Company bought part of brookside
- chaglang
- Bryant Building
- Posts: 4132
- Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:44 pm
Re: Company bought part of brookside
Border Star would be better as condos or apartments, and the frontage on Meyer, Brookside Blvd, and 63rd developed. Apartments and condos are an underserved market in Brookside. This would be an appropriate place to put them.
- AlbertHammond
- New York Life
- Posts: 355
- Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 9:52 am
Re: Company bought part of brookside
Every time I drive down 63rd, I imagine shops on the south side from Wornall to Brookside Blvd and how that would transform the feel of that street. The garden plots and the weedpatch on the Border Star property are signs that they have more land than they need.chaglang wrote:Border Star would be better as condos or apartments, and the frontage on Meyer, Brookside Blvd, and 63rd developed. Apartments and condos are an underserved market in Brookside. This would be an appropriate place to put them.
- warwickland
- Oak Tower
- Posts: 4834
- Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 6:29 pm
- Location: St. Louis County, MO
Re: Company bought part of brookside
"downtown" brookside is weird, because it was clearly built as an inner suburban type commercial node, but because of it's centrality, accessibility, and quality it's also utilized as an urban type metro destination node - something that it wasn't built to be. i'd hate to see it's character drastically changed by chain stores, or shorn apart in the case of clayton, which once was similar.
Last edited by warwickland on Mon Mar 31, 2014 10:17 am, edited 4 times in total.
- kucer
- Alameda Tower
- Posts: 1143
- Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 4:35 pm
- Location: PVKS
Re: Company bought part of brookside
Stockton wrote:If it ain't broke, don't fix it! Brookside is perhaps the nicest, most balanced, and most complete residential neighborhood in Kansas City. Sure, there may be room for a couple of small projects, such as squeezing in a bit more multi-family residential, *maybe* a redeveloped Cosentino's Market property, but otherwise leave the area alone! I'm not sure I like the idea of Border Star being torn down, but *maybe*, and that is as far as I would go. The qualities that make Brookside such a great and desirable neighborhood could easily be destroyed by ideas people with their head up their asses have - whether they be premature, overzealous urban-development geeks who lack wisdom and fail to realize they have a lot to learn or greedy developers who care about nothing more than making money (IE: Highwoods original idea to obliterate the Plaza). In my opinion, an idea like turning 63rd St into solidly street-abutting developments all with first-floor retail space is obsessive-compulsive and lacking in sophistication. I think the same of destroying the residential, even single-family homes, that hug such business districts as Brookside's - in fact, I think the houses that have been turned commercial should go back to being residential. I better like the idea of nodes. I think Waldo has lots of reasonable capacity for development, such as townhouses, apartment/condo buildings, even new single-family homes, and major new-urbanism development on the SE corner of 75th and Wornall and south on Wornall. The Landing, 63rd and Troost, and E. 63rd also have a ton of potential for development. Troost has old, urban building stock north of 63rd ripe for better utilization, and potential for redevelopment south of 63rd. Leave Brookside alone. It's a great neighborhood. Instead, think about expanding other areas into being great neighborhoods.
Let's start with the abomination that is Blue Beetle. Why is that guy allowed to put his business there and have all his vehicles parked all over the streets? I would think his business vehicles parked on public streets would go against the zoning there. Obviously, not though.
-
- Mark Twain Tower
- Posts: 9862
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am
Re: Company bought part of brookside
if you can park outside to service a home then there's very little chance you can block the same vehicle from being parked outside in generalkucer wrote: Let's start with the abomination that is Blue Beetle. Why is that guy allowed to put his business there and have all his vehicles parked all over the streets? I would think his business vehicles parked on public streets would go against the zoning there. Obviously, not though.
assigned parking or blocking on street parking is really the only realistic options
-
- Bryant Building
- Posts: 3549
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 6:47 pm
- Location: South Plaza
Re: Company bought part of brookside
Seems like tearing down/moving one of the 3 or 4 successful neighborhood schools in the entire urban core might be a wee bit shortsighted. My platonic ideal of "neighborhood" pretty much has a neighborhood school.
