OFFICIAL - Bartle Hall Expansion construction

Issues concerning Downtown as described by the Downtown Council. River to 31st Street, I-35 to Bruce R. Watkins.
zonk
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1250
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2003 12:07 pm
Location: downtown

Re: OFFICIAL - Bartle Hall Expansion construction

Post by zonk »

i like it as well....for sure it's a HUGE improvement over what was there!
trailerkid
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 11284
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 4:49 pm

Re: OFFICIAL - Bartle Hall Expansion construction

Post by trailerkid »

nemesis wrote: This is an extremely poor example of integrating art and architecture.  It is clear that neither the artist or the architect have any understanding of art or architecture as they have completely disregarded the core design principals of the existing building.  I hope that we will no longer allow such trite examples projects being given to people who don't deserve or are capable of contributing positively to our built environment.
What bothers you about it formally? I get what you're saying about it seeming tacked on to an existing paradigm.

Does anyone have any better pictures?
User avatar
GRID
City Hall
City Hall
Posts: 17083
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 12:20 pm
Contact:

Re: OFFICIAL - Bartle Hall Expansion construction

Post by GRID »

aknowledgeableperson wrote: Of course you have to have a loading dock somewhere.  When Bartle was first built it had two loading docks, the one referenced above and the other one on 14th St.  Two docks were needed for various reasons (like one show using the hall on the north and the other show using a hall on the south).  So where would you have put it?
They still have the huge loading dock that was part of the expansion on the west side of Broadway where the covered bridge to the dock is.

I think there is one on the south end too.  This is kind of a silly thread.  For what Bartle is, I think it's integrated quite well into the city's urban fabric.  It's a giant box that covers several city blocks.  It's not near as bad as it could be or as bad as most convention centers.

That's why if it's expanded again, it should be expanded to the southwest over the freeway interchange so it won't do any further harm to the urban fabric while providing more exhibit space.
User avatar
im2kull
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3928
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 4:33 pm
Location: KCMO

Re: OFFICIAL - Bartle Hall Expansion construction

Post by im2kull »

GRID wrote: That's why if it's expanded again, it should be expanded to the southwest over the freeway interchange so it won't do any further harm to the urban fabric while providing more exhibit space.
Agree'd, hopefully this will be the case.
What's graciously given to KC, is strong for the region as a whole.  Passion and benevolence will one day exeem towards all whom know true adoration.  We shall triumph to better the community as One within
THINK (ONE) KC.
User avatar
Midtownkid
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2991
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 4:27 pm
Location: Roanoke, KCMO

Re: OFFICIAL - Bartle Hall Expansion construction

Post by Midtownkid »

Isn't it OK for this guy to not like the loading dock and voice that opinion?  Seems like everyone attacks new comers when they are on this board.  That is no way to retain new members...(is that the point? Do you not want new people on here?)  More and more this board seems to be a bitch-fest.  I miss the old days, up until about a year or two ago.
aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12625
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: OFFICIAL - Bartle Hall Expansion construction

Post by aknowledgeableperson »

PumpkinStalker wrote: Underground like evil parking!
underground loading docks.  get real.  i can just see it now, a motor home (like describled in the paper today) being loaded into an elevator.

load in and load out costs for events would be almost prohibitive.
I may be right.  I may be wrong.  But there is a lot of gray area in-between.
KC-wildcat
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3528
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 10:54 am
Location: UMKC Law

Re: OFFICIAL - Bartle Hall Expansion construction

Post by KC-wildcat »

Midtownkid wrote: Isn't it OK for this guy to not like the loading dock and voice that opinion? 
Sure it is.  But maybe he should have explained his opinion a bit further.  If you're going to point to a loading dock as an example of KC's inferiroity complex, expect to be called on it.   
macnw
Colonnade
Colonnade
Posts: 950
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2002 9:27 pm
Location: Portland

Re: OFFICIAL - Bartle Hall Expansion construction

Post by macnw »

Isn't it OK for this guy to not like the loading dock and voice that opinion?  Seems like everyone attacks new comers when they are on this board.  That is no way to retain new members...(is that the point? Do you not want new people on here?)  More and more this board seems to be a bitch-fest.  I miss the old days, up until about a year or two ago.

