Overland Park tower to be imploded (Center: real estate, lease, crime)

[kcmo]

Dynamite ending planned for 10-story building along I-435 at Nall in Overland Park



So developers are going to tear down a ten story building built in 1972 to put up 5 story buildings. Seems wasteful to me, especially if you are not gong to put up something with some density in that high profile location. Why not convert it to residential and give people a different housing option for the area?

Would be a good location for a 12-15 story mixed used development. That 435 corridor is just not going to become a very dense built up area I guess. It's things like this that make KC seem stuck in the 1980's.

Oh well, I would go watch it come down. Implosions are fun!

[MoNative34]

A developer would be an idiot doing a residential project at that location.

[lovekcmo]

Originally Posted by kcmo

Dynamite ending planned for 10-story building along I-435 at Nall in Overland Park



So developers are going to tear down a ten story building built in 1972 to put up 5 story buildings. Seems wasteful to me, especially if you are not gong to put up something with some density in that high profile location. Why not convert it to residential and give people a different housing option for the area?

Would be a good location for a 12-15 story mixed used development. That 435 corridor is just not going to become a very dense built up area I guess. It's things like this that make KC seem stuck in the 1980's.

Oh well, I would go watch it come down. Implosions are fun!

I don't agree with much that left, or I mean East Coast KCMO has to say, but he is right about demolishing this as a waste on several levels.

[Mathguy]

*shrug* without all the details....heck...who cares...someone that does this for a living has decided this course of action.

I imagine some dentist or engineer or fast food worker telling me I'm wrong at my job with the barest of information. ????

Can any of you provide an informed view of the decision?

[kcmo]

Originally Posted by Mathguy

*shrug* without all the details....heck...who cares...someone that does this for a living has decided this course of action.

I imagine some dentist or engineer or fast food worker telling me I'm wrong at my job with the barest of information. ????

Can any of you provide an informed view of the decision?

I'm not saying it's not in the best interest of the developer. They tried for years to lease the building and had no luck.

My point is that the price of real estate in KC still much be ridiculously low for such a high profile site to have such a dated plan proposed for it. The 435 corridor in the south metro is the one corridor of KC that could and should have some density to it by now. Five story single use office buildings and surface parking lots along a commercially zoned interstate in a major metro? The 80's are alive and well in KC.

Originally Posted by MoNative34

A developer would be an idiot doing a residential project at that location.

Don't know why not, it's happening in suburban business districts of cities all across the country and not just the big coastal cities and around transit (although that's where most of it is happening).

[pioneer88]

Agree with kcmo on the unfortunate lack of density here. If you're going demo something, make it better. That said, there are a few projects that are decent mixed use. Some may not like it, but the Lenexa City Center is definitely a mixed use development that is coming along nicely. I was there this morning actually (I live in the general area) and there are some nice features including civic components. Also, it's full of parking garages, and walk up type developments.

[luzianne]

Isn't the point of living in the suburbs to be in a less densely populated area? Make it more densely populated and people who want real suburbs are going to move further out.

[Ghengis]

that ought-a blow up reeeal good

[zach_33]

It does seem like a waste to demolish a 40 year old building unless something structural is wrong with it. Disposable society I guess. And not to turn this into a rail thread, but I think you are spot on. Most cities with rail transit have nice walkable downtown areas as a hub for their community around the rail stops. I think that's what many suburbanites want (density, good public transit, all the amenities of the city but without the crime and decay), particularly the younger ones who are feeling more and more left out if the urban renewal movement. But I digress - even if KC was ready to ease up on automobiles and a rail concept was passed, I would want it to run straight north to south on state line road - not waste any time on that junky looking 435 corridor and it's business tenants where everyone is likely to drive to work anyway.

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by luzianne

Isn't the point of living in the suburbs to be in a less densely populated area? Make it more densely populated and people who want real suburbs are going to move further out.

The I-435 corridor already has a higher population density, and with the large highway nearby means the possibility for mixed-use denser development would make sense. The very low density model is not going to be sustainable as the metro area has consumed enormous amounts of land in inefficient ways over the last few decades. Redevelopment of existing areas will be key, and a "business as usual" approach is not always the best decision. Yes, there are many suburbs around the country that have dense Downtown areas with mixed use developments that are adjacent to low density tree lined suburban streets. One can easily have both, and that scenario makes it more appealing for a wider demographic set.