Star tearing down buildings for parking lots

[Tosspot]

By all means, be content with the status quo of pandering to the megablocks and surrendering the city to parking chasms, but don't get your panties in a wad when you see the rest of us object. As for what makes a vibrant city-- since you seem so intent on decrying the traditional tenets of city making, maybe you can offer up your own version of city vibrancy.

The comment about watching the workers scurry about the presses at night is inherently self contradictory, as since the Star seems intent on laying waste to everything surrounding the Printing Press, there will be no existing pedestrian context in place for anyone to partake in the wonderment in the first place. What we are left with is another bullshit "iconic" superstructure that kills the cityscape at sidewalk level, which has basically been Kansas City's modus operandi for the past six or so decades.

[LenexatoKCMO]

Toss - you beat me to it.  Who in the hell is going to wander accross acres of desolate parking lot in the middle of the night to watch the presses work? 

As to the comments implying that the Star is justified in expanding the lots and building a garage later because there is no one willing to develop the land now - hoseshit - there is barely a scratch of land in the xroads that doesn't have some plan for development or interest.  The land and buildings are selling for huge $$

[KCPowercat]

I agree with nota.  I think many are making more out of this than it really is.

I do wish the Star would put in an employee garage and develop some of their surface lots though.  If they own all this parking land, they would be silly not to consider it....it would really help in the linking of the xroads to the east xroads.

and whoever was begging for the Pitch to "expose" this story.....I wouldn't hold your breath...they are too busy brewing up dead solider stories.

[tat2kc]

who the hell says that block after block of empty retail space adds to the urban vibe?  geeze. There are tons of empty store fronts in the crossroads and within the loops. Building a garage with retail on the street level does nothing but add to the stock of  vacant store fronts which generate no revenue for the owners, and adds to the feeling of "ghost town" in the core. Who the hell wants to walk past dozens of empty store fronts, with dirty windows and dark interiors? How is that improving the core or making it more of an urban feel? 

You want to get rid of the surface lots? Then do something about the high vacancy rate in the already existing buildings. When that reaches a reasonable level, then perhaps you can see those lots replaced with something else. But to demand that an owner build a building that would sit empty for months if not years in anticipation of revenue sometime in the future is just absurd.

[WoodDraw]

[edit]Nevermind[/edit]

[Big Red Storm]

But to demand that an owner build a building that would sit empty for months if not years in anticipation of revenue sometime in the future is just absurd.

I don't think we are saying to build a structure that wouldn't be used, all we are saying is that they should build a garage instead of tearing down more buildings.  A garage would not sit empty.  That sounds a lot better than destroying more of our history when we don't need to.

Of course they have the right to do whatever they want as they own the lots, but we also have the right to complain.  They also have the responsibility as a major city business not to destroy the neighborhood.

[Tosspot]

who the hell says that block after block of empty retail space adds to the urban vibe?  geeze. There are tons of empty store fronts in the crossroads and within the loops. Building a garage with retail on the street level does nothing but add to the stock of  vacant store fronts which generate no revenue for the owners, and adds to the feeling of "ghost town" in the core. Who the hell wants to walk past dozens of empty store fronts, with dirty windows and dark interiors? How is that improving the core or making it more of an urban feel? 

You want to get rid of the surface lots? Then do something about the high vacancy rate in the already existing buildings. When that reaches a reasonable level, then perhaps you can see those lots replaced with something else. But to demand that an owner build a building that would sit empty for months if not years in anticipation of revenue sometime in the future is just absurd.

Who the hell here is talking about streetfront retail except you and Long (and even then only to impugn it)? Existing retail spaces will become more in demand as residential density increases throughout downtown and the core, and those empty retail spaces you decry so vociferously will see occupancy. And frankly, I do not care one bit if new retail spaces sit unoccupied for a time as this process comes to fruition, because the alternative you and others are suggesting is to once again segregate uses into separate zones, necessitating car dependency and yet more parking lots. The arrival of Cupini's and the Mango Room downtown illustrate that streetfront retail is already gaining stride.

And as for this idiotic notion that the citizens have no right to complain about a landowner's action, I am thoroughly disgusted at the premise that we should surrender our city to the whims of corporate plutocrats looking out for nothing but the bottom line. It's our city, so we should stand up for it for God's sake.

