KCRag Forum

beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 12:49 am Very little chance of local ownership. I’d say the only way would be if lease rates and percentages drop so much Taubman begins to lose money and filed bankruptcy. Even then, a local buyer would probably lose out to a national name with deeper pockets.

I feel like breaking it up by block or even building would be the best way to revive the place.

Yeah the timing may be right to sell Plaza in pieces and allow it to evolve organically, while still having some form of a district/neighborhood association for big picture planning and establishing aesthetic standards.

normalthings wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 1:14 am I feel like breaking it up by block or even building would be the best way to revive the place.

I’d be for this too because it would create competition between developers but I don’t see a path for how that would happen technically. I don’t see how an owner could piece it out in a manner that increases their bottom line. Also, I don’t trust the city development restrictions enough to not be worried about a 10 story glass parking garage being built in the middle of the plaza.

beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 10:35 am

normalthings wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 1:14 am I feel like breaking it up by block or even building would be the best way to revive the place.

I’d be for this too because it would create competition between developers but I don’t see a path for how that would happen technically. I don’t see how an owner could piece it out in a manner that increases their bottom line. Also, I don’t trust the city development restrictions enough to not be worried about a 10 story glass parking garage being built in the middle of the plaza.

1. Breaking the Plaza down by block increase the number of potential buyers significantly - giving Taubman the potential for better sale prices. I do recommend that there is a neighborhood parking garage commission with area funding.

2. That isn't anything a single owner couldn't pursue.

normalthings wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 2:37 pm 1. Breaking the Plaza down by block increase the number of potential buyers significantly - giving Taubman the potential for better sale prices. I do recommend that there is a neighborhood parking garage commission with area funding.

2. That isn't anything a single owner couldn't pursue.

No doubt, the parts is more valuable than the sum, but there are definite synergies of operation having a larger group of properties. It would take years to sell off all the properties, all while still managing the remaining properties, maintenance structures, and programs (lighting ceremony). Also, the existing national tenants likely don’t want to own their current location so would have to be another property manager. I just don’t see it happening. Too many hurdles.

dunno guys...I kind of bit off on the design continuity as important, unique and a "civic treasure" but maybe locals are tired of it already. But if split up (which makes some sense) there still should be an HOA/zoning district that tries to keep this in place. The alternative is a mess like CC North in Denver. And thought Taubman sold most of their 50%? Know that Macerich should still own theirs, and might be majority owner?? I dont recall exact %.

My two bits for whats it worth - usually very little

ToDactivist wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 4:17 pm dunno guys...I kind of bit off on the design continuity as important, unique and a "civic treasure" but maybe locals are tired of it already. But if split up (which makes some sense) there still should be an HOA/zoning district that tries to keep this in place. The alternative is a mess like CC North in Denver. And thought Taubman sold most of their 50%? Know that Macerich should still own theirs, and might be majority owner?? I dont recall exact %.

My two bits for whats it worth - usually very little

I picture something like this-

You basically want the current owners to implement a deed restriction that sells the air rights above the plaza to a newly formed third party corporation. With this owned by someone else the owner of the property can't build up.

Require there to be shares sold to a minimum of 100 individuals with voting rights only given to individuals and not corporations. Set the initial bylaws to require 100% agreement to sell any air rights or change the bylaws.

This should make it difficult to build taller within the bowl.


You give the same corporation control over the historic integrity of the area.

ToDactivist wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 4:17 pm dunno guys...I kind of bit off on the design continuity as important, unique and a "civic treasure" but maybe locals are tired of it already. But if split up (which makes some sense) there still should be an HOA/zoning district that tries to keep this in place. The alternative is a mess like CC North in Denver. And thought Taubman sold most of their 50%? Know that Macerich should still own theirs, and might be majority owner?? I dont recall exact %.

My two bits for whats it worth - usually very little

^Yeah, that's what I meant by suggesting forming an association that maintains 'aesthetic standards'.

