Is Midtown Marketplace one of the city's greatest blunders?

trailerkid · Post by **trailerkid** » Wed Jan 28, 2004 5:11 pm

He is just insinuating that MM had something to do with the Fed deeming that midtown neighborhood "good enough."

Does anyone know if Block and Co. is involved at all with any properties downtown (i.e. KC Live, Crossroads). I see their signs up all over town, but are they actively developing in the core and downtown? I just do not want to see something similar to MM anywhere else in the core.

Post by **bahua** » Fri Jan 30, 2004 12:09 am

They had to court those horrible companies to come and doom that area and all the businesses within three miles! They were trying to get Home-fucking-Depot into the urban core! I hate to sound like an ass here, but a person who lives in Mission Hills probably shouldn't have a great hand in redeveloping Midtown.

His whole letter just makes me ill. The "urban designs" they allegedly spent so much time on were doomed to begin with, if they ever were actually proposed. Home Depot and Costco don't do "urban." "Urban" cuts down on parking and cheap, one-story, square-mile buildings. They're able to be profitable because they violate a currently unpunished economic statute: land is the source of profit and prosperity, and is not to be wasted.

Midtown marketplace is a product of backward(but unfortunately popular) tax laws, and ignorant developers who don't see a city as what it is: a golden opportunity for anyone in it, and the pinnacle of human society. It is a product of people who think that the way that Midtown was in 1990 is the eventual terminus for all cities.

I hope this guy gets a rash.

trailerkid · Post by **trailerkid** » Fri Jan 30, 2004 1:47 am

I realize it was some year's ago, but Home Depot and Costco had leverage and they used it. They could have built a store out of cement, cardboard, and super glue. When you market a site with blight being one of its main selling points, you are not going to get an overly cooperative tenant. Had something creative, innovative, and refreshing been drawn up for the site, tenants wouldn've been more receptive. The point is that it is time to stop asking..."Oh my God! What can we put in this s@$#hole?" and to start asking ..."how can we build something that will be spectacular and make a positive impact on the neighborhood?"

FangKC · Post by **FangKC** » Fri Jan 30, 2004 2:12 am

Trailer, J.C. Nichols is smiling down on you.

Post by **mean** » Sat Jan 31, 2004 4:12 pm

They were trying to get Home-fucking-Depot into the urban core!

Yeah. Sux. But when I was in Chicago, I noticed a Home Depot on Halsted(?), in Lincoln Park across from the bar my band played at. It wasn't like Midtown Marketplace at all. It was up to the street and multiple floors, and blended in flawlessly with the surrounding urban environment. I couldn't believe it was a Home Depot. Why couldn't we do that here? Granted, Lincoln Park and Linwood are worlds apart, but...so what?

KCK · Post by **KCK** » Sat Jan 31, 2004 8:16 pm

Home Depot and Costco sat there and griped complaining that they wouldn't be able to make money because the area isn't as rich as JOCO or Lees Summit, or whatever. Then after the city gives them enough tax breaks, they go there and make big bucks. They played us for fools. They insist they won't build in the inner city, and then after we have to spend a great deal of money convincing them, they come in and make money off of the thousands of inner city, retail starved residents.

Post by **bahua** » Sun Feb 01, 2004 6:36 pm

...and not to mention off the businesses they killed.

DiggityDawg · Post by **DiggityDawg** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 2:12 pm

bahua wrote:...and not to mention off the businesses they killed.

See, I dunno how many Midtown businesses the MM has "killed". Before Costco, we did ALL our grocery shopping out in Johnson County. Now we do at least half as Costco. There wasn't anywhere around here to do grocery shopping that wasn't a complete dump before.

And as far as Home Depot goes...all the hardware stores in the area seem to be doing OK still. We were in Ace Hardware in the Old Westport shopping center Sat AM - that place was a madhouse.

