Sky and Cordish $253M project
Re: Sky and Cordish $253M project
I'd pick 4L myself and it's days away from being put out for invitations to bid. I had been told a few months ago the Sky project was next but I haven't heard much about that one lately.
Re: Sky and Cordish $253M project
Agreed. Finish development of N. Truman and then the focus can shift on getting S. Truman developed since its more than just the lots on Main that need developed.
-
- Alameda Tower
- Posts: 1320
- Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2022 8:39 pm
Re: Sky and Cordish $253M project
Well that leaves us at a 3-3 tie.
BFashes or normalthings, care to break it?
BFashes or normalthings, care to break it?
- Chris Stritzel
- Penntower
- Posts: 2376
- Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2017 9:27 pm
Re: Sky and Cordish $253M project
I'm not them, but I'll say that I'm in favor of 4 Light being completed before the project south of the highway. Let the Power and Light District more or less become built-out before pursuing things further south. If demand holds up after four Light towers, then, if I was Cordish, I would move ahead with the upmost confidence in the other two buildings. Plus, complete the wall of new buildings along the highway from Wyandotte to Grand. It would be impressive and makes sense to complete that side and not leave a gap in the nearly completed wall.
- beautyfromashes
- One Park Place
- Posts: 7290
- Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:04 am
Re: Sky and Cordish $253M project
This is the way. Cordish hasn't even reached out to the Crossroads.beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 10:05 pmMy OCD would probably want to have them finish the Lights before they start the Skys, numbers go in order and all.
Re: Sky and Cordish $253M project
I'll play devil's advocate and disagree. I say start across Truman and get those northern corners completed. Those are the biggest eyesores and if they were completed the cap park would not really be necessary. The cap looks like a necessity right now because of those ugly corners. I'm just not a fan of the cap, I think it is unnecessary and unless private interests and the Feds pay for 90% it seems like a waste of $$ that could be spent much better.
- Chris Stritzel
- Penntower
- Posts: 2376
- Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2017 9:27 pm
Re: Sky and Cordish $253M project
Cap is needed with or without these buildings. Only a deaf person could stand the noise that highway makes.Jblanco wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 10:07 pm I'll play devil's advocate and disagree. I say start across Truman and get those northern corners completed. Those are the biggest eyesores and if they were completed the cap park would not really be necessary. The cap looks like a necessity right now because of those ugly corners. I'm just not a fan of the cap, I think it is unnecessary and unless private interests and the Feds pay for 90% it seems like a waste of $$ that could be spent much better.
- beautyfromashes
- One Park Place
- Posts: 7290
- Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:04 am
Re: Sky and Cordish $253M project
And all because Cordish is only capable or willing to have one building under construction at a time.
Btw, every time I type Cordish, it corrects to Cornish (like the hen). I’m just going to go with it from now on. I just don’t care.
Btw, every time I type Cordish, it corrects to Cornish (like the hen). I’m just going to go with it from now on. I just don’t care.
-
- Alameda Tower
- Posts: 1320
- Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2022 8:39 pm
Re: Sky and Cordish $253M project
I guess my preferred option would be 4L if they'd atleast have started construction on the towers south of Truman before the World Cup
Re: Sky and Cordish $253M project
you were spot on until you started talking about the cap... The cap is the most necessary project downtownJblanco wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 10:07 pm I'll play devil's advocate and disagree. I say start across Truman and get those northern corners completed. Those are the biggest eyesores and if they were completed the cap park would not really be necessary. The cap looks like a necessity right now because of those ugly corners. I'm just not a fan of the cap, I think it is unnecessary and unless private interests and the Feds pay for 90% it seems like a waste of $$ that could be spent much better.
Re: Sky and Cordish $253M project
They’re capable as they’re currently building several projects around the country at the same time. If this were NYC or some mega market I’d understand a more aggressive push but slow and steady is the right call to ensure we don’t end up with 4 half-full luxury towers.beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 11:14 pm And all because Cordish is only capable or willing to have one building under construction at a time.
Btw, every time I type Cordish, it corrects to Cornish (like the hen). I’m just going to go with it from now on. I just don’t care.
The Midland will break ground within weeks and overlap with 3L. 4L is likely to overlap midland and very possible Sky project overlaps 4L.
Re: Sky and Cordish $253M project
Even bigger than Royals Stadium?mister816 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 05, 2023 12:14 amyou were spot on until you started talking about the cap... The cap is the most necessary project downtownJblanco wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 10:07 pm I'll play devil's advocate and disagree. I say start across Truman and get those northern corners completed. Those are the biggest eyesores and if they were completed the cap park would not really be necessary. The cap looks like a necessity right now because of those ugly corners. I'm just not a fan of the cap, I think it is unnecessary and unless private interests and the Feds pay for 90% it seems like a waste of $$ that could be spent much better.