Ain't that the truth
User avatar
GRID
City Hall
City Hall
Posts: 17083
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 12:20 pm
Contact:

Re: OFFICIAL - Bartle Hall Expansion construction

Post by GRID »

KC-wildcat wrote: Sure it is.  But maybe he should have explained his opinion a bit further.  If you're going to point to a loading dock as an example of KC's inferiroity complex, expect to be called on it.   
seriously.  I would think a person could come up with many more valid examples than the loading dock.  It is what it is. You can start by tearing out Barney Allis Plaza and trying that again...
User avatar
voltopt
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2812
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 2:56 pm
Location: Manheim Park
Contact:

Re: OFFICIAL - Bartle Hall Expansion construction

Post by voltopt »

nemesis wrote: This is an extremely poor example of integrating art and architecture.  It is clear that neither the artist or the architect have any understanding of art or architecture as they have completely disregarded the core design principals of the existing building.  I hope that we will no longer allow such trite examples projects being given to people who don't deserve or are capable of contributing positively to our built environment.
I also dislike the solution that was applied to the North loading dock of Bartle Hall.  The irregular mesh triangles are distracting and cheap looking.  
The deconstruction of the dominate shape (a triangle) is in this case muddied by a bad use of materials.  Crumpled mesh triangles fabricated from metal stock do nothing to break down the scale of the overall building - its incongruous and the metal looks like it is oil canning and bent more by nature and less by a builder.  I think something a little more organized would have been appropriate - maybe letting the rhythm of Bartle Halls structure break down into smaller components at the pedestrian level, to help alleviate the scale difference.  
And I imagine a simpler, more elegant solution would have been less expensive.  The argument that a limited budget produced the shimmery crumpled paper metal mesh shapes is narrow minded.  Part of creative expression in architecture requires a certain amount of economy - not just fiscally, but also with an idea.  Too much of something renders a concept illegible.  

I think its acceptable to criticize something - its great that its not just a loading dock, but why do so many insist that we accept whatever happens just because its better than was there before?  Something can be better and still be a bad solution.
"I never quarrel, sir; but I do fight, sir; and when I fight, sir, a funeral follows, sir."   -senator thomas hart benton
LenexatoKCMO
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 14667
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 3:34 pm
Location: Valentine

Re: OFFICIAL - Bartle Hall Expansion construction

Post by LenexatoKCMO »

KC-wildcat wrote: Sure it is.  But maybe he should have explained his opinion a bit further.  If you're going to point to a loading dock as an example of KC's inferiroity complex, expect to be called on it.   
Exactly - claiming that we are complaicant and rolling over because we aren't all piss and vinegar over a loading dock beautification project is ridiculous and offensive to the regular critics on this board.  It covered up a major utilitarian eyesore - maybe it wasn't to everyone's personal taste - big whup!  Should we start critiquing Defenbaugh's dumpster designs too?  I have a hell a lot bigger beefs with various development designs around this city than I do with what I consider to be a pretty successful dock beautification - I guess that somehow means I should be ok with being called out as part of the problem in this city. 
User avatar
Midtownkid
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2991
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 4:27 pm
Location: Roanoke, KCMO

Re: OFFICIAL - Bartle Hall Expansion construction

Post by Midtownkid »

Well, looking back at his first post, I guess he did come off a bit harsh and maybe dramatic.  Still, it just seemed like every one was harsh back.  I donno, I guess it just seems like this forum has changed a bit.  Maybe it's just me.  It seems more clicky than before.
User avatar
voltopt
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2812
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 2:56 pm
Location: Manheim Park
Contact:

Re: OFFICIAL - Bartle Hall Expansion construction

Post by voltopt »

There is a prevailing attitude around here of "why are you criticizing X!  It's an improvement over Y, therefore it shall not be criticized!"

