Yesterday, I went looking for possible sites for big, new office buildings on the north side of 47th Street, east of Broadway.
I’m not a developer, let me assure you; I’m just a 4th District, Kansas City resident who is, and long has been, interested in what happens on the Country Club Plaza, the distinctive and true jewel of the city.
I went looking for possible construction sites because, if The Cowardly and Lame Duck City Council does what a lot of people expect it to do tomorrow, we could be seeing several more new office buildings between Broadway and J.C. Nichols Parkway in the coming years.
The issue tomorrow will be rezoning a site behind the Balcony Building, where the Neptune Apartments now sit, on the northeast corner of 47th Street and Broadway. Highwoods Properties, which owns the Plaza is seeking the rezoning to allow for construction of a high-rise office building, to be used by the Polsinelli Shughart law firm or perhaps another tenant, if Polsinelli Shughart can’t make the timing work.
The Neptune Apartments (background), proposed office tower site
In an interview yesterday, Vicki Noteis, a former city planning director who is advising the rezoning opponents, a group called Save the Plaza, warned that the rezoning could be precedent setting; it could mark the beginning of the end of the 1989 Plaza Urban Design and Development Plan, which essentially limits commercial development to the west and northwest parts of the Plaza.
Everywhere else, retail holds sway. Retail, which makes the Plaza a fun place to spend time and generates the bulk of pedestrian traffic, including our beloved visitors from Iowa, Nebraska and other Midwestern states.
“It’s really important to hold the line on this,” Noteis said. “It you break this line, I think you’ve got a problem. You have to respect a line someplace.”
If that line is trampled in the sand…
Well, how would you like to see a big, new office building on the site of Fogo de Chao, the Brazilian steak house between Wornall and Wyandotte? Or at the site of the Commerce Bank Building and P.F. Chang’s, between Wyandotte and J.C. Nichols Parkway?
Fogo de Chao, east of Wornall and east of Houston's
Could happen. It would take more rezoning, but, once the line is blurred, what’s to stop commercial creep from breaking into a run?
Highwoods, which bought the J.C. Nichols Co. more than 10 years ago, is primarily in the business of owning and leasing commercial properties — office buildings, that is. Its aim, said Noteis, is “higher density” on the Plaza. That means fewer low-level retail buildings and more high-rise office buildings.
And that’s exactly what opponents of this ill-conceived plan — including me — believe would ruin the character of the Plaza.
It’s true, of course, that Highwoods, which owns the place, has a right to put its vision forward. But we, the Kansas City residents who honor and appreciate what we see as the greater vision of the late Jesse Clyde Nichols and his son, the late Miller Nichols, should have something to say about what happens there.
If this deal goes through, the opponents will mount an initiative petition, which would put the rezoning to a public vote. If you’ll recall, voters rejected another grandiose plan — the Sailors project, on 47th, east of Main Street — in the 1980s.
I would expect a similar result on this issue.
***
Keep in mind that The Cowardly and Lame Duck City Council is taking up this issue three days before its collective term expires.
Seven of the 13 council members are leaving office. They are Mayor Mark Funkhouser, Deb Hermann, Bill Skaggs, Sharon Sanders Brooks, Beth Gottstein, Terry Riley and Cathy Jolly. The other six — Ed Ford, Russ Johnson, Melba Curls, Jan Marcason, Cindy Circo and John Sharp — are going into their second terms and will be prohibited, by the city’s two-term limit, from seeking re-election in 2015.
Essentially, then, these council members — with the exception of any that might run for mayor in the future — can jam this rezoning down the throats of the public with impunity. There will be no way for city residents to hold them accountable at the polls in the foreseeable future.
Council members who are considered almost certain to vote “yes” are Skaggs, who is sponsoring the ordinance; Hermann; Ford; Johnson; Marcason; Circo; and Jolly.
That’s seven, which is what it takes to approve the rezoning.
Commerce Bank, east of Fogo de Chao
The proponents say they want to insure that Polsinelli Shughart and its 500 employees stay in KCMO. Ironically, however, it might not be Polsinelli Shughart that takes advantage of the rezoning. The firm needs to be out of its present building, on 47th Street west of Broadway, by the end of 2013, and a referendum easily could push the completion of construction well past that time.
So what we could see, Noteis pointed out, is The Cowardly and Lame Duck Council approving a rezoning for no particular tenant, just a neatly wrapped present for Highwoods to use whenever it wanted down the road.