I know where you're coming from...I just don't see MM as one of those Wal-Mart/Small Town Downtown scenarios.

trailerkid · Post by **trailerkid** » Mon Mar 08, 2004 2:13 am

Although not the best example for execution, West Village and its planned expansion in Dallas are what Midtown Marketplace could've been (an edgier, hipper version of the Plaza). Let's remember it took Steve Block ten years to get tenants for Midtown Marketplace. Blame Barnes for cosigning such an awful piece of development on the edge of downtown, but blame that shmuck Block for being without a freakin' clue. While Dallas was doing something "up to date" and exciting just north of their downtown, Steve Block was trying to push a watermelon through a keyhole. And the city gave him $34 million to do it with. This is not rocket science people...

West Village's proposed expansion...

West Village at night...

Urban villages makes sense...

West Village Master Plan...

West Village brings small-town feel to development
Lisa Tanner
UPTOWN -- It's a new development that's a throwback to the small town of the past. People will live above stores and restaurants, walking to those businesses as well as a theater.

West Village will also become a retail "anchor" for the Uptown area, known for clusters of upscale housing. The $60 million project is the first major retail development in that area.

The mixed-use development will be bounded by McKinney, Lemmon, Cole and Blackburn avenues. The project will be split 50-50 between multifamily housing and specialty retail, a joint project of apartment developer Phoenix Property Co. of Dallas and Urban Partners Inc., an affiliate of Henry S. Miller Interests of Dallas.

The four-story development will include 178 luxury-apartment homes and lofts, with 122,000 square feet of retail, restaurant and entertainment space, including Landmark Theater's Uptown Cinema.

The West Village project will make a unique contribution to the city, said Henry S. Miller III, chairman of Urban Partners. Miller and his associate, Robert W. Bagwell, have been working on the project for about three years. Urban Partners won out over several other developers, convincing previous landowner Cityplace that they could make the development work, despite the fact that they had to raise the money to do it and others already had the money available, Miller said.

"It's been a challenging project," Miller said.

The retail mix will include national retailers such as The Gap, Banana Republic and Ann Taylor Loft. The project is slated to open in March 2001.

David M. Schwarz is design architect for West Village, with KSNG Architects Inc. as production architect.

Engineers are L.A. Fuess for structural and BEI for mechanical. Financing came from equity partner Transworld Properties, Bank of America for the construction loan and Holiday, Fenoglio and Fowler as mortgage broker.

DalMac is contractor for the project.

Â© 2000 American City Business Journals Inc.

Midtown Marketplace
Cost: $68 million(including Mill Street Station) Public support = $34 million.
Completion date: 2001

West Village
Cost: $60 million (initial phase)
Completion date: 2001

At least all we have to do is knock down a couple big boxes to start over and develop something worthwhile.

Downtowner · Post by **Downtowner** » Mon Mar 08, 2004 11:52 am

Remember, this project could have been a lot worse. The original lineup of tenants was supposed to be Kmart (failing), Toys r us (bankrupt), and Payless Cashways (bankrupt). Costco was the best possible addition I could imagine...so willing to suffer the "big box" look. What I don't get is that horrible building on the corner. What is that? The architect for that thing should be put out of business. They could have made up for the huge lots by blocking them with really cool buildings fronting the street. It gets my vote for the worst building in KC.

trailerkid · Post by **trailerkid** » Mon Mar 08, 2004 12:58 pm

Downtowner wrote:Remember, this project could have been a lot worse. The original lineup of tenants was supposed to be Kmart (failing), Toys r us (bankrupt), and Payless Cashways (bankrupt).

This would've been a better option because then we would be redeveloping it right now instead of 10 years from now. To me, a vacant field would be better than big box chains in Midtown.

