(PROJECT) One Place Tower

[nathanm]

You are correct that the P&L District has not met its income projections.  However, they are not giving up on it.  The developer, David Cordish, announced two weeks ago plans to develop $70MM 300 unit rental apartment development in the district.  One building is a rehab and the other is new construction (23 story's 250 units).  KCMO kicked in $8MM for the project.

Do the taxpayers of Kansas City, MO also get 11% of the upside on the apartments?

[TheArtist]

Look at the pic of the place in this thread...

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=199023

It's horrendous.  That's not good urban design.  Nobody is going to go there and "enjoy the space" (except for perhaps during an event or something like that).  Not to mention the development seems to not to be well connected to the rest of the downtown fabric.  It's basically trying to be a suburban mall type area squashed into an urban setting.


Someone the other day mentioned to me that what they knew about Tulsa was that it had lots of crime and no real urban core.  They said "So, whats the difference between Tulsa and a crime ridden suburb?"  "Why would I choose to live there over any other suburban area?"

Then I ask why do we seem to want to turn our downtown into just another form of car oriented/non pedestrian friendly suburbia?  

People seem to think that if you add more density in population, buildings, businesses, etc. that you will automatically end up with an urban area.  I can show you lots of suburban areas that chock full of skyscrapers and people, but nobody is outside walking and you still have to use your car to go anywhere (look to many a suburb in Canada, or Los Angeles which has some of the highest population densities anywhere but huge swaths of it are still suburban/car oriented.  Pedestrian Friendly DESIGN is KEY, not just more stuff.   I hear people in leadership/descision making positions in this city saying that what we are doing will "transition" to pedestrian/transit friendly areas in time.  But that never happens with the models they say they are trying to emulate.  What does happen is that the "mixed form" thats neither urban nor suburban itself continues to grow.  Tulsa is a small, slow growing city and every bit can be important for it will be a Looooong time coming, if ever, if we try to fix something we finally realize we did wrong.  

IMO if we were to create a fantastic pedestrian friendly urban area in our core, which has so much potential, it would go a good way to giving us as a city a competitive advantage over other cities in our class.  And the sad thing is, it's SO EASY to do! lol and yet at every other turn...

[BookerT.Razorback]

Look at the pic of the place in this thread...

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=199023

It's horrendous.  That's not good urban design.  Nobody is going to go there and "enjoy the space" (except for perhaps during an event or something like that).  Not to mention the development seems to not to be well connected to the rest of the downtown fabric.  It's basically trying to be a suburban mall type area squashed into an urban setting.


Someone the other day mentioned to me that what they knew about Tulsa was that it had lots of crime and no real urban core.  They said "So, whats the difference between Tulsa and a crime ridden suburb?"  "Why would I choose to live there over any other suburban area?"

Then I ask why do we seem to want to turn our downtown into just another form of car oriented/non pedestrian friendly suburbia?  

People seem to think that if you add more density in population, buildings, businesses, etc. that you will automatically end up with an urban area.  I can show you lots of suburban areas that chock full of skyscrapers and people, but nobody is outside walking and you still have to use your car to go anywhere (look to many a suburb in Canada, or Los Angeles which has some of the highest population densities anywhere but huge swaths of it are still suburban/car oriented.  Pedestrian Friendly DESIGN is KEY, not just more stuff.   I hear people in leadership/descision making positions in this city saying that what we are doing will "transition" to pedestrian/transit friendly areas in time.  But that never happens with the models they say they are trying to emulate.  What does happen is that the "mixed form" thats neither urban nor suburban itself continues to grow.  Tulsa is a small, slow growing city and every bit can be important for it will be a Looooong time coming, if ever, if we try to fix something we finally realize we did wrong.  

IMO if we were to create a fantastic pedestrian friendly urban area in our core, which has so much potential, it would go a good way to giving us as a city a competitive advantage over other cities in our class.  And the sad thing is, it's SO EASY to do! lol and yet at every other turn...