“The city’s responsibility,” Noteis said, “is to find a site for Polsinelli Shughart, not to rezone property for Highwoods…The city fell headlong into the (Highwoods) trap. There’s no reason to push this through on behalf of Highwoods.”
***
It’s very odd that the rezoning charge is being led by Skaggs, who lives in the Northland, as far as you can get from the Plaza and still be in the city. The two council members who should have the greatest interest in the issue — Marcason and Gottstein, who live in the 4th District — have largely been AWOL.
Gottstein
Last week, when the council’s Planning and Zoning Committee took up the issue — and recommended passage on a 3-1 vote — Gottstein abstained, saying she had a conflict because her fiance, a physician, has an office on 46th Terrace, near Wornall. To that, I say LAME!
Marcason is not on the Planning and Zoning Committee, but she, too, has been “nowhere to be found,” as the narrator on “The First 48” frequently intones when referring to missing suspects.
In a check of The Kansas City Star’s electronic library, I found only two stories in which Marcason, who was re-elected without opposition last month, was quoted on the rezoning issue.
Early this month, after Polsinelli Shughart said it was pulling out of the plan to build on the site of the Neptune, Marcason was quoted as saying, “I think we were going to have a pretty thoughtful discussion. We just didn’t have the chance to work them through to a conclusion.”
Marcason
Last summer, after Highwoods and Polsinelli Shughart came forward with a redesigned plan — one that spared the Balcony Building, which faces 47th Street — Marcason was quoted as saying that the revised plan “looks very good.”
Yesterday afternoon, I put in a call to Marcason, and I spoke with her this afternoon. (She called this morning, but I didn’t pick up her message until late this afternoon. My apologies for the belated addition of her comments.)
She said she intended to vote for the rezoning for several reasons, including her desire to stop the loss of Missouri businesses to Kansas. “For us to say no, no, no (to the prospect of business expansion and development in Kansas city), I just don’t think that’s the message the council can afford to send at this time,” she said.
To the contrary, she said, Kansas City should be holding up a sign — figuratively speaking — that says, “Kansas City is not closed for business.”
Marcason also said that if the Polsinelli Shughart plan did not go forward because of the law firm’s time frame, Highwoods would have to bring any new proposal for the 47th and Broadway site back to the council for new approval.
Marcason said that the issue has become a tinder keg because of the badly flawed, initial plan that Highwoods and Polsinell Shughart came out with last year. That plan, which called for leveling the Balcony Building, turned many of the Save the Plaza people irrevocably against any subsequent plan that came forward. (The original plan has been amended twice.) Highwoods’ initial mistake, bad as it was, should not be held against the firm, Marcason said.
I appreciate Marcason’s comments, and I think her intentions are good and that she will vote on her conviction that the rezoning is in Kansas City’s best interests.
Still, to me, the greater concern is the “march of the office buildings” across Broadway. I think it’s a bad deal. I don’t like Highwoods; I don’t trust Highwoods; and I want Polsinelli Shughart to do the right thing and go to the West Edge.
I’m convinced that the new West Edge ownership team and the Polsinelli firm could come to terms that are financially acceptable to both sides.
JimmyCsays: At the juncture of journalism and daily life in KC 
Great column, Jim.
Am forwarding it on to friends who are vehemently against Highwoods’ polution of the Plaza, as I am.
I don’t understand Jan Marcason. Her reaction has been a real surprise and disappointment.
And I was told Beth Gottstein sat through the whole discussion at City Hall recently, then recused herself, instead of doing so before discussion began, which would have been the proper thing to do. I happened to catch the meeting on TV and heard Beth say that her “husband” had an office on the Plaza or something to that effect, which is why she was recusing herself. So she is either married or not or maybe about to be. I frankly don’t see what her husband or fiance has to do with it.
All best,
Laura
I agree with you completely, Laura. Beth Gottstein is gutless, in my opinion, and Marcason has not only turned a deaf ear to her constituents but she has also allowed another council member to highjack a zoning issue in her district.
Jim, you don’t think keeping the Polsinelli guys is important? I think 500 rich lawyers on the Plaza is just what the city needs.
The Polsinelli guys I know can spend some cash and party like Rock Stars when its safe. I like the idea of keeping those guys in Mo. Polsinelli guys are $300.00 an hour.