Steve Block should stay in the suburbs where he belongs.

paisstat · Post by **paisstat** » Fri Apr 02, 2004 10:08 pm

This area is very much a chance that has gone terribly wrong. The area could have been developed high density style but of course big corporations almost always take the easy way out and put up a big box with parking in front. This type of development should be outlawed in the entire country and Kansas City should set the example. Those lots are a much bigger eye sore than a run down building. I would much rather see run down buildings than vast parking lots that encourage car culture.

trailerkid · Post by **trailerkid** » Sat Apr 03, 2004 12:43 am

paisstat wrote:This area is very much a chance that has gone terribly wrong. The area could have been developed high density style but of course big corporations almost always take the easy way out and put up a big box with parking in front. This type of development should be outlawed in the entire country and Kansas City should set the example. Those lots are a much bigger eye sore than a run down building. I would much rather see run down buildings than vast parking lots that encourage car culture.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Yet another example of the damn "it's better than what we had before" attitude-- probably the most simplistic way of looking at life. Block had the property for a decade and KCMO subsidized this terrible piece of development to the tune of over $30 million dollars of taxes.

There are no excuses or bright sides. I wouldn't be surprised to see something like this in downtown Salina, Kansas, but not in the middle of a major city.

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Sat Apr 03, 2004 1:25 am

no doubt the land could have been used better than it was.

this theory of everything must be perfectly planned or it's terrible is self defeating and unrealistic. Demanding the best is always the goal but accepting nothing else will leave any urban area empty.

trailerkid · Post by **trailerkid** » Sat Apr 03, 2004 2:15 am

KC wrote:no doubt the land could have been used better than it was.

this theory of everything must be perfectly planned or it's terrible is self defeating and unrealistic. Demanding the best is always the goal but accepting nothing else will leave any urban area empty.

I know reality is nothing is perfect...I am not expecting perfection. But I hope for us to strive for something more than replacing the heart of the city with something that looks and feels like 119th and Metcalf. It is time for the city to adopt a lot more visionary codes and standards for what we build around us-- specifically if they are city-subsidized.

Critical_Mass · Post by **Critical_Mass** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 2:24 pm

This suburban style stip building next to the McDonald's on Main will house:
Verizon Wireless
EB Games
and darnit, I forget the other two.
5 total tenant spaces, one unleased so far

Post by **chrizow** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 4:30 pm

verizon wireless and EB Games? wtf? is this lee's summit?

(yes...yes it is).

Tosspot · Post by **Tosspot** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 4:43 pm

I'm quite irritated that in this day and age our city is still allowing sububan style crap to be built in the urban core. Density and mixed use is what we should be striving for, but the soulless minions of bureaucracy will hear nothing of it.

ComandanteCero · Post by **ComandanteCero** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 5:53 pm

these are supposed to be the urban design guidelines for main street between 27th and 47th, there's supposed to be an urban design committee that overlooks this area that looks at proposed projects, i don't know how the midtown marketplace got built if these are the guidelines (then again i'm not too acquainted with what the exact definitions of many of these terms are, so it's possible there is a lot of leeway in that. Plus, i didn't really read all the guidelines

):

http://www.kcmo.org/planning.nsf/plnpre ... endocument

Standards and Regulations

I. Buildings Considerations

A. Any new structure shall be built with the facade covering at least 70% of the primary street frontage of any site with 100 feet or more of frontage, provided, however, that in the case of a corner lot with two primary street frontages, the 70% minimum shall apply only to the primary street of greater distance and the primary street frontage of lesser distance shall require only 25% coverage.

B. The primary street frontage shall be designed to possess one of the following elements:

l. The facade of a building, which shall be located at the street line, unless the building is 100 feet or more in height, in which case it shall be set back from the street line no more than 10% of the height of the building: provided, however, this option shall not be available to any building used exclusively for residential use; or

2. A wall or fence located within five (5) feet of the street line, which meets the condition of Design Guideline II.A.3, subject to the following criteria:

a. If solid (forming a barrier to visibility) the wall must be at least 18" in height and may not be more than 42" in height, unless it has openings, display cases or similar features at least every 20 feet.

b. If not solid (such as a lattice screen for other configuration offering visual penetration), the fence or wall must have regular openings comprising no less than 60% of the surface; or

3. Outdoor courtyard including seating, ornamental pillars, sculpture, fountains, or other amenities, or

4. Landscaping in accordance with a landscaping plan, submitted by the property owner (or designated agent) and approved by the Design Review Committee; such landscaping plan shall include the following:

a. Compatibility with species, scale and design of appropriate landscaping of adjacent and nearby properties, and

b. Appropriate treatment for the subject property, incorporating design element of the building facade, if applicable.