I completely with you here.. and it kind of directly relates how the river walk pretty much fell through as well. I actually was faced with this issue in my architecture studio class last year with how to bring a vibrant area to a site, while working with the city fabric, yet being completely new at the same time. It's nearly impossible for it to be a successful project. I used bourbon street as a precedent to see if you were to build it within a few years anywhere else, like this power and light district....it just doesn't work! It takes a long time, culture, as well as history that the city had to offer

[erfalf]

The biggest difference being that most desirable places were built piecemeal not in gigantic projects that seem to be the trend now.

Are their really efficiencies of scale for these developments or has the building code basically outlawed small scale developments in urban areas?

[Oil Capital]

There is supposed the be a courtyard in the middle. They may be trying to force all of the foot traffic in there.

I thought there was supposed to be a courtyard in the middle too, but the plans on their website don't appear to allow for any such courtyard.

[TheArtist]

To reply to several of the above comments.  It can be done, regardless of whether one infills large developments or smaller ones.... if there is a plan and zoning in place.    In Denver I believe they have designated "A" streets/pedestrian friendly corridors and "B" streets/auto centric corridors in their downtown.  

In our downtown we can see the potential for an Archer-Boulder-5th st-Elgin-Archer  pedestrian friendly/transit friendly loop.  You could take that as a first step and have spurs off of that.   Designate those areas as pedestrian/transit friendly corridor "A" streets and zone accordingly and leave the rest as is, if you want.  This loop and some possible spurs off of it also lies along and crosses potential rail and mass transit routes which we hope will come to fruition some day.  That in itself should be incentive enough for the city to assure that that public investment will be useable and worth something.  This loop and its spurs are also near large collections of parking garages and event venues.   Incredible potential is there if we choose to nudge things in the right direction and not cross our fingers and hope that developers will.  Again, once its screwed up, your stuck with FAIL.   Go to a pedestrian friendly city and you can see how little it takes to mess up a street, cut an area off and leave it empty of pedestrian traffic.  One or two things in the wrong place and, dead zone.  Too many of those and you end up with a core that doesn't attain critical mass for the pedestrian, and for transit to ever work well.  You have a city core that cant compete as a true urban experience or offer a true urban lifestyle, and one that doesn't compete with the suburbs as a place to live or shop.  We are right at that stage where we can either connect things for the next generation, or lose it for the next generation.  

[rdj]

Artist,

I thought you would apprecciate this article from the NYT:

Would-Be Landlords Covet a Landmark
By JOE GOSE
Published: July 3, 2012

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — The Kansas City Power and Light Building is a widely celebrated Art Deco skyscraper that instantly became a city landmark when it opened 81 years ago. The 30-story building stood as Missouri's tallest for 40 years, and its six-story lantern tower, enclosed in sunburst windows and topped by a steel-framed glass cupola, still cuts a distinctive profile on the downtown skyline....

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/04/realestate/commercial/kansas-citys-power-and-light-building-awaits-new-role.html

Here is the new building they are constructing:



I don't want to sound as if I'm in favor of this development model, because in most cases I'm not.  I'd proudly sport a t-shirt that says "Don't Disneyland my Downtown" or "Don't Jenks my Downtown".

I was just trying to show the other side of the argument and why it is appealing to developers, politicians and civic leaders.

If you think about how long it has taken to develop the Brady District compared to the P&L District.  If someone had said 15-20 years ago, hand me the keys and I'll develop everything in 3-5 years that will take you 15-20 wouldn't that sound appealing?  Especially if you're a politician or civic leader that wants to leave a legacy?  What leader can really take credit for the Brady District?  None, because it has been about private investment (other than TIF, adjoining ONEOK Field [which could be argued was paid for by a designated assessment not the city's general fund] and proposed POP) but it's taken half a generation or longer to reach a certain level of true maturity as a district.

As a note, I use the Brady District because it is more complete than Blue Dome, and I think we all know who'd like to claim credit for it's relative maturity.

[rdj]

Do the taxpayers of Kansas City, MO also get 11% of the upside on the apartments?

I will say this about KCMO & Cordish.  From what I know they gave Cordish a hell of a deal.  As an example, in his contract they gave him an opt out provision on future taxes that would fund transportation initiatives.  So, he could reap the benefits of improved public transit but not a pay a dime, while his neighbors foot the bill.  What a deal.

