Monday, March 21, 2011

HEAD FAKE: Vastly different downtown garage first sold to public, pix show

Artist rendering sold to City Council, public nothing like final downtown garage
 
COLUMBIA, 3/21/11  (Beat Byte) --  An officially-sanctioned 2007-08 artist's rendering of the new downtown parking garage distributed by city officials to the media and public grossly misrepresents the new downtown parking garage's final size, shape, appearance, and dimensions. 
 
The picture supports the idea that city officials were not being honest when they promised a "maximum of six stories, more likely four," Grimes, Fay & Kopp law partner Andrew Kopp said at a January business forum.   Kopp's office is directly across from the 8-story garage.

"Work will begin today on a new parking garage in Columbia," KRCG news reported in July 2009.  The structure at Fifth and Walnut Streets is expected to be complete by the fall of 2010, and city officials hope it will alleviate parking problems north of Broadway and a shortage of parking spaces for the post office. Last year, the City of Columbia released a picture of what the structure may look like."  
 
The first picture shows a 2-3 story structure with tall windows, ample retail, and nowhere near the skyline-warping impact of the final version.  The second photo shows the final version. 
 


 


9 comments:

  1. Ene-Kaja ChippendaleMarch 21, 2011 at 6:49 PM

    Thank you. I especially appreciate the discussion of the proposed garage (have been wondering about the Trib's warm endorsements), and was amazed to see the original photo of what the monstrosity on Walnut was supposed to look like.

    What happened? I really enjoy reading Columbia Heartbeat--keep up the good work!

    ReplyDelete
  2. The difference between the two buildings is amazing. The 2007-8 rendering is quite attractive and modest in size, or at least in height.

    The one built is huge and, to me, quite ugly. Imagine a city with a parking garage being the tallest structure...

    Who made the decision(s) that led to the changes?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Every angle of this "leaning tower of design flaws" is disturbing & distracting.

    How does the city council reconcile the end product w/ the earlier graphics?

    Who can we trust to keep the public trust?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Get your fax straight. This is photograph of a similar mixed use structure that KRCG used as a "may look like" photo.
    it is not what the city council saw and voted on nor what was distributed to the public.
    this was: http://archive.columbiatribune.com/2008/oct/20081007news004.asp

    ReplyDelete
  5. Agree with everyone but Lee. That picture WAS distributed to the public, city council, media, everyone and I know for a fact people around that thing downtown long thought it was going to look more like the much smaller version.

    It certainly wasn't just KRCG that passed it out, either. Here's the smaller version in a Tribune article:

    http://archive.columbiatribune.com/2008/apr/20080423news003.asp

    I also recall seeing the smaller garage version on television and I think the Missourian also ran a copy of it.

    Call it a pre-emptive lie that got enough people behind the idea (or at least not opposed to it) before the much bigger version was rolled out.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I can see that those who just scan the headlines and look at the pictures may be mislead, but if you read the article it's clear.
    "Slated to start construction this fall, one of downtown Columbia’s newest and tallest structures...."

    ReplyDelete
  7. So the city passes out a picture that looks completely different from the final result and people aren't supposed to feel misled? Not getting the logic here???

    (What's that old saying about a picture -- it's worth a thousand words.)

    ReplyDelete
  8. That picture was never represented as our garage design! If it wa it was a micharicterization by the media. If one reads the article it says 8 story and may look like this and it's a two story structure.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete