1650 Broadway

[smh]

To be clear, much like 1400 Wyandotte, I'm not saying don't build it. I'm saying let's make sure the ground floor is appropriate in an urban context. I expressed similar reservations re: 1400 Wyandotte and now after seeing the ground floor plan can feel confident that the project will add vibrancy to the block. But you really can't fault skepticism even at "this site" after we've been used and abused so many times in this city. Within the last month new parking meters were installed in the middle of the sidewalk, so forgive me if I am overly sensitive about the pedestrian environment. I don't trust City Hall to do anything to support folks moving around in anything other than a car.

Think you are letting good get in the way of perfect here.

Burns & mac ground-floor may have been a case of bad

I hear you, hope I'm wrong.

[moderne]

Where's the ground floor plan that you have seen? For 1650 Broadway or the BCBS building? Not sure what 1400 Wyandotte you mean, unless referring to the recent plan for the 1300 block of Wyandotte, NE corner at 14th & Wyandotte.

[smh]

Where's the ground floor plan that you have seen? For 1650 Broadway or the BCBS building? Not sure what 1400 Wyandotte you mean, unless referring to the recent plan for the 1300 block of Wyandotte, NE corner at 14th & Wyandotte.

Exactly, have not seen a ground floor plan. Just going on the renderings provided so far. Yes, whatever we're calling the project on the NE corner of 14th and Wyandotte.

[FlippantCitizen]

It’s not NIMBYISM to say that the curb cut for the garage in a render looks out of proportion. The circle drive likewise looks far beyond simply accommodating the hotel valet. It looks huge. I’ll agree that this is kind of a marginal spot for pedestrian activation/place building so whatever. Really my critique is aesthetic, other than the height the site plan looks like something that should be near town center. IDK it just doesn’t feel “Kansas City.” Maybe for this site this time it’s fine but I’m not a fan of the form this proposal takes in general.

[UMKCroo]

Building was demolished today.


https://www.google.com/maps/place/1650+ ... 11b8v6fbzx#

[FangKC]

I would like to see the back side of buildings and the garage, and an aerial site plan, to see what is happening there.

My initial thought is to agree that garage entrances/exits should be on Washington. As for the hotel drop-off loop, I would like to see it placed behind the building with a one-way lane at the very north corner of the property on Broadway with an additional exit lane looping around to Washington. The hotel lobby might have two entrances. One for the drop-off loop and the other facing Broadway.

The north tower might be enhanced with a lit mast structure.







One of the things I liked about the earlier design for this site is how they handled the drop-off loop. The loop is accessed by a side street-like treatment. It also had the buildings facing the sidewalk and allowed for the possibility of entrances to retail along the sidewalk. The only thing I would have changed about that design is setting the sidewalk further back from Broadway to allow for street trees and landscaping between the curb and sidewalk like was done across the street.

I don't know why so many architects are afraid of putting buildings right up to the sidewalk. There are hotels, offices, and residential buildings with entrances up against the sidewalk on slopes in cities all over the world. Past architects were able to accomplish this along 10th Street downtown. Paris, Lisbon, San Francisco, and Istanbul all have multi-story buildings up to the sidewalk on much steeper streets than Broadway. Those cities even manage to have businesses in those buildings.

[Cratedigger]

Is it a city code thing re: setbacks?

Not an architect so don’t know

[horizons82]

The city still has some absurd setbacks along its boulevard system, but I don't believe this area of Broadway has them.

Setbacks in this instance are more about what the client wants. If the client wants a curvaceous, Miami-style tower like this, then that's what the architect will design.

IMO, you can fix the streetscape issues by adding a retail or amenity space at the base of the southern tower. Otherwise, this seems to be doing an acceptable (though not excellent) job of engaging with Broadway.

[Eon Blue]

Building was demolished today.


https://www.google.com/maps/place/1650+ ... 11b8v6fbzx#

Find someone who loves you the way Kansas City loves demolitions for speculative developments.

[KCKev]

Building was demolished today.