[Big Red Storm]

^ Well said Toss.

[kevink]

My point is, there is a huge difference between what happened during urban renewal and the Star, Cordish, or anyone else clearing a few random buildings off a block that is already an urban wasteland.  I'm saying, in order to have any credibility, we really need to stop throwing around generic terms like "urban fabric" when we're talking about blocks like this.  There might be a few urban threads left, but a few nondescript old buildings in and of themselves are not going to make or break the urban condition. 

Right now the Star owns this land, and unless someone comes along and makes them a good offer to sell, they can do whatever they want with it.  And when someone does come along, they will likely keep a chunk for themselves, build a garage, and sell the rest.  But the Star is no more obligated to "develop" this property than you and I are to go and buy it and develop it ourselves.  Should they just give the land away in the spirit of "saving the city?" 

I would love to see this block built up, but I'm not going to sit here and say the Star has some responsibility to the greater good to take it on themselves.

Hey - I'm all for the messy vitality and grit that makes a city interesting, but to say that this combination of megastructure and surface parking lot is it really makes me laugh.

[staubio]

Ugh. . . comments like this drive me up the wall.  What is a vibrant urban environment?  One where block after block after block is the same street-level retail with residential and office above?  Blah blah blah.  The most vibrant urban environment is one where you throw all the crap that makes a city function into a tight space and let it go.  I think its great that we have what is essentially a factory right in the mix of the action-- at night you'll see the presses running, workers scurrying around, the Star's trucks coming and going. . . This part of town is a whole different animal from, say, the Garment district or P&L.  Let it be what it is. . . don't homogenize everything into this perfect rendering of storefronts  and canvas canopies and trees and happy people holding hands.

So, what department are you in at the Star, Long? 

Like Toss said, nobody said anything about street level retail.  This is about a quality brick building that was part of the "fabric" and is now lost forever.

I went by the spot tonight.  I guess there is a nice unobstructed view of the new press building from SoHo South now. 

[tat2kc]

well maybe the person building new street front retail might be a bit concerned if that space sits empty and he's paying taxes on an empty shell when a garage would at least have generated some revenue.  Its more than a little ironic for you to decry parking and the personal auto, when you have a car and use it to get downtown when the bus isn't convienent for you. 

All I'm saying is that bitching and moaning about surface lots or unsightly parking garages is premature when those lots are surrounded by empty buildings and store fronts.  The only way those lots are going to disappear is for that land to be more valuable with a revenue generating building.  As many places that have opened in the crossroads, there are still lots of empy spaces that need to be filled before its practical to build on those lots. Reduce the vacancy rate in existing buildings, then maybe someone will come in and build something new. 

[KC0KEK]

well maybe the person building new street front retail might be a bit concerned if that space sits empty and he's paying taxes on an empty shell when a garage would at least have generated some revenue.  Its more than a little ironic for you to decry parking and the personal auto, when you have a car and use it to get downtown when the bus isn't convienent for you. 

All I'm saying is that bitching and moaning about surface lots or unsightly parking garages is premature when those lots are surrounded by empty buildings and store fronts.  The only way those lots are going to disappear is for that land to be more valuable with a revenue generating building.  As many places that have opened in the crossroads, there are still lots of empy spaces that need to be filled before its practical to build on those lots. Reduce the vacancy rate in existing buildings, then maybe someone will come in and build something new. 

Well-said.

[LenexatoKCMO]

I think you are still missing Toss and Staubio's point - I think they are saying use the excessive surface lots in the xroads (many Star owned) for new residential construction - not streetfront retail.  Residential can't be sold/leased fast enough down there right now and the more people - the less vacant storefronts.  Rather than making MORE surface lots, sell off some of it for new residential construction.  You can't tell me there wouldn't be someone willing to come forward and build some residential, perhaps townhouses, on the west side of Soho South right now. 

[KC0KEK]

Rather than making MORE surface lots, sell off some of it for new residential construction. 

But can the Star sell off lots? Or are they adding them because city codes require X number of spaces per square footage? I don't know the answer, but if that's the case, then a big new facility would require more parking. Anybody know?

[tat2kc]

Actually, I'd love to see the Star consolidate the majority of their parking in a garage or two that is between the new printing press and their headquarters building. A large enough garage would then allow for some of the surface lots to be sold off for new construction. 

