Thanks for your question.

Right now, there are no immediate plans for the barn or silo. We have evaluated both structures and are working on ways to incorporate them into something in the library's program once the program reaches beyond the creek.

As we continue to work on the library and the area around the house, the most significant improvement that we are working on west of the creek is building a new fence along our west property line. During our master planning process and our numerous public hearing, many of our neighbors have requested this improvement.

Thanks for you question and feel free to contact me with any other question you might have.

Steve Potter
Library Director

Thank you for your comments and please forgive me as it has taken me a little while to reply. I could explain why, but we are all busy these days, so…

Let’s start with the comment on outdoor seating. I think it is safe to say that this facility will have more intentional outdoor seating than any building in our library system (and maybe more than any other library in the region). There are three outdoor spaces in the current building plan. The café patio is +/- 850 sq. ft. and could possibly seat 30 to 35 comfortably. The main collection or atrium patio is +/- 625 sq. ft. and could possibly seat 20 to 25 comfortably. The Children's patio is +/- 500 sq. ft. and could possible seat 15 to 20 comfortably. Of course, the capacity of the patios could be more if it were just chairs or standing room. In addition, there will also be benches at the entryways, accommodating another 8 or 10 people. That is outdoor seating for 73 people. I think there is actual seating for about 180 people inside the new 35,000 sq. ft. building. This excludes seating in the program spaces. I think this ratio is pretty good, especially when you consider that we are in a “four season” climate and that it will often be too hot, too cold, or too wet to sit outside.

Perhaps the most important point about the outdoor seating is to consider that I’m only talking the first phase. Last week, we held a design charrette to determine how we would program the 33 acres that surround the site. Although we haven’t finished the master plan, it was pretty clear from our meetings that there will be lots of walking trails with seating opportunities throughout the site. It is hard to enumerate those opportunities at this point, but there were several. Many of the sites were out in the prairie restoration, and some were in the shade provided by wooded areas. This brings me to the second comment.

There are significant areas on the site that are shaded with trees. Most of those areas aren’t included in the fly-around so it is hard to conceptualize them unless you are very familiar with the site. Unfortunately, we had to remove several trees to facilitate construction. Many of these trees were mature, but not very healthy. I believe that our landscaping plan calls for us to go back with more than 110 new trees around the building site. All those trees are native to our zones and would have generally been found in Missouri in the 1850s. We will likely thin out the trees in the creek line because it is very overgrown. However, with that said, the mature grove of trees along the creek is between 100 and 250 feet from the patio. I think this will provide very nice outdoor shade most hours of the afternoon.

Another idea that came from the charrette was to create some more wooded “infill” especially on the west side of the property. I suspect that once we are able to afford to fund the entire redevelopment of the site, it will be very well shaded with lots of outdoor opportunities for people to gather and to facilitate collaboration and community.

Thank you so much for your comments. Once our master plan is approved and ready for public comment, we will have meetings and will post it online. The plan will take many years to complete. The master plan will rely heavily on private funding or other cooperative efforts for implementation. I will be very interested in comments about the plan.

Steven V. Potter
Library Director

Hi,

First, let me apologize for the response, or lack of response as is actually the issue. I'm not sure what happened, but clearly there was no response in the thread. I apologize for that.

The steps to maintain the historic designations for the property have been very challenging. We have worked closely with the Kansas City Landmarks Commission to meet these standards. They have a brochure that explains their process. Here is a link to that brochure. http://www.kcmo.org/idc/groups/cityplanningplanningdiv/documents/citypla...

As the brochure states, the "Landmarks Commission reviews cases according to the Kansas City Urban Design Guidelines, which are based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation." The Dept. of Interior's standards can be found at; http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/tps/standguide/index.htm

You will see that the standards say (among other things) that, "if the new use cannot be met in this way, then an attached exterior addition is usually an acceptable alternative. New additions should be designed and constructed so that the character-defining features of the historic building are not radically changed, obscured, damaged, or destroyed in the process of rehabilitation. New design should always be clearly differentiated so that the addition does not appear to be part of the historic resource." This last sentence is what leads to some of the decisions that I think you find objectionable. The "clearly differentiated" terminology is what lead us to keep clear of 19th century building styles and even kept us clear from the color red in building materials and even the use of bricks. All of these decisions were based on our reading of the standards, staff recommendation, and the direction of the Landmarks Commission.

As the Commission Staff explained to us, these decision are based on their Board and their Staff interpretation of the guidelines. It is an imprecise art. The staff at the Landmarks Commission have been very good to work with on this project.

I admit that my personal tastes do not necessarily align with all of the decisions in the final design. However, understanding the guidelines that we had to work within, I really do like it. I feel that we created a very interesting and functional way to keep the house as the centerpiece of the project while still creating an appropriate 21st century addition to the project.

Steve

Thanks for the comments.

It is interesting that you mentioned that you visit North Oak. Our planning suggested that we would draw people all along M-152, and all along I-35 from the river up to the county line and all points between. We will see if we are actually that successful in drawing folks from such a distance.

Keep your eye on our website. There will be lots of pictures in the coming days.

Steve

Thanks for your comments.

Actually, this type of configuration isn't that odd. Well, let me rephrase that. It isn't that odd when you're working under the Department of Interior's standards for National Landmarks. As we've learned through this process, the guidelines really don't allow you to reflect or replicate the style of the historic structure when you add on. In fact, they routinely like to see connections with glass walls (like we did down by the food service area) and the frequently want you to use different colors and materials (like we did throughout). We chose to use very plain materials and muted colors so the historic home would stand out against that backdrop.

This has been very challenging. My personal aesthetic would have leaned toward a Greek revival, red brick look. But if we wanted to maintain our landmark status, that was pretty much out of the question from the start.

Again, thanks for the comments and I hope I explained our choice a little better.

Steve

Thanks for the comments. I think it is going to be a great library. One thing that we have learned about the model that we are employing is that, when done right, everyone feels like the library was built for people "like me."

Please see the comment below about the Woodneath location. I would encourage people to contact their State Representatives and Senators to see if we can move the "Flintlock Flyover" project forward. I think this could help provide a new route to access Woodneath.

So, do I understand you correctly that you'd be willing to help us plant and harvest some row crop at Woodneath? :) Seriously, you're going to like the grounds. They will be very nice.

Thanks for the comments,

Steve

Thank you for your comments.

We haven't forgotten about other areas in our library district. Over the past five or six years we have invested several million dollars in our buildings to update the furnishings, technology, flooring, and other enhancements. Part of this project has involved creating more open spaces that can be reallocated for new services, like meeting spaces and other services. But it will take time to get there.

Thanks for you patience and for using your library,

Steve

Thank you for the comments. A big piece of our consideration around this project was future growth. Most of what we are seeing suggests that significant growth will occur west of I-35 and up I-35 before it the growth occurs to the east and the south. That was the main reason we looked for property toward the "Shoal Creek" area.

As I understand it, the "Flintlock Flyover" project is back in the works. This could allow quick and easy access to the new library from areas east of I-35. I'd recommend contacting your State Representative and State Senator to encourage this project along.

Thanks!

Steve