-
- Mark Twain Tower
- Posts: 9862
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am
Re: Company bought part of brookside
Not sure if this is the spot, but why not tear out and build a structure that can become a school/community center plus living space? Nothing says you can't replace a school with a schoolchingon wrote:Seems like tearing down/moving one of the 3 or 4 successful neighborhood schools in the entire urban core might be a wee bit shortsighted. My platonic ideal of "neighborhood" pretty much has a neighborhood school.
- kucer
- Alameda Tower
- Posts: 1143
- Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 4:35 pm
- Location: PVKS
Re: Company bought part of brookside
You know this, but Border Star isn't a neighborhood school.chingon wrote:Seems like tearing down/moving one of the 3 or 4 successful neighborhood schools in the entire urban core might be a wee bit shortsighted. My platonic ideal of "neighborhood" pretty much has a neighborhood school.
-
- Bryant Building
- Posts: 3549
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 6:47 pm
- Location: South Plaza
Re: Company bought part of brookside
I understand your point, but on an important level, I disagree.kucer wrote:You know this, but Border Star isn't a neighborhood school.chingon wrote:Seems like tearing down/moving one of the 3 or 4 successful neighborhood schools in the entire urban core might be a wee bit shortsighted. My platonic ideal of "neighborhood" pretty much has a neighborhood school.
-
- Bryant Building
- Posts: 3549
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 6:47 pm
- Location: South Plaza
Re: Company bought part of brookside
Cause its a a great, and at this point in the history of American craftsmanship, functionally irreplaceable building and one of the original structures of the neighborhood.flyingember wrote:Not sure if this is the spot, but why not tear out and build a structure that can become a school/community center plus living space? Nothing says you can't replace a school with a schoolchingon wrote:Seems like tearing down/moving one of the 3 or 4 successful neighborhood schools in the entire urban core might be a wee bit shortsighted. My platonic ideal of "neighborhood" pretty much has a neighborhood school.
- Demosthenes
- Western Auto Lofts
- Posts: 569
- Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2012 2:50 pm
- Location: CBD
Re: Company bought part of brookside
What is this Highwoods plan to obliterate the Plaza? As someone who has never had much respect for Highwoods I would absolutely love to hear this story.Stockton wrote:If it ain't broke, don't fix it! Brookside is perhaps the nicest, most balanced, and most complete residential neighborhood in Kansas City. Sure, there may be room for a couple of small projects, such as squeezing in a bit more multi-family residential, *maybe* a redeveloped Cosentino's Market property, but otherwise leave the area alone! I'm not sure I like the idea of Border Star being torn down, but *maybe*, and that is as far as I would go. The qualities that make Brookside such a great and desirable neighborhood could easily be destroyed by ideas people with their head up their asses have - whether they be premature, overzealous urban-development geeks who lack wisdom and fail to realize they have a lot to learn or greedy developers who care about nothing more than making money (IE: Highwoods original idea to obliterate the Plaza). In my opinion, an idea like turning 63rd St into solidly street-abutting developments all with first-floor retail space is obsessive-compulsive and lacking in sophistication. I think the same of destroying the residential, even single-family homes, that hug such business districts as Brookside's - in fact, I think the houses that have been turned commercial should go back to being residential. I better like the idea of nodes. I think Waldo has lots of reasonable capacity for development, such as townhouses, apartment/condo buildings, even new single-family homes, and major new-urbanism development on the SE corner of 75th and Wornall and south on Wornall. The Landing, 63rd and Troost, and E. 63rd also have a ton of potential for development. Troost has old, urban building stock north of 63rd ripe for better utilization, and potential for redevelopment south of 63rd. Leave Brookside alone. It's a great neighborhood. Instead, think about expanding other areas into being great neighborhoods.
And I hear what you're saying about Brookside. I know it holds a very special place in everyone's hearts. But saying that anyone who is offering ideas on how to improve Brookside has their heads up their asses, that is... well, very Brookside. Especially in a time when streetcar lines have been proposed (and declined) and an out of town developer has bought the shops. I really hope that Brookside residents can start opening their minds to new ideas, because there may be some new things happening in the near future. The new owner of the shops may change things up quite a lot...