The surface lots and the parking requirements, at least for the crossroads, needs to be changed so that retail and restaurants don't need the large number of spaces that are currently required.  It would add much more to the vitality of the area to have people walk a block or so for shopping and eating. Thats a lot different than a 9-5 business in which the patrons would need parking for 6-8 hours at a time.  This parking issue is what is hampering Caliente from opening at this point. 

it just gets old as hell to hear the bitching about parking and the "suburban mentality" downtown without offering a valid alternative to bringing a car downtown.  Hell, even Toss has admitted driving to work from westport when the bus route wasn't convienent.  If it is difficult to get on a bus in a timely manner and get to work from westport, imagine the hassle to do so from anywhere outisde the urban core.  Promoting the BRT line for First Fridays would be a good way to get more people to be aware of mass transit.

Unfortunately, a lot of our new residents come from places that have far far more traffic congestion than we do, so our commute and traffic in general is so much better than where they came from that using our poorly run transit system is not even on the radar. 

[LenexatoKCMO]

Tat - I am not part of the "car is the devil that must be erradicated today" crowd.  I realize that we are going to be stuck using them for some time. 

My big disappointment with the Star is not that they may have increased parking needs.  More power to them for aparently bringing more workers downtown.  My beef is the way that they are aparently addressing this.  Rather than building a Garage (which could probably easily have been paid for by selling off some of their lots), they are tearing down buildings to expand their surface lot capacity.  Something that is completely counterproductive to the health of the neighborhood they claim to promote. 

[Long]

You all make it sound like the Star tearing down a few buildings has suddenly wiped out any hope that this district will become some vibrant urban center. . .  

This block was already a wasteland, and we can legitimately discuss how the buildings that were torn down 10, 20, and 40 years ago affected the urban fabric, but to suggest that tearing down these last few buildings has somehow suddenly changed and sealed the fate of this block is silly.

Like I said before, and what no one has chosen to respond to-- when someone tells me that the Star is refusing to accept legitimate offers to sell their land to developers, I will be first in line to criticize the Star.  But I need someone to tell me how and why the Star is responsible for urban decay-- all I'm hearing is "we have a right to criticize how land owners use their land."  Fine.  Criticize them.  But seriously, should they just give the land away to a developer?  Someone tell me what the Star is supposed to do.  Should they personally finance new development?

I think the two sides in this thread are arguing two different points.  I'm sure we all agree that parking lots are bad, I think the difference is, is the Star really the bad guy for tearing down a couple buildings?  Or are we just using them as an easy target because other things aren't happening, because developers haven't stepped up to develop these lots?  

[LenexatoKCMO]

Long - aparently you aren't very up to date on the state of xroads real estate.  Its very much a sellers market.  Developers are circling over virtually every parcel in the district like vultures and prices are sky high.  It is very much getting to the point were we can start looking at pieces that aren't developing and start pointing fingers at whomever is holding it up. 

[tat2kc]

Lenexa, I think though, a lot of this is speculative buying. There remains a good amount of vacant space in the Xroads today. Certainly a lot of people and businesses are moving in, but the vacany rate is still pretty damn high.  I not sure, other than changing ownership, that a lot of new construction would happen for another 2 or 3 years at this point.  One positive about the Star owning as much as they do, is that you are dealing with only one owner, rather than the many smaller owners. This could make it easier to assemble properties for larger developments. 

[KC0KEK]

More power to them for aparently bringing more workers downtown. 

Do we know that the new plant will mean more workers? From what I've read about the new facility, it's much more automated than the current pressroom/mailroom. So I'd think the new facility would have little or no effect on staff levels. Depending on the union, automation could result in staff reduction via layoffs or early retirements. According to recent articles, the current pressroom/mailroom will beome offices for existing downtown Star employees rather than a home for new ones. In ohter words, more breathing room for staff already based downtown. The Star can't close its suburban bureaus and move those staff downtown because it's more effective to serve suburban advertisers and readers via bureaus.

So that goes back to my earlier question: Is the Star sell adding surface lots not because of additional workers but because city codes require X number of spaces per square footage? If that's the case, then at least some of the blame needs to fall on the codes, which were a response to a society that favors cars over public transit.