They are in the middle of proposing a sales tax that will develop a streetcar system in/around downtown KCMO.  Heroically, Cordish has agreed to not opt out.

I were a tax payer in KCMO or even the surrounding areas that have paid in, I'd be pretty upset at my public officials for agreeing to such a deal.

[carltonplace]

Here is the new building they are constructing:

This building is beautiful; the ground level is perfect.

Compared to this:

This design needs a lot more "holes" poked in it at ground level, less concrete and more doors, add awnings for pedestrians, add trees, add street level interest. People don't stand on the street and look up, they look at eye view.

-Modified to say: I don't dislike this building overall...I think the street presentation is lacking and I think they are missing retail opportunities.

[jacobi]

The biggest difference being that most desirable places were built piecemeal not in gigantic projects that seem to be the trend now.

Amen

[DowntownDan]

On par, I still think that downtown Tulsa is developing more organically than OKC or Dallas or some other places.  We still have a variety of small projects and locally owned bars and restaurants popping up and not as many big developments.  One Place seems to be the only real full block development.  I wouldn't mind seeing a few others pop up, but hopefully the small independent places continue to be the main force in downtown revitalization.

[cynical]

Tulsa might be justifiably reluctant to launch another large-scale development downtown because of lessons learned from the Williams Center development in the late '70s. The Williams Center was conceived as a grand multi-purpose development including office, entertainment (the PAC, the Cinema, and the skating rink)' and retail (the Forum).  With the exception of the city-owned PAC and a couple of shops in the hallway leading from the bank lobby to the Williams workspace, only the office function has survived. A more "organic" development model has the advantage of being decentralized, meaning that one entity doesn't control everything in sight.

On par, I still think that downtown Tulsa is developing more organically than OKC or Dallas or some other places.  We still have a variety of small projects and locally owned bars and restaurants popping up and not as many big developments.  One Place seems to be the only real full block development.  I wouldn't mind seeing a few others pop up, but hopefully the small independent places continue to be the main force in downtown revitalization.

[erfalf]

Regarding the 2 level retail in the NW Mutual Building.

My wife just got back from Chicago, and she mentioned that on Michigan Ave there were several buildings that had what amounted to a scaled down mall on the first several floors of a few buildings. For example, you would walk in what looked like the main entrance to a building and there would be a couple of anchor type stores (department store types) that also had entrances directly to the street and then upstairs there would be a half dozen or so stores on each floor. Of course above all of that would be an office building/condo/hotel or something. So it wasn't just a downtown mall concept. Mixed-Use.

Is this what they are trying to do in the NWM buildings? If so I think it is kind of neat. There is a limited amount of frontage to each building. By making an urban mini-mall type thing they just increase the offerings in the same footprint. This is what needs to happen downtown. Multi-Use and more options in smaller areas. We don't want 71st street type development where you have to walk several miles in every direction to get to the things you want to get to.

[carltonplace]

Tulsa might be justifiably reluctant to launch another large-scale development downtown because of lessons learned from the Williams Center development in the late '70s. The Williams Center was conceived as a grand multi-purpose development including office, entertainment (the PAC, the Cinema, and the skating rink)' and retail (the Forum).  With the exception of the city-owned PAC and a couple of shops in the hallway leading from the bank lobby to the Williams workspace, only the office function has survived. A more "organic" development model has the advantage of being decentralized, meaning that one entity doesn't control everything in sight.

Control...that sums up the feel of this design perfectly. As if they don't want the retail to "spill" out into the street, to declare itself, to be messy in any way with signage that might detract from the building itself.

[DowntownDan]

I'm pretty sure the Hyatt was part of the Williams tower development and its still going.  It seems that the only part that didn't work out was the forum shopping area.  I think that if the forum was still a retail center it would not only be able to survive but would thrive amongst the new wave of downtown development.  It sure would be nice if they could repurpose it for what it was originally.  But I'm sure its too far gone to go back, and there will be plenty of retail downtown if the current development continues, and hopefully accellerates if the economy can ever get back to what it was.