And what's the problem with turning 63rd st. into a street lined with street abutting buildings, all with retail space on the street? Isn't this what we want out of our commercial corridors? Is this not what the Brookside Shops are? These ideas are not bad. It's just considering ways of improving Brookside by densifying where possible. Obviously the shops aren't going to go anywhere. They are beloved. Even if the new owners proposed tearing them down, there is no way the neighborhood would allow it. That is the good thing about having a strong neighborhood community. Even if nicely scaled, architecturally interesting 3 to 5 story mixed use buildings were designed to take their place (which in my view would be at least worth consideration), the redevelopment would be shot down immediately. They aren't going anywhere. Now if we are lucky though, we will get some of these mixed use buildings to be built further down 63rd st, completing the 63rd streetwall. I can see why this looks a bit obsessive compulsive, but 63rd is one of the few good spots to develop in Brookside. Almost all of the residential is untouchable, so there is no way to add density that way.
-
- Colonnade
- Posts: 824
- Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2005 1:49 am
- Location: KCMO
- Contact:
Re: Company bought part of brookside
http://activerain.com/blogsview/2078418 ... -the-plazaDemosthenes wrote:What is this Highwoods plan to obliterate the Plaza? As someone who has never had much respect for Highwoods I would absolutely love to hear this story.Stockton wrote:If it ain't broke, don't fix it! Brookside is perhaps the nicest, most balanced, and most complete residential neighborhood in Kansas City. Sure, there may be room for a couple of small projects, such as squeezing in a bit more multi-family residential, *maybe* a redeveloped Cosentino's Market property, but otherwise leave the area alone! I'm not sure I like the idea of Border Star being torn down, but *maybe*, and that is as far as I would go. The qualities that make Brookside such a great and desirable neighborhood could easily be destroyed by ideas people with their head up their asses have - whether they be premature, overzealous urban-development geeks who lack wisdom and fail to realize they have a lot to learn or greedy developers who care about nothing more than making money (IE: Highwoods original idea to obliterate the Plaza). In my opinion, an idea like turning 63rd St into solidly street-abutting developments all with first-floor retail space is obsessive-compulsive and lacking in sophistication. I think the same of destroying the residential, even single-family homes, that hug such business districts as Brookside's - in fact, I think the houses that have been turned commercial should go back to being residential. I better like the idea of nodes. I think Waldo has lots of reasonable capacity for development, such as townhouses, apartment/condo buildings, even new single-family homes, and major new-urbanism development on the SE corner of 75th and Wornall and south on Wornall. The Landing, 63rd and Troost, and E. 63rd also have a ton of potential for development. Troost has old, urban building stock north of 63rd ripe for better utilization, and potential for redevelopment south of 63rd. Leave Brookside alone. It's a great neighborhood. Instead, think about expanding other areas into being great neighborhoods.
And I hear what you're saying about Brookside. I know it holds a very special place in everyone's hearts. But saying that anyone who is offering ideas on how to improve Brookside has their heads up their asses, that is... well, very Brookside. Especially in a time when streetcar lines have been proposed (and declined) and an out of town developer has bought the shops. I really hope that Brookside residents can start opening their minds to new ideas, because there may be some new things happening in the near future. The new owner of the shops may change things up quite a lot...
And what's the problem with turning 63rd st. into a street lined with street abutting buildings, all with retail space on the street? Isn't this what we want out of our commercial corridors? Is this not what the Brookside Shops are? These ideas are not bad. It's just considering ways of improving Brookside by densifying where possible. Obviously the shops aren't going to go anywhere. They are beloved. Even if the new owners proposed tearing them down, there is no way the neighborhood would allow it. That is the good thing about having a strong neighborhood community. Even if nicely scaled, architecturally interesting 3 to 5 story mixed use buildings were designed to take their place (which in my view would be at least worth consideration), the redevelopment would be shot down immediately. They aren't going anywhere. Now if we are lucky though, we will get some of these mixed use buildings to be built further down 63rd st, completing the 63rd streetwall. I can see why this looks a bit obsessive compulsive, but 63rd is one of the few good spots to develop in Brookside. Almost all of the residential is untouchable, so there is no way to add density that way.
