KCRag Forum

WoodDraw wrote: A cardboard box would be more architectually noteworthy than this building.  It isn't exactly a high standard for the P&L district to top and I'm sure it will.  

According to Mr. Frank Grimaldi in the KC Star today, the Missouri State Employment Security Building "adds a completeness and a consistency that confirms the urban coherence of downtown Kansas City" and that "saving this structure would be a great opportunity for incorporating a distinctive architectural icon immediately into the Cordish plan..."  He goes on to say that "architecturally, this building is equivalent to the four historic landmarks being retained in the west portion of the Power & Light District: Midland Theater, Power & Light, President Hotel and Empire Theatre."

I would have posted the entire article here, but I'm not clear about the copyright rules.  Regardless, I just don't see how anyone, particularly a former president of the KC chapter of the American Institue of Architects, can compare that building to those landmarks.  Can anyone explain to me how that building "adds a completeness and a consistency that confirms the urban coherence of downtown Kansas City" or even what that means?  He sounds like a psychologist more than an architect.

myxomatosis wrote: According to Mr. Frank Grimaldi in the KC Star today, the Missouri State Employment Security Building "adds a completeness and a consistency that confirms the urban coherence of downtown Kansas City" and that "saving this structure would be a great opportunity for incorporating a distinctive architectural icon immediately into the Cordish plan..."  He goes on to say that "architecturally, this building is equivalent to the four historic landmarks being retained in the west portion of the Power & Light District: Midland Theater, Power & Light, President Hotel and Empire Theatre."

I would have posted the entire article here, but I'm not clear about the copyright rules.  Regardless, I just don't see how anyone, particularly a former president of the KC chapter of the American Institue of Architects, can compare that building to those landmarks.  Can anyone explain to me how that building "adds a completeness and a consistency that confirms the urban coherence of downtown Kansas City" or even what that means?  He sounds like a psychologist more than an architect.

Distinctive?  Icon? Landmark?  - I want some of what Mr. Grimaldi is smoking.  This thing has a hell of a lot more in common architecturally with the Jackson County Jail than it does with the Midland and the Empire. 

In fact I would go so far as to say that the jail is a prettier building. 

It's only a shame that they didn't originally build it among the other government buildings where it belongs. I guess its placement was a futile attempt to shore up or "anchor" the declining south loop.

I think a Kevin Collison article referred to the legitimate architectural style of this building as 'brutalist.'  It certainly is (was) a good example of brutal architecture in my opinion.

KCDowntown

KCDowntown wrote: I think a Kevin Collison article referred to the legitimate architectural style of this building as 'brutalist.'   It certainly is (was) a good example of brutal architecture in my opinion.

In the finest tradition of a Turkish dungeon.

WoodDraw wrote: A cardboard box would be more architectually noteworthy than this building.  

Come to think of it, in the webcam images, it looks like one of those containers used to ship dangerous animals. Just keep your fingers out of the holes.

they could take all the crap out of the empire when they remodel, and make a giant art sculpture out of it using the decades of pigeon shit as spackle, that would look great

Yes, it needs to be over by its twin, the Municipal Courts Building on 11th and Locust.  Those buildings look like they were done by the same architect.  The MES building looks like a nuclear testing bunker from the former East Germany.

Maybe it is a little "brutalist."  So what.

I can tell from reading most of the posts about this building that very few of you have walked up to and around all four sides of this building and actually taken five minutes to look at it.

I suppose its easier to dismiss and/or complain about things that you aren't comfortable with or familiar with instead of taking the time to appreciate them for what they are. 

As for Grimaldi's quote about completeness and consistency-- one thing people like to talk about around here are districts that appear "fake and plastic."  So I wonder if he's talking about having buildings that represent different architectural eras, instead of bulldozing everything that wasn't built before 1930 and replacing it with bland anonymous buildings that completely blend in and yield to the historic structures, so you end up with a nice Disneyworld district.  From what I've seen of the P&L district renderings, there are going to be some pretty big similarities to Zona Rosa.  ZR is a "nice urban space," but the "architecture" (and I use that term loosely) is very "safe"-- it isn't threatening, it isn't ugly, but it doesn't make a statement either, it represents an era of mediocrity, where people are happier with something bland as opposed to something that some people love and some people hate.  Better to be safe than to actually step out and make a statement.

Buildings like the Power and Light Building are a testament to their era-- essentially an era of high craftsmanship.  The Missouri office building represents modernism, and yes, maybe brutalism, an era that many people don't really care to understand.  Both buildings are a clear expression of the materials and methods used in their design and construction.  Sure, the office building isn't the best representative of that era.  But at least it makes a statement and is proud of it.  I suppose the buildings of Zona Rosa are also an expression of the materials and methods used in their design and construction-- quick, efficient, safe and nonthreatening, temporary, basically admitting that our best work is way in the past so why even try to move ahead.

