An important point about Nelson-Atkins Museum and their encroachment into a Kansas City neighborhood
A nearby resident recently sent me an e-mail with what I think is an important point about the recent lawsuit filed by the Kansas City museum.
APPARENTLY, A LOT OF THE RHETORIC USED BY THE NELSON PR MACHINE CLAIMS THAT THE STRUGGLE IS ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF A COUNTRY CLUB . . . THAT ASSERTION IS INCORRECT!!!
The TKC Tipster says:
"I don't want to seem dismissive of the club, but the club as never been embroiled in this issue and not involved at all in the ordinance - Its really been the neighborhoods. The Nelson wants everybody to believe this is just about a private club, but it's not - it's far from it it's about neighborhood preservation."Once again, it's funny to see Mayor Funky flip-flop on this issue and he seemed to invoke the whole "special legislation" argument concerning this case in a recent interview.
Stay tuned for more coverage of this issue . . . And, just for the record, I firmly believe that the Nelson-Atkins folks should be constrained . . . At least from building more warehouse/parking garage looking structures in a historic Kansas City neighborhood.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis is total BS.
ReplyDeleteThe neighborhood never complained about the traffic to the club. Traffic may actually go down.
If it is about neighborhoods, then house is tennis club traffic any less disruptive than office worker traffic?
The Nelson owns another home just one block away. They currently use it for staff. No one has ever complained about that.
The complaints only started when rich folks were in danger of loosing their private club.
I live near the Nelson, and walk around the museum several times a week. The tennis club property is separated from the museum by a 20-40 ft cement retaining wall, and four lanes of Rockhill Rd.
ReplyDeleteThat seems to me to be natural demarcation between the museum and this historic Rockhill neighborhood. Without the ordinance, the museum could build, on that property, a structure the size of the original Nelson museum without getting any additional approvals from the city or neighborhood!!!
Think about that - smack dab in an historic neighborhood they could build a huge museum expansion, destroying one of the founding neighorhoods in our city.
Your tipster is half right. This issue is about Southmoreland’s neighborhood preservation of their private country club. The only institutional encroachment in this case is from one institution to another.
ReplyDeleteThe tennis club space is occupied by an institution – the tennis club. Having the property's owner as its occupant is no different than its current institutional tenant - except that some rich people will have to drive a little further to play tennis. (maybe even step out on a public tennis court).
While I am no fan of the so-called world class design of the Nelson’s expansion I am also not a fan of City Council people dictating private property rights. This case is particularly unsettling b/c it is NOT a case of a residential property being converted for institutional use (which would be institutional encroachment), but the proposal would downgrade the institutional use from a day and night entertainment facility to a 9-5 office space.
The only “neighborhood preservation” at issue is the benefit that a private club offers to the Southmoreland neighborhood. Either way, the property is subject to institutional use.
the nelson's 350 million dollar hallway is proof enough that they can't be trusted. the shuttle cocks should have been a red flag years ago. ever see people in the inner city play badminton? who is the nelson for anyway?
ReplyDeleteThe Rockhill Tennis Club sits within the historic Rockhill Neighborhood, not Southmoreland.
ReplyDeleteSouthmoreland's boundary is on the west side of the Nelson-Atkins.
The club is in Rockhill, not Southmoreland, and the dispute has nothing to do with the tennis club, and it has everything to do with R-1 uses that are compatible with a residential, single-family neighborhoods.
ReplyDeleteOffice space is occupied 8-5, not on evenings and weekends. Homes are occupied primarily on weekends and evening and during the day, which help neighborhood security, among many other things.
Note to the Wife - people don't move into historical residential neighborhoods for the office space.
Offices don't build community.
And the issue isn't just about offices, it is what the Nelson will do with the property in the future, and how that uncertainty will affect the sales of homes, and how a fture building the size of the original Nelson museum will impact the neighborhood.
the dispute has everything to do with R-1 uses that are compatible with a residential, single-family neighborhoods.
ReplyDeleteIf this true, then why does the city allow the Nelson to currently use another home in the area as office space?
People only started complaining when the rich folks in Rockhill were going to loose their private club.
Nope, the Nelson no longer uses the house for offices, and the Board of Zoning Adjustment earlier this year was about to reject their request for continued use, but before it could be rejected the Nelson withdrew its request.
ReplyDeleteCity Planning does not support the use of residential structures as museum offices, and would not be supportive of the Nelson's proposed office use of the tennis club property.
This isn't about a private club.
City Planning does not support the use of residential structures as museum office
ReplyDeleteIf that is true, then why was the Nelson able to use the house (block north of nelson) for offices for as long as it did? And why was their no public outcry while the house was/is used as office space?
Its all about privileged people wanting a privileged play space.
The Nelson originally asked for a variance several years ago to occupy the house until they got their $300M expansion complete.
ReplyDeleteProblem is, they spent $300M and didn't plan for enough office space, so they asked for an extension.
The Nelson originally asked for a variance several years ago to occupy the house until they got their $300M expansion complete.
ReplyDeleteSo you are saying the Nelson was using a home in the area as office space for several years and didn't receive complaints and never had the city council step in to kick them out.
Now that people may loose their private club, it all of the sudden is big news.
If the neighborhood didn't complain for these past years, then it looks more like the private club is the real root of the issue.
It's not the tennis club that is the issue, it is the long-term programmed institutional use, and exhibit space expansion, in the heart of a single family neighborhood, that is the issue.
ReplyDeleteThe tennis club, in the words of the Nelson, "is history". The Nelson has always maintained the club would be gone. It's very unfortunate, but it's reality, and I believe the neighborhoods have that understanding as well, but the still, nevertheless, supported the ordinance for the reasons stated above.
It's not about the club, the club is gone.
Its all about privileged people wanting a privileged play space.
ReplyDelete-----------------------------
This is the best point I've ever heard made in this arguement.
bulldoze those ugly buildings and then we'll talk about trusting the Nelson.
ReplyDeletewow, lots of anony haters of architecture and olaf.
ReplyDeleteit seems that the sides are not going to agree.
didn't know it was an R1, figured R2. what zoning does a tennis place need? or an office? i used to know this by heart / have energy to play at kcmo.org and look it up / call the planning department.
my favorite neighbors have always been the weekday business ones. they are quiet places when i'm home.
olaf, who's olaf? swedish dyslexia. of course, i meant claes. i'm not sleeping enough, you know.
ReplyDelete