It could probably be done much more simply by creating a condo district, with each block being a different owner. The deed restrictions and design guidelines and maintenance and lighting ceremony etc. would all be part of the declarations and HOA. Each block would own a percentage of the whole, like any condo.

flyingember wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 4:24 pm

ToDactivist wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 4:17 pm dunno guys...I kind of bit off on the design continuity as important, unique and a "civic treasure" but maybe locals are tired of it already. But if split up (which makes some sense) there still should be an HOA/zoning district that tries to keep this in place. The alternative is a mess like CC North in Denver. And thought Taubman sold most of their 50%? Know that Macerich should still own theirs, and might be majority owner?? I dont recall exact %.

My two bits for whats it worth - usually very little

I picture something like this-

You basically want the current owners to implement a deed restriction that sells the air rights above the plaza to a newly formed third party corporation. With this owned by someone else the owner of the property can't build up.

Require there to be shares sold to a minimum of 100 individuals with voting rights only given to individuals and not corporations. Set the initial bylaws to require 100% agreement to sell any air rights or change the bylaws.

This should make it difficult to build taller within the bowl.


You give the same corporation control over the historic integrity of the area.

I don't know if I would support this. I think we should absolutely be promoting denser uses/ taller buildings on the plaza.

normalthings wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 5:01 pm

I don't know if I would support this. I think we should absolutely be promoting denser uses/ taller buildings on the plaza.

So historic preservation is unimportant?

Remember, zero of the tall towers in that area today are on the plaza. They're outside it or next to the plaza. The plaza maxes out at around three floors


denser uses outside the plaza is fine, that's where the tall towers go

I think selling the Plaza off piecemeal and letting the invisible hand do its thing should be a last-ditch option. At that point any sort of unified vision would be made increasingly difficult to maintain. Would that be okay? I mean, I guess, but it seems like a waste of an opportunity to do something special.

Whatever we on here think of the Plaza, it’s undeniably a unique asset. It’s a massive collection of Spanish Revival, the world’s first auto-age shopping center, a tourist attraction, and an important piece of regional history. It’s also a great example of Jazz Age excess and movie palace-style escapism.

I come back to the idea of establishing a "Spanish Quarter" of the Plaza; a small and rigidly defined district where new construction is limited to no-expense-spared Spanish Revival. As crazy as it sounds, I think the Plaza should look to Disney's Main Street USA for inspiration. I mean, look at them.





Both are privately owned, architecturally themed, iconic shopping and entertainment areas. It's just that the Plaza is a romantic interpretation of Spain rather than America.

With the themed area defined, new construction can have a set of rules to work off of when designing new buildings.

Modern architecture is welcome to rise outside the boundaries and join the Frank Lloyd Wright church and SOM's Plaza Corporate Centre, while the new Spanish Revival buildings can rise from within the controlled district. Since the new buildings have to be designed in a tightly curated architectural style, they should be allowed to match the heights of structures like the Seville Tower.

The space to fit the new buildings would be carved out of parking areas, which will be needed far less once phase 2 of the streetcar is finished. The Starbucks block in particular, almost as much surface lot as building, is a prime target for complete redevelopment. Other locations for new construction would be carved out of architecturally incongruous buildings, such as the former Saks, parking garages and other unremarkable structures. Some of the tall new buildings would be set back from the street, into the middle of the block.

As an example, I’ve drawn an idea for a building that would be constructed directly north of the Balcony Building, set back from the street by no less than 60ft.

flyingember wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 6:30 pm

normalthings wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 5:01 pm

I don't know if I would support this. I think we should absolutely be promoting denser uses/ taller buildings on the plaza.

So historic preservation is unimportant?

Remember, zero of the tall towers in that area today are on the plaza. They're outside it or next to the plaza. The plaza maxes out at around three floors


denser uses outside the plaza is fine, that's where the tall towers go

The plaza has already changed a lot from its original design/uses. There are some significant areas of negligible density (looking at you Starbucks block) that could and should be redeveloped imho. Seville itself is made up of much taller buildings so I personally wouldn’t have a problem if it was rebuilt to a similar density(over time) if the design integrity is maintained.

A few opinions...