I like sensible ideas for improvement. For the most part, though, I just don't see reason for messing with success, especially when there are so many other areas actually in need of development that can be done without destroying very nice and successful existing development. 63rd St between the shops and Troost probably has some room for development, but there's no reason the entire corridor has to be street-abutting development, especially with first-floor retail, or that all the houses have to be torn down. I feel the same away about W 39th, where some people would like to see the same all the way from state line to SW TFWY. There is such a thing as too much street-front commercial space, and that's true even in downtown areas. I think residential is better infill between nodes along major corridors, but even then it doesn't have to be street-abutting. I would like to see Brookside served by the streetcar, but for existing residents and visitors and on its way to places more suitable for development. Density doesn't necessarily have to be increased in Brookside. I just think some ideas are unnecessary or even dumb. Another example is one that kind of gets thrown around occasionally about dumping people off buses at either end of the streetcar line and forcing them to ride the streetcar rather than having a single-seat ride or at least one less transfer to their destination. I understand what the idea is trying to achieve, but it just doesn't make sense in the bigger picture.
- chaglang
- Bryant Building
- Posts: 4132
- Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:44 pm
Re: Company bought part of brookside
I'm no fan of Highwoods, but that website is silly. IIRC, the only thing Highwoods proposed was that building at 47th and Wornall. The rest of that page is conjecture.
The "available" buildings listed on the are for commercial rental space.
The "available" buildings listed on the are for commercial rental space.
-
- Colonnade
- Posts: 824
- Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2005 1:49 am
- Location: KCMO
- Contact:
Re: Company bought part of brookside
I don't recall, but didn't the original proposal for a new building (for Polsinelli) at 47th and Broadway call for actually tearing down and replacing the "balcony building"? If Highwoods was actually willing to do that, I don't think what's in the link is so silly. Although, I have no idea what the building depicted on the south side of 47th was supposed to be or where those renderings came from.chaglang wrote:I'm no fan of Highwoods, but that website is silly. IIRC, the only thing Highwoods proposed was that building at 47th and Wornall. The rest of that page is conjecture.
The "available" buildings listed on the are for commercial rental space.
- chaglang
- Bryant Building
- Posts: 4132
- Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:44 pm
Re: Company bought part of brookside
The leap from tearing down the balcony building to tearing dow then entire Plaza and replacing it with office buildings is a rather large one. No evidence was offered that Highwoods ever entertained the idea.Stockton wrote:I don't recall, but didn't the original proposal for a new building (for Polsinelli) at 47th and Broadway call for actually tearing down and replacing the "balcony building"? If Highwoods was actually willing to do that, I don't think what's in the link is so silly. Although, I have no idea what the building depicted on the south side of 47th was supposed to be or where those renderings came from.chaglang wrote:I'm no fan of Highwoods, but that website is silly. IIRC, the only thing Highwoods proposed was that building at 47th and Wornall. The rest of that page is conjecture.
The "available" buildings listed on the are for commercial rental space.
-
- Colonnade
- Posts: 824
- Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2005 1:49 am
- Location: KCMO
- Contact:
Re: Company bought part of brookside
^Had they been allowed to tear down the balcony building, I think that would have set a precedent and continued as long as it was profitable and unrestrained.
- chaglang
- Bryant Building
- Posts: 4132
- Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:44 pm
Re: Company bought part of brookside
Still, no evidence that that was ever their plan. Just conjecture. And crazy renderings.Stockton wrote:^Had they been allowed to tear down the balcony building, I think that would have set a precedent and continued as long as it was profitable and unrestrained.
-
- Broadway Square
- Posts: 2835
- Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm
Re: Company bought part of brookside
Surprise, surprise, new ownership now pushing out local businesses to bring in national chains: https://www.facebook.com/savefoos
-
- Bryant Building
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 2:47 am
Re: Company bought part of brookside
.
Last edited by pash on Fri Feb 10, 2017 8:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Hotel President
- Posts: 3116
- Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 10:10 am
- Location: Broadway/Gilham according to google maps
Re: Company bought part of brookside
It says that Smallcakes cupcakes would replace it, isn't this a local chain? Also, why hasn't this fricking cupcake fad died? who the hell still eats these things. Gezz. There is one of these smallcakes on 39th street as well