Long wrote: I can tell from reading most of the posts about this building that very few of you have walked up to and around all four sides of this building and actually taken five minutes to look at it.

Actually - I was just up there walking around it last weekend when I went up to check out the Drum Room sign and the Empire and I state again with no lack of confidence that this thing is U G L Y.  The architect may well have had some grand vision of expressing complex existentialist thoughts or what not through his "brutalisim"  - but guess what - the thing still comes off as a purely utilitarian gov't built box with little or nothing aesthetically interesting about it.  While I am all about environments that have diverse architectural styles from different eras - I am confident that people walking downtown 80 years from now would probably find this thing as gastly and ugly as the posters to this board do today. 

LenexatoKCMO wrote: Actually - I was just up there walking around it last weekend when I went up to check out the Drum Room sign and the Empire and I state again with no lack of confidence that this thing is U G L Y.  The architect may well have had some grand vision of expressing complex existentialist thoughts or what not through his "brutalisim"  - but guess what - the thing still comes off as a purely utilitarian gov't built box with little or nothing aesthetically interesting about it.  While I am all about environments that have diverse architectural styles from different eras - I am confident that people walking downtown 80 years from now would probably find this thing as gastly and ugly as the posters to this board do today. 

So the dramatic cantilevers on the south facade, the large glass area and open atrium on the west, or the texture of the concrete does nothing for you at all?  I mean, that patio sort-of-thing on the south could use some sprucing up with some nicer railings, some landscaping, maybe some nice pavers, but the south facade is really pretty interesting and has some dramatic moves.  The north side is a blank wall, but as a downtown building it should have something built right up next to it anyway.  The east side has some interesting recesses/carved out spaces, but also keep in mind that this should be an alley wall with another building 15 feet away from it, not something you can see from 4 blocks away.

Its interesting to me that someone could make the observation that this building is a simple box with nothing going on (which, whether you like the style or not, is simply an incorrect statement) but then gush over the Law Bldg or TWA which, yes, should have been saved, but really were nothing more than boxes with a little applied ornamentation.  Aesthetically, sure, a comparison of this office building to P&L, the Empire or the Midland may be a stretch, but it is AT LEAST on par with buildings like the Law and TWA. 

I'm with Long... ugly or not, not every style appeals to everyone, unless it is overly generic.  In my mind, a building that raises disgust in the masses is preferable to a building nobody notices or comments upon.  I'm very disappointed in the slash and burn method this project is undergoing.  Instead of taking the existing building stock and integrating it into the district, they are knocking everything down in order to have a clean slate.  Imagine preserving buildings like TWA and the Basketball building and adapting and integrating them for new use in the district.  Instead, we're knocking them down and building new, fake facsimilies of the same.  Some original and varied building stock would go a long way to ensure the autheticity of the district.  With a clean slate, it might as well have been a greenfield development like Zona Rosa -- and it might come off feeling like one.

staubio wrote: I'm with Long... ugly or not, not every style appeals to everyone, unless it is overly generic.  In my mind, a building that raises disgust in the masses is preferable to a building nobody notices or comments upon.  I'm very disappointed in the slash and burn method this project is undergoing.  Instead of taking the existing building stock and integrating it into the district, they are knocking everything down in order to have a clean slate.  Imagine preserving buildings like TWA and the Basketball building and adapting and integrating them for new use in the district.  Instead, we're knocking them down and building new, fake facsimilies of the same.  Some original and varied building stock would go a long way to ensure the autheticity of the district.  With a clean slate, it might as well have been a greenfield development like Zona Rosa -- and it might come off feeling like one.

The unfortunate thing, and probably the reason that maybe its best that some of these buildings have been put out of their misery, is that they would end up looking like oddballs next to the new construction.  Sort of like how the old building next to Wallstreet Tower looked before it was torn down-- time sort of passed it by because of architects and developers that didn't know how to respond to their context.  (NOTE: responding to your context does not mean replicating your context)  So much of the south loop had already been wiped out-- it is one thing if we're talking about infilling 30% of an existing block versus rebuilding 75% of it.  I guess I'm sort of rationalizing this clear cutting as more of a mercy killing, like shooting a horse after it breaks its leg.  The south loop had its leg broken 30-40 years ago.  In a way, its almost more of a disservice to an era or a style to have one lone distinctive building standing in the middle of shiny new mediocrity.  I sort of wonder what the Hotel President is going to look like when the rest of that block is built.  Keeping TWA would have provided more balance.  If the architects and developers were truly interested in working with their context it would be a different story.

I was actually hoping that Cordish would keep the P&L pretty contemporary and not shy away from the more cutting edge.  The Block building, arena, and Star building are all pretty contemporary cutting edge style buildings.  I would think that going for ye ol' town square look with retro style brick facades like ZR would look very out of place in between these buildings.  Plus shopping centers with an old fashioned look are going to be a dime a dozen soon.  I know we are not going to have the full on La Defense scale but I would think a little of that flavor would create a pretty neat and unique district. 