1. As said by others, some of the parking garages in the Plaza area could be removed and replaced with apartments or whatever to increase some density. But it shouldn't be anything tall. Something similar to the Last Gent's "Balcony Building" idea would be great. Down by the Giralda Tower, buildings shouldn't be taller than that since it's a pretty well-known icon.
2. Personally, I think the conversion of Halls into a parking garage, the Apple and Nike Store was a mistake. I believe that tearing the building down and building a new apartment building, keeping with the style of the district, would've been a better replacement and could've been a test to whether apartments would be worth it or not within the main shopping/dining area.
3. Some retail stores and restaurants here seem a bit bland for the district and I see them more like filler for retail spaces. You can all decide which ones those are but it would be nice to have more unique shops centered here to bring more people from outside the city/near vicinity in.
4. To me, crossing 47th and J.C. Nichols is a bit iffy. Some improvements should be made there to make crossing feel safer.
5. I like NormalThings's idea of breaking ownership up into multiple parties. Competition could be healthy in this case. Attract better tenants and what not. Maybe increase tax revenue coming out of the district as a result of better tenants.

At the end of the day, I'm someone from out of town so what I see is different from what all of you see. What I may see as not being a problem, you all could view as a problem. Regardless, the Plaza to me seems pretty stable. It will be interesting to watch it evolve over the next several years as the retail world changes.

flyingember wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 4:24 pm

ToDactivist wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 4:17 pm dunno guys...I kind of bit off on the design continuity as important, unique and a "civic treasure" but maybe locals are tired of it already. But if split up (which makes some sense) there still should be an HOA/zoning district that tries to keep this in place. The alternative is a mess like CC North in Denver. And thought Taubman sold most of their 50%? Know that Macerich should still own theirs, and might be majority owner?? I dont recall exact %.

My two bits for whats it worth - usually very little

I picture something like this-

You basically want the current owners to implement a deed restriction that sells the air rights above the plaza to a newly formed third party corporation. With this owned by someone else the owner of the property can't build up.

Require there to be shares sold to a minimum of 100 individuals with voting rights only given to individuals and not corporations. Set the initial bylaws to require 100% agreement to sell any air rights or change the bylaws.

This should make it difficult to build taller within the bowl.


You give the same corporation control over the historic integrity of the area.

Same concept could just be a conservation easement (lost development easement in IRS code) by which the are donated to a qualified historic steward (landmark Comm) thereby preserving the volume. Not perfect in this scenario but has some tax benefits as you can imagine.

Chris Stritzel wrote: ↑Thu Apr 09, 2020 12:32 am A few opinions...


2. Personally, I think the conversion of Halls into a parking garage, the Apple and Nike Store was a mistake. I believe that tearing the building down and building a new apartment building, keeping with the style of the district, would've been a better replacement and could've been a test to whether apartments would be worth it or not within the main shopping/dining area.

The Halls building wasn't converted into a garage, it already was one. It was the garage for the space, there were even direct entrances into Halls on several levels of the garage as I recall.

flyingember wrote: ↑Fri Apr 10, 2020 8:56 am

Chris Stritzel wrote: ↑Thu Apr 09, 2020 12:32 am A few opinions...


2. Personally, I think the conversion of Halls into a parking garage, the Apple and Nike Store was a mistake. I believe that tearing the building down and building a new apartment building, keeping with the style of the district, would've been a better replacement and could've been a test to whether apartments would be worth it or not within the main shopping/dining area.

The Halls building wasn't converted into a garage, it already was one. It was the garage for the space, there were even direct entrances into Halls on several levels of the garage as I recall.

I believe the parking was significantly expanded though?

That building sucks. They should have demolished it and built apartments and a new Spanish design. It's on the edge of the bowl so even for the diehards, it would have been a start.

Nordstrom progress, from Joyce Smith:



But, also: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/08/coronav ... r=sharebar

MidtownCat wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2020 3:08 pm

Steve52 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2020 1:55 pm Let's face the music there is not going to be anything left of the Country Club Plaza at some point probably not to far off at this rate. It will just be another glass, stucco, and concrete business district devoid of any originality.

It's basically there, but a lot of folks on here have been whistling past the graveyard for the better part of the last 3-5 years as the steady deterioration of a once proud landmark was unfolding.

What did you expect people on here to do exactly? You seem to have the "plaza should only be for super luxe shopping" stance down pat for us.

Marriott planning mass layoffs at Country Club Plaza hotel

https://www.kctv5.com/news/local_news/m ... 67791.html