Lets get some of that cash back. :)
I want those lawyers on the Plaza, too, Chuck, just not east of Broadway on 47th Street. There are other places on the Plaza where they could go, including the West Edge. The office building at the West Edge site might have to be “scraped” and a new building erected — so that each and every one of those high-paid lawyers could have an office with a window, you know — but it could be done.
And shouldn’t it be done? Wouldn’t that make amends for the greatest debacle the Plaza has ever seen? Let’s don’t follow one tremendous, commercial mistake by opening the flood gates for more possible unused monstrosities.
Highwoods wants a Corporate Woods on the Plaza…I want the Plaza.
If you had approached this article from the perspective that a perfectly functioning residential building shouldn’t be torn down for an office building when there are surface lots and empty lots around the Plaza, I could be with you.
But simply dismissing a new development just because it’s east of Broadway? REALLY?
There is no line being blurred here. They are trying to rezone an area that is currently residential, NOT retail, that does NOT sit on 47th street. The only line that’s being crossed is Broadway.
Saying that this sets a precedent that will allow Highwoods to tear down the building that Fogo De Chao is in is a flat out LIE and you know it.
The reason this plan hasn’t been put through already is completely and 100% because of the ill-conceived rendering that proposed tearing down the Balcony Building. The people of Kansas City came just short of rioting in the streets. They weren’t angry because of an office building going east of Broadway. They weren’t angry at the thought of the Plaza having offices around it. They were angry at the thought of losing an essential piece of Plaza architecture and retail. Another plan that tries to accomplish that same thing WILL NEVER PASS and you know it (including a plan to tear down the building that Fogo de Chao is in).
This is a complete case of the “Save the Plaza” people having no clue when to shut the hell up. We haven’t had new major construction on an office building in the urban core since what? H&R Block? A new office building north but not on 47th will only improve the Plaza by putting more people in the area to eat and shop.
Chuck: To me, the whole issue is, in fact, crossing Broadway and constructing big office buildings on the east side of the Plaza. The 1989 Plaza Urban Design and Development Plan, which has helped retain the character of the Plaza, essentially limits commercial development to the west and northwest parts of the Plaza. That’s fine; keep it there, and leave the east, south and central parts for retail, including bars and restaurants.
If the line is broken, whether on or behind 47th Street, I can foresee the day when Highwoods puts forward a plan to build an office tower on that majestic, triangular block that starts with Fogo de Chao and tapers to the Renners store on the back (north) side. Do you really think the Highwoods people look at that block, and the next one — the one that Commerce Bank is on — without drooling?
The city is being held hostage by the threat that Highwoods has the right to build a big building in the middle of the Plaza. I was shocked at the bullying approach. Highwoods would basically kill the retail, pedestrian scale that makes the Plaza a desirable place to be.
Polsinelli Shughart is already on the Plaza, so the 500 jobs are not all new. If the firm truly wants to stay in this setting — which everyone would like — why must it be on Highwoods’ land? There are are other locations on the Plaza, but Highwoods is not the owner, so I can understand their push to get this through.
I attended both hearings. The City Plan Commission voted against the proposed rezoning because of questions about the traffic report that OK’d the project. The traffic situation in the entire Plaza area needs to be evaluated, including the traffic on Ward Parkway, Main Street and Broadway. This is not included in the traffic report.
And then there’s the parking. The spaces used by office personnel will be full all day. Shoppers, on the other hand, come & go.
Same ole MoKan / Pendergast crowd. DAYS after I finished my schooling I found the chain link, cyclone fence that surrounded the American Siberia. I saw the tear. I crawled under neither. I got my arm caught. I gnawed it off. I ran fast. I ran far!
donlake@ymail.com
Ruskin, U of Misery
Hate Bonnet Mims
Hate Funk En Stein
Hate Mrs Mayor
Hate blowing a quarter of a million dollars on the New Ruskin Fence
The Plaza was fine for sixty years without the 1989 plan, right?
You’re defending retail and restaurants (which I’m all for) but this this plan doesn’t touch retail or restaurants so what’s your problem?
You’re arguing against a mythical plan to bulldoze Fogo de Chao. Maybe Highwoods wants to bulldoze the whole plaza but they can’t so who cares? Wouldn’t giving them a building that doesn’t touch the current retail or restaurant mix delay them at least a few years (especially if PS doesn’t sign on) in attempting at building another building? Not that it matters because they’ll never be able to tear down any buildings that are part of the Plaza core which I feel was proven with the Balcony Building debacle.