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
- FlippantCitizen
- Western Auto Lofts
- Posts: 576
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 5:29 pm
- Location: Chicago
Re: Sky and Cordish $253M project
I'll say I don't really care which goes first as long as both happen in the next 6-8 years. The lot south of the highway I think will complement the cap better so on the margin I guess it edges in for me, but not too big a deal either way IMO.
Jblanco... Don't like the cap? Damn, I really think the cap is going to be hugely transformative. Some KC Rag heresy going on in here.
Jblanco... Don't like the cap? Damn, I really think the cap is going to be hugely transformative. Some KC Rag heresy going on in here.
Re: Sky and Cordish $253M project
As the devil's advocate: an argument might have been better made for covering the freeway back in the 20th century when for decades it was a festering unhealed scar downtown. Adjoining on both sides were vacant parking lots and decaying downgraded buildings. The only things built were the brutalist state unemployment building and the small Hereford building. Then late last century Bartle Hall jumped the freeway. Then the Star Pavilion, Kay Barnes Ballroom, the T Mobile arena, Loew's Hotel, Blue Cross, now 2 and 3 lights. Seems like the necrotic tissue around the scar is filling in quite nicely without covering the freeway. Covering the freeway will just be non-essential cosmetic surgery.
-
- Alameda Tower
- Posts: 1320
- Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2022 8:39 pm
Re: Sky and Cordish $253M project
6 years tops. If it's more than that then something went wrong.FlippantCitizen wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 2:34 pm I'll say I don't really care which goes first as long as both happen in the next 6-8 years. The lot south of the highway I think will complement the cap better so on the margin I guess it edges in for me, but not too big a deal either way IMO.
Jblanco... Don't like the cap? Damn, I really think the cap is going to be hugely transformative. Some KC Rag heresy going on in here.
Re: Sky and Cordish $253M project
Downtown KC still needs a lot of cosmetic surgery though. Just to counter your devil's advocate, I don't think you could have done it until you had a big enough mass of people north and south. It would have been another failed park.
Which one do I want first? Selfishly I hate that auto repair shop and would like to see it go while the other locations don't bother me as much.
I'm a little confused still on the sky plans and who else is kicking in money and who is calling the shots.
Which one do I want first? Selfishly I hate that auto repair shop and would like to see it go while the other locations don't bother me as much.
I'm a little confused still on the sky plans and who else is kicking in money and who is calling the shots.
Re: Sky and Cordish $253M project
I think it's more essential now. The noise is a deterant for outdoor amenities.moderne wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 2:47 pm As the devil's advocate: an argument might have been better made for covering the freeway back in the 20th century when for decades it was a festering unhealed scar downtown. Adjoining on both sides were vacant parking lots and decaying downgraded buildings. The only things built were the brutalist state unemployment building and the small Hereford building. Then late last century Bartle Hall jumped the freeway. Then the Star Pavilion, Kay Barnes Ballroom, the T Mobile arena, Loew's Hotel, Blue Cross, now 2 and 3 lights. Seems like the necrotic tissue around the scar is filling in quite nicely without covering the freeway. Covering the freeway will just be non-essential cosmetic surgery.
Re: Sky and Cordish $253M project
It's a partnership between Cordish and JE Dunn. Can safely assume Cordish will lead the design and operations.WoodDraw wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 3:41 pm Downtown KC still needs a lot of cosmetic surgery though. Just to counter your devil's advocate, I don't think you could have done it until you had a big enough mass of people north and south. It would have been another failed park.
Which one do I want first? Selfishly I hate that auto repair shop and would like to see it go while the other locations don't bother me as much.
I'm a little confused still on the sky plans and who else is kicking in money and who is calling the shots.
Re: Sky and Cordish $253M project
Yeah, would just be interested to know the details. Like can cordish prioritize their own stuff over the joint venture.DColeKC wrote: ↑Mon Jan 09, 2023 11:55 amIt's a partnership between Cordish and JE Dunn. Can safely assume Cordish will lead the design and operations.WoodDraw wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 3:41 pm Downtown KC still needs a lot of cosmetic surgery though. Just to counter your devil's advocate, I don't think you could have done it until you had a big enough mass of people north and south. It would have been another failed park.
Which one do I want first? Selfishly I hate that auto repair shop and would like to see it go while the other locations don't bother me as much.
I'm a little confused still on the sky plans and who else is kicking in money and who is calling the shots.