KCRag Forum

Demo dreams of towers like this on our riverfront.

Ooooh yes. That is indeed what I have in mind. It would really match the Paseo bridge too.

Only as long as our building remains unfinished and vacant too.

From now on, all our new buildings must have pointy tops.

And be designed by evil dictators with crooked elevator shafts.

from the development review committee agenda for march 4:

9:55 AM
OA 6. SD 1502 - Final Plat, Berkley Riverfront Park - To consider approval of a final plat in District MPD on approximately 20 acres in an area bordered by E. Riverfront Drive on the north, Front Street on the west, I-29/ I-35 to the east and railroad tracks (KCS/ I&MRL/ UP & BNSF) to the south, creating one (1) lot and three (3) tracts.

Agent: Port Authority of Kansas City, repr Taliaferro & Brown

What do we think of this design for Berkley Riverfront Park?

Would it make our riverfront a stunning architectural wonder? Or is the present course of selling parcels to individual developers with different designs, and densities the better way to go?

This is architect Daniel Libeskind's designs for Keppel Bay, Singapore.

Click on the link below to see more photos.

http://www.archdaily.com/210036/reflect ... libeskind/

it all depends on the zoning. right now, the problem with multiple parcels is they usually require setbacks on all four sides, each needs bike parking, an entrance, a certain number of car parking spots, utility access, right now where density and urban design is of any interest single large parcels seems better.

but that doesn't mean a project has to be a single monolithic design with the same density. could have a large master planned project with a single architect but require a unique design for each part.

Ok, let's assume we elect new council members that allow different development criteria. No setback rules, higher density mixed zoning, less parking minimums, wider sidewalk, narrow streets, etc. We also get cooperation from the railroads to move and realign tracks, and sell, or allow, air rights over tracks for pedestrian bridges, over-track street bridge extensions, land bridges, etc. Basically this would hide the railroad tracks, and allow Columbus Park to be connected to the riverfront.

We also populate the Port Authority with people who more proactive about good development along the riverfront--with some concept of how architecture can change the perceptions of a city. The new Port Authority leadership uses its' wide-ranging power to extend the streetcar line from the River Market to the Isle of Capri casino.

Something you can wish for but dream on. It may happen at some point in the future but not soon.

FangKC wrote:
We also populate the Port Authority with people who more proactive about good development along the riverfront--with some concept of how architecture can change the perceptions of a city. The new Port Authority leadership uses its' wide-ranging power to extend the streetcar line from the River Market to the Isle of Capri casino.

More proactive, how? I don't think the Port Authority staff or board is holding back great design opportunities on the riverfront. I know that they are broadcasting the opportunities to develop down there to developers nationwide. It's the development world that needs to respond and build.

If the intent is to wait until such a developer emerges, we could be waiting a lonnnnng time.

I for one am very glad that they (the PA) changed course from a single developer strategy (that had languished for 20 years) and opened it up to multiple parcels and opportunities.

Loftguy, I wish they would do that in the East Village as well. The single developer model for all those blocks hasn't produced many results.

Where are all the rich Chinese investors looking to park their money in safe investments in the USA?

Too many times developers go with design that's 'safe' or whatever is least expensive. Power & Light is a good example of a missed opportunity to have unique architecture that could draw visitors in and of itself. Instead or modern, cosmopolitan or even art deco we end up with warehouse wannabe.

kcjak wrote:Too many times developers go with design that's 'safe' or whatever is least expensive. Power & Light is a good example of a missed opportunity to have unique architecture that could draw visitors in and of itself. Instead or modern, cosmopolitan or even art deco we end up with warehouse wannabe.

that's capitalism!

In the past, a lot of stunning architecture was commissioned by people, or companies, with the resources to pay for it. Now, you see it more in museums or concert halls that are often funded as legacy projects for wealthy individuals.

Companies are less interested in statement architecture as they used to be, because many of them no longer own their own headquarters buildings. They lease space. Many of the great buildings in history have been those that were built, and owned, by companies as headquarters buildings.

However, I wish that wasn't the case. I am more from the school of thought that architecture can define cities, be aspirational, and create special and distinct environments that attract people to cities.

So many cities are starting to look alike these days with standardized architecture. I think a smaller city like ours could begin to set ourselves apart if we used architecture as a tool.

Port Authority CEO: Riverfront development is really going to happen

http://tinyurl.com/knhgxfr

kcjak wrote:Too many times developers go with design that's 'safe' or whatever is least expensive. Power & Light is a good example of a missed opportunity to have unique architecture that could draw visitors in and of itself. Instead or modern, cosmopolitan or even art deco we end up with warehouse wannabe.

Man you know how much more it would have cost to include buildings with unique architecture? Many people are still upset over the price of Power and Light. Don't think that would have gone over too well.

I saw from the HOA bridge on Sunday boring equipment at the west end where Front St and Riverfront Rd meet.

The early prep work is underway.

.

.

Of course DaveKCMO needs to chime in on this, but it seems to me that the Port Authority could issue bonds to pay for the streetcar extension down Grand to the riverfront. If not industrial bonds, then couldn't the Port Authority vote to set up a transportation development district (TDD) to pay for it? I don't know the particulars, but it would seem that since they own most (or all) of the land along the riverfront, that would make it fairly easy for them to pass a TDD to tax their properties for this extension.