Virginia: Really? Traffic and parking? I guarantee there is no easier urban shopping district in the world to drive around and find parking. I have never once not found a spot in the first garage I’ve gone in. I also drive THROUGH the Plaza in order to get to work because it’s the fastest way to go.
I am just against Highwoods in totality and want them to leave town! I have lived on the Plaza since 2000 and have watched many great high-end retail businesses leave – Saks, Mark Shale, Churchill, Z-Gallerie, ReVerse, etc, to be replaced by Urban Outfitters, Forever 21X and flash mobs.
If you take away the residential – in any city scene – you will lose the natural foot traffic by those locals. Please study up on city planning! The local residents are a major factor here, I believe. Those lawyers do not shop or eat on the Plaza that much – trust me, I have worked retail and hung out in bars and restaurants around here for 10 years. As a matter of fact I have only once run into a lady who worked for P&S who was buying a suit. In 10 years — how often can I repeat that? The regular customers who support weekly retail around here are rich wives. Working women cannot shop that much! Mixed-use retail and residential is the most sustainable over time – proven over and OVER in other cities, for decades. KC just can’t seem to understand this because they are so focused on their cars and parking.
Mr. Fitzpatr: Your writing is based on speculation and factual misrepresentations which only fuels the fire of ignorance with respect to true mixed-use development and a pedestrian-oriented, urban life-style. There’s nothing the Plaza Retail needs more than conveniently located, weekday customers. Poll the retailers and see how they would vote.
Jim–I was the “First Chuck”–woke up this morning saw other “Chucks”—I DID NOT CALL YOU A LIAR.
I posted only the first “Chuck” comment. :)
BTW, my comment was mostly rhetorical, I have a cursory knowledge of the issue, only from what I read, and my first insticnt is of course, to keep those Polsinelli guys here in Mo.
:)
I must admit I only love the idea of the Plaza now; it’s time as the city’s agorá slipped away in the late 60s, never to return.
What we’re left with is the wonderful Spanish architecture which, let’s be honest, is a bit dramatic as the backdrop to simple consumerism. Why not allow Polsinelli Shughart to build a high rise where they want? Indeed, we should encourage the city council to rezone the entire area to encourage other high-rises to nearly encircle the Plaza.
Then the city council should also approve monies for each shop on the Plaza to install metal roll-down doors.
On Friday nights the city should encourage the city’s youth to c’mon down to the Plaza. Condo and apartment dwellers ringing the arena…er, sorry, Plaza, could throw lavish box-seat parties (thereby guaranteeing at least a 0.00025% return per annum on the Super-TIFs used to finance the buildings): after word got out, invites to these soirées would be the hottest ducat in town.
KCPD would be used to monitor exits, containing the activities to the Plaza proper, only allowing participants and EMS to enter and exit the spectacle via Emanuel Cleaver III Boulevard – flash mobs encouraged!
I envision this becoming so popular a venue that Starz would insist on using mostly locals for an upcoming series -shot on location- titled KC: Blood and Money. Think of the naming rights cash alone.
With the devlopers and the Heavies moving back into power, this could easily be accomplished in Sly’s first term.
Nick — I love your fanciful, satirical vision, and in it you make a very serious point: Should we try to encase the Plaza in a bubble and keep it as it is — or maybe as how we remember it — forevermore? Jan Marcason, in our conversation yesterday, said, “We can’t make a decision based on nostalgia for the Plaza.” Well, I’m an emotional, nostalgic sort, like a lot of other people, and, damn it, I’m not ready to let go of the Plaza as we know it, even though it’s a lot different than the Plaza I first came to know when I arrived in Kansas City in 1969. And I’m supported by the 1989 Plaza Plan, which still seems like a reasonable guidepost.
Chuck — Thanks for setting the record straight on the two “Chucks.” There’s only one, true Chuck (just like there’s only one, true Plaza)…I wondered what was going on because the other Chuck’s comment came from a different e-mail address. I have to admit, however, that I thought it was possible you had cut loose your alter ego and set upon me like a junkyard dog…Let me make it clear, though, that I welcome comments from all Chucks, everywhere.
jimmyc –
Despite the reasonableness of the 1989 Plaza Plan, geld über alles.
I don’t utter that lightly, having lunched with Jan at the Plaza III on numerous occasions the last 4 years.