C. No paved surface shall occupy more than 66% of the total lot area; the remaining lot area shall be for building coverage or landscaping.

D. There shall be an interruption of the facade wall plane with entrances, windows, and/or indentations at intervals of no more than 20 feet.

E. At least one building entrance shall be along or connected to the primary street frontage. The principal building entrance shall be along the primary street frontage if the frontage is in excess of l00 feet.

F. Building sides where visible from any street shall be finished with similar architectural facing materials that are used on the primary street facade of the building.

G. Design, materials and scale shall be consistent with the existing traditional masonry storefront buildings that are prevalent along Main Street.

H. Roof top and other mechanical equipment shall be integrated into the design of the building in such a way that they are not visible from the street right-of-way adjacent to the building.

I. "Primary Street Frontage" as used herein shall mean Main Street and any arterial street defined by the Major Street Plan.

II. Site Considerations

A. Landscaping, screening, and amenities

1. Any area of at least two (2) feet between the street line and building facade shall be landscaped and improved with grass, trees, shrubs, ground cover and/or other appropriate materials; however, no area, regardless of size shall be left in d state of weeds, untended soil or rubble.

2. Maintenance shall be provided to ensure that the landscape materials provided will survive.

3. Fences or walls visible from the street right of way shall be of materials and design compatible with building and in accordance with Design Guideline I.G.; no fence visible from the street right of way shall be chain link or barbed wire.

4. Trash and garbage receptacles and mechanical equipment, including electrical transformers and other utility equipment, shall be screened with appropriate and harmonious materials that are similar to the architectural facing materials that are used on the facade of the building.

5. No outdoor storage of any materials or items shall be permitted.

B. Circulation.

1. The maximum number of driveways shall be as follows:

1 for up to 150 feet of frontage;
2 for 150 feet to 500 feet of frontage;
3 for 500 feet or greater frontage:
1 additional driveway for each additional 500 feet of frontage.

C. Parking

1. No off-street parking shall be provided within five (5) feet of the street right-of-way, unless separated by a wall meeting the requirements of Design Guideline I . B. 2.

2. No off-street loading or service areas shall be provided between any building and the primary street line.

3. Parking, loading and service areas shall be screened from any street view with fences, walls, hedges or a combination thereof. Fences and walls shall conform to Design Guidelines I.G. and II.A.3.

III. Signage

A. Building identification signs shall be integrated into the building design.

B. No freestanding signs shall be allowed in excess of forty (40) square feet nor higher than seventeen (17) feet.

C. No outdoor advertising signs shall be allowed in excess of forty (40) square feet nor higher than seventeen (17) feet.

D. No attached sign shall extend higher than the roofline or parapet of any building or structure.

E. No sign shall flash, blink, or fluctuate.

F. No sign shall be animated or change physical position by any movement.

G. No sign shall have a maximum gross area in excess of 5% of the total square foot area of a building wall. In multiple-story buildings the total height of the wall shall not exceed twenty feet for computation purposes.

H. In no case shall the maximum gross area of signage on the facade or any side of a building exceed 70 square feet.

I. Permitted signs not requiring design review include: directional and informational signs, sale, exchange, or lease signs, and other signs of a temporary nature. Such signs shall only be displayed on property involved and shall be limited in size to 15 square feet per sign.

DiggityDawg · Post by **DiggityDawg** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 11:51 am

The other 2 tenants are Lamar's Donuts & a tax preparer's office ( I wanna say Jackson Hewitt, but I'm not sure ) .

There's another thread or 2 about this around the board somewhere.