Fortunately for this forum, there isn't a criticism moderator who assigns a value to what can and what cannot be criticized.  Differing opinions and constant discussion lead to a better solution - if an opinion about Kansas City's inferiority complex is expressed, it needn't be dismissed utterly as false.  Maybe it should be vetted objectively.
"I never quarrel, sir; but I do fight, sir; and when I fight, sir, a funeral follows, sir."   -senator thomas hart benton
User avatar
voltopt
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2812
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 2:56 pm
Location: Manheim Park
Contact:

Re: OFFICIAL - Bartle Hall Expansion construction

Post by voltopt »

Another thought that has been bothering me - is there an absolute common goal for the entirety of urban Kansas City, MO?  However good my intentions, I imagine that occasionally I am part of the problem in this city.  There are many ways to look at what makes a successful city, and there are many different people with different backgrounds and different things at stake.  In my excitement for a better Kansas City, I may occasionally interfere with a different set of goals.  That's okay - that's what makes a city great.
"I never quarrel, sir; but I do fight, sir; and when I fight, sir, a funeral follows, sir."   -senator thomas hart benton
LenexatoKCMO
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 14667
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 3:34 pm
Location: Valentine

Re: OFFICIAL - Bartle Hall Expansion construction

Post by LenexatoKCMO »

voltopt wrote: There is a prevailing attitude around here of "why are you criticizing X!  It's an improvement over Y, therefore it shall not be criticized!"

Fortunately for this forum, there isn't a criticism moderator who assigns a value to what can and what cannot be criticized.  Differing opinions and constant discussion lead to a better solution - if an opinion about Kansas City's inferiority complex is expressed, it needn't be dismissed utterly as false.  Maybe it should be vetted objectively.
This guy went off and got pissed because people didn't agree with his criticisim.  That isn't very much in the spirit of quality discussion.  From now on, I guess anytime I post a critique about something and don't hear universal agreement, I get a license to go off and call everyone out as causing the problems of this city.  
User avatar
voltopt
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2812
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 2:56 pm
Location: Manheim Park
Contact:

Re: OFFICIAL - Bartle Hall Expansion construction

Post by voltopt »

He may have been making a valid point.  If I were new to this space, I would consider everyone equally contentious...
"I never quarrel, sir; but I do fight, sir; and when I fight, sir, a funeral follows, sir."   -senator thomas hart benton
User avatar
ComandanteCero
One Park Place
One Park Place
Posts: 6222
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 2:40 am
Location: OP

Re: OFFICIAL - Bartle Hall Expansion construction

Post by ComandanteCero »

aknowledgeableperson wrote: underground loading docks.  get real.  i can just see it now, a motor home (like describled in the paper today) being loaded into an elevator.

load in and load out costs for events would be almost prohibitive.
heard of ramps?
KC Region is all part of the same animal regardless of state and county lines.
Think on the Regional scale.
User avatar
im2kull
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3928
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 4:33 pm
Location: KCMO

Re: OFFICIAL - Bartle Hall Expansion construction

Post by im2kull »

Ok...

...Back to the topic...

Any updates?

What do you guys think about future expansion?  West and over 670?
What's graciously given to KC, is strong for the region as a whole.  Passion and benevolence will one day exeem towards all whom know true adoration.  We shall triumph to better the community as One within
THINK (ONE) KC.
loftguy
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3850
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:12 pm

Re: OFFICIAL - Bartle Hall Expansion construction

Post by loftguy »

Midtownkid wrote: Well, looking back at his first post, I guess he did come off a bit harsh and maybe dramatic.  Still, it just seemed like every one was harsh back.  I donno, I guess it just seems like this forum has changed a bit.  Maybe it's just me.  It seems more clicky than before.
I am my own clique, so screw the rest of you!

I'll have to go peruse the "improvements" so you all can benefit from my opinion.

In the mean time, does anyone know if resurfacing of the west face of Bartle is planned?  The peeling of that face distracts and saddens me every time I go by.
ragtag
Surface Lot
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 3:51 pm

Re: OFFICIAL - Bartle Hall Expansion construction

Post by ragtag »

nemesis wrote: Well, I guess you made my point for me.  And you wonder why we will always be a second rate city?  "Hey, it's better than a loading dock, so it must be good"....................
Just because there is an artist involved, doesn't make it "art"
Just because it was really bad before doesn't make it "good"

It doesn't have to be a masterpiece.  I'm just saying there are far better artists and architects out there that would came up with a much better solution.  But until expectations like yours are changed, this is what we'll continue to see. 



i think that there is room for everyone's opinion.  just because you don't like it, doesn't mean that it isn't any good......
Post Reply