
https://twitter.com/kckansascity/status ... 6657623041

But who knows what the full council will do to score political points in this election year.