History Behind the failed 4 buildings (Sailors Towers) on the Plaza

[MRG Dallas]

Originally Posted by KC2DC

On balance, it's probably best the Sailors did not go forward. A 53-story office town - 12 stories higher than One Kansas City Place - would be plain ugly on the East edge of the Plaza. Scale is everything.

I agree but I was gone after that proposal so it's hard to imagine some of these other comments/proposals. What has been done in/around The Plaza as far as residential? It always seemed to be a desirable part of town. What was the reference to Buckhead about, the "Bowl" around The Plaza and the Edge?

[westender]

My recollections are a bit hazy, but I think that _some_ city leaders wanted Sailors. Others definitively did not want it. Neighborhood NIMBY-ness was the deciding no, as I recall.

The 1980s arguments against it were that it would cannibalize downtown KC and that the Plaza did not have the roadways to handle the additional traffic, plus the whole size and scale of such a massive project.

The arguments for it included the same concept of the Plaza supplanting downtown, but framed as a positive. That is, if the Plaza doesn't become the new CBD, the outflow to College Boulevard will continue and eventually weaken the entire Missouri side of the metro.

There are elements of truth in both lines of argument.

I do think that Sailors would have Atlanta-fied KC to some extent, especially with the central artery heavy-rail subway that was discussed in the 1990s (from downtown to Waldo).

One of the weaknesses of KC (again, IMHO), is the fact that the downtown (and the KCI airport even to a greater extent), are very far north compared to the metropolitan area population balance. (Historically not, of course, because KC has experienced such massive growth to its south compared to mild growth to its north). But KC's sprawl is so scattered that I wouldn't be surprised if it eventually got a southside commercial airport near Martin City or Gardner (the way Orange County has John Wayne rather than channelling everyone to LAX).

[kcmo]

Originally Posted by westender

My recollections are a bit hazy, but I think that _some_ city leaders wanted Sailors. Others definitively did not want it. Neighborhood NIMBY-ness was the deciding no, as I recall.

The 1980s arguments against it were that it would cannibalize downtown KC and that the Plaza did not have the roadways to handle the additional traffic, plus the whole size and scale of such a massive project.

The arguments for it included the same concept of the Plaza supplanting downtown, but framed as a positive. That is, if the Plaza doesn't become the new CBD, the outflow to College Boulevard will continue and eventually weaken the entire Missouri side of the metro.

There are elements of truth in both lines of argument.

I do think that Sailors would have Atlanta-fied KC to some extent, especially with the central artery heavy-rail subway that was discussed in the 1990s (from downtown to Waldo).

One of the weaknesses of KC (again, IMHO), is the fact that the downtown (and the KCI airport even to a greater extent), are very far north compared to the metropolitan area population balance. (Historically not, of course, because KC has experienced such massive growth to its south compared to mild growth to its north). But KC's sprawl is so scattered that I wouldn't be surprised if it eventually got a southside commercial airport near Martin City or Gardner (the way Orange County has John Wayne rather than channelling everyone to LAX).

I would agree with what you said about Sailors “atlantifying” kc. That would have been a game changer for KCMO. I don't think it would have hurt downtown though because downtown was going through an even bigger building boom during the same time.

Had the Sailors Project gone through along with the Kansas City Place build out downtown (Several more 50 story towers were to go up downtown), I think KCMO could possibly have kept many of the companies that bolted for Kansas. Sure, KCMO would have been overbuilt for a few years, but it would have bounced back far stronger with all that extra office space and economic activity. Just like JoCo bounces back by backfilling empty office parks with KCMO companies. They have the space so that makes it easier to lure companies looking for space.

With Sailors and One KC built, KC’s two urban employment bookends would be twice their size today and midtown would be much further along in gentrification and development and there would probably be a fixed rail transit system between them.

The city government was all for Sailors. It was the residents that didn’t want it. I think it would have been great for KCMO and would have complimented and enhanced the plaza. The 53 story tower would have looked better in two or three 25 story buildings though. I think it looks terrible when a tower is four times the height of anything around it (Houston Galleria, OKC Devon Tower etc)

[pacificwhim]

Another thing to consider: some sort of large development at that location (not 53 stories, however; egads) will very likely act as a magnet to pull the streetcar line south along Main to the Plaza from its current planned terminus at Crown Center. That's inevitable eventually (assuming the streetcar pilot works out), but a big development at that spot would accelerate the growth.

[kcmo]

Originally Posted by pacificwhim

Another thing to consider: some sort of large development at that location (not 53 stories, however; egads) will very likely act as a magnet to pull the streetcar line south along Main to the Plaza from its current planned terminus at Crown Center. That's inevitable eventually (assuming the streetcar pilot works out), but a big development at that spot would accelerate the growth.

Well, it's been developed now. The site is now apartments and low rise office buildings. KC no longer has aggressive urban commercial developers like most major cities do. You don't even see ideas, renderings, etc coming out of KC for potential large scale urban projects. That's why KC has seen almost no spec or even proposed commercial development in the central city since the mid 1980's. Most of the development that does happen in kc are from developers that typically do suburban stuff or a few out of town developers.

Not sure how to fix this now, but it doesn't help when every time a building over 4 stories is proposed for the plaza or crossroads, the city explodes with NIMBYs and the city elects an anti development mayor during the peak of a national urban building boom (funkhouser disaster).

KC is very anti development. Developers are labeled as money hungry and corrupt, even those that really want to improve the city.

Developers just stay away or go to cites that embrace them, like Denver.