Goodbye old friend. I knew you as The jewelry factory as a kid, I found alot of cool trinkets in the dumpster. This was earley 1970s

https://www.google.com/maps/place/1650+ ... 11b8v6fbzx#

Find someone who loves you the way Kansas City loves demolitions for speculative developments.

[atticus23]

In terms of this building being 500', how long does it usually take to get an approval from the FAA? I know it took forever for them to approve and collaborate with the city with the River Market buildings; should I assume it will take as long with this?

[Chris Stritzel]

The applications for the 500ft+ tall version have been moved from "proposed" to "interim" on the FAA's website. Not sure what "interim" means, but could be a good sign.
https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/se ... 79&row=133

[moderne]

KC Star front page article about FAA denying 500 feet saying 12 floors must be lopped off for 350' max, Platt threatening to do away with Wheeler DT airport.

[langosta]

KC Star front page article about FAA denying 500 feet saying 12 floors must be lopped off for 350' max, Platt threatening to do away with Wheeler DT airport.

More like Platt has rightly identified the downtown airport (FAA) as a roadblock to future development in the downtown area. He is not wrong based on the FAA’s recent behavior! The city’s blanket height approval made sense, unfortunate the FAA didn’t agree.

Other cities removed their downtown airports to unlock development and recreation. May eventually be the case here

[Chris Stritzel]

Honestly, 350ft here would still be a monster due to surrounding context. I'm not too upset with the FAA about this decision simply because 520ft, on a hill, surrounded by 2-3-story buildings and the Kauffman Center is excessive. It's unlikely anything of similar height would be built nearby anyways, so this would always stand out. If I were EPC/GDC, I might actually feel relieved that the 350ft height was approved and undergo a project redesign to create an ultra special project that will always stand out on the skyline and be high-quality.

[GRID]

Honestly, 350ft here would still be a monster due to surrounding context. I'm not too upset with the FAA about this decision simply because 520ft, on a hill, surrounded by 2-3-story buildings and the Kauffman Center is excessive. It's unlikely anything of similar height would be built nearby anyways, so this would always stand out. If I were EPC/GDC, I might actually feel relieved that the 350ft height was approved and undergo a project redesign to create an ultra special project that will always stand out on the skyline and be high-quality.

Yep. A 350' building would actually look much better in that location.

I don't get the problem with MKC. Most of downtown is not a problem. You get into that area near I-35 and you are very close to the main flight pattern into the airport.

There are 1000 places downtown where you could easily build a 500' tower. Most of the city east of Main is still very undeveloped and you could probably go as high as you want in that area. The River market doesn't need 20 story buildings either.

Build some skyscrapers on Grand Ave. That street needs some new buildings as does Oak etc to the east.

[GRID]

KC Star front page article about FAA denying 500 feet saying 12 floors must be lopped off for 350' max, Platt threatening to do away with Wheeler DT airport.

More like Platt has rightly identified the downtown airport (FAA) as a roadblock to future development in the downtown area. He is not wrong based on the FAA’s recent behavior! The city’s blanket height approval made sense, unfortunate the FAA didn’t agree.

Other cities removed their downtown airports to unlock development and recreation. May eventually be the case here

I would be silly to close MKC, but that would be a nice spot for a downtown ballpark.

[TheUrbanRoo]

Honestly, 350ft here would still be a monster due to surrounding context. I'm not too upset with the FAA about this decision simply because 520ft, on a hill, surrounded by 2-3-story buildings and the Kauffman Center is excessive. It's unlikely anything of similar height would be built nearby anyways, so this would always stand out. If I were EPC/GDC, I might actually feel relieved that the 350ft height was approved and undergo a project redesign to create an ultra special project that will always stand out on the skyline and be high-quality.

Do we think they're going to adjust and just build the 350 ft height instead? That still ends up being like 28 stories.

I do agree that we should be putting the 500+ towers in spots that make more sense...like Grand.

[moderne]

Agree about Grand, but who controls those parcels? Any developer that is adventurous enough to do a tall structure does not have that land available as it is being banked by other interests.

[langosta]

The problem isn’t this specific project but instead everything in RM and RF getting delayed or stopped.