    I agree with Long.  Pretty or not, tastes change.  Why I would like to see the employment office preserved is for historical continuity.  Downtown KC actually had very little bldng activity when this was erected and is one a few examples of the brutalist architecture in the area.  It would make a great contrast with the restored Empire and the new 21st Century design of the P&L district.

I agree with Long, Staubio, and Moderne.  While it is not my cup of tea, the building does represent an era of architecture.  Many buildings cause disagreement.  When the Eiffel Tower was constructed, many thought it was ugly.  When the World Trade Towers were constructed, many thought they were banal. However, like the Eiffel Tower in Paris, the twin towers became an icon of New York City.  Many thought the architecture itself wasn't too inspiring, but the sheer mass of the buildings was.  The NY skyline seems lost without them.

The other consideration for me anyway is that there is nothing physically wrong with the building. It's functional, utilitarian, and in use.  It doesn't make a lot of sense to me to tear it down, and add more rubble to landfill.  Taxpayers had to pay to build it in the first place, and now taxpayers are paying to have it torn down so that taxpayers can pay to have another building constructed in its place.

I'm also in agreement that an attempt should have been made to design an entertainment district around the existing buildings.  There were two or three buildings along Grand next to the basketball building that were in good condition.  Many of the retail buildings that will replace them are not any larger than they were--two stories.  In a couple of instances, the buildings were on the edge of the block, so it wouldn't have been difficult to build around them.  Older buildings can be successfully incorporated into larger developments -- the Boley Building comes to mind.  Just because a newer version of a former style is constructed doesn't make it bad either. All through history recreations of architectural styles have been done. Nothing is stopping the architect from reinterpreting the style in an interesting way.  There are other ways to mix buildings -- using the same material for example: red brick.  Quality Hill is a mixture of old and new, with single older buildings surrounded by newer ones. The newer buildings aren't made to look exactly like their older neighbors, but they are complementary and use the same materials. So there is continuity.

Mixing styles and periods is not necessarily a bad thing either.  Most downtowns exist in that manner anyway. Sometimes it creates tension, which is urban by its very nature. It's what makes cities exciting, and separates them from blander suburban retail strips.  In the life of a city, buildings are built and torn down.  The replacements may not be similar to its neighbor.

The Law Building, while it may have been a box with a little applied ornamentation, had a different look than most downtown buildings.  There wasn't another building remotely like it in appearance.

Yes, to some extent, we are beating a dead horse here, because the buildings are gone. However, it doesn't mean that we can't cite it as example of bad development, bad ecology, or sheer stupidity.  These are lessons. What's regretable is that urban rebirth in many cities has demonstrated that this is the wrong approach.  Slash and burn is not the best way to go.  Many urban planners are saying now that it's better to keep the older buildings because it adds character and interest to downtowns. It demonstrates a respect for the past.

While many of the older buildings may have been generic for their time, the fact that they remained made them less generic because they had the patina of age, and a history.  Not every building is an architectural statement and is not built to be.  Sometimes the built environment is constructed because it's familiar and addresses underlying preferences for styles of construction, materials used, and the physical environment where it exists. Some cities prefer traditional brick structures. Others stucco or adobe.  It's all good.   

i guess i will be on my own little island here and state that not everything is worth saving anyway. in that area, we saved the prez, the empire, the midland, screw that building. yes, it has some unique features, and is much more pleasing to the eye than some of the structures within a few blocks, but it will not fly with that surface lot with it. noone is going to redevelop that lot and keep that shit. let it go. please.

kcdcchef wrote: i guess i will be on my own little island here and state that not everything is worth saving anyway. in that area, we saved the prez, the empire, the midland, screw that building. yes, it has some unique features, and is much more pleasing to the eye than some of the structures within a few blocks, but it will not fly with that surface lot with it. noone is going to redevelop that lot and keep that shit. let it go. please.

Surface lot?  Saving the office building doesn't mean the surface lot would be saved. . .

i am not saying save the lot. i am saying, with that lot and that building on that block, it seems to be easier to just redo the whole block versus saving that one building, which is not THAT great

kcdcchef wrote: i guess i will be on my own little island here and state that not everything is worth saving anyway. in that area, we saved the prez, the empire, the midland, screw that building. yes, it has some unique features, and is much more pleasing to the eye than some of the structures within a few blocks, but it will not fly with that surface lot with it. noone is going to redevelop that lot and keep that shit. let it go. please.

Exactly.  Why must we bring up the Eiffel Tower as an example of architecture that was once hated ? For every one of those, there are a hundred ugly buildings that were rightfully torn down.  This is one.  It it horrid , and I'm glad it's going.

-PPR