Crown Center: urban disaster, shining star, or in-between

Issues concerning Downtown as described by the Downtown Council. River to 31st Street, I-35 to Bruce R. Watkins.
User avatar
DaveKCMO
Ambassador
Posts: 20039
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:22 pm
Location: Crossroads
Contact:

Re: Crown Center: urban disaster, shining star, or in-between

Post by DaveKCMO »

FangKC wrote:I would go so far as to say that even elected officials don't properly understand the problem. They continue to approve low-density neighborhoods in undeveloped parts of the City.
correct. at the APS event in february -- with several former council members in the audience -- i railed on this exact statement.

"YOU ARE COMPLICIT"
miz.jordan17
Strip mall
Strip mall
Posts: 107
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2016 1:11 pm

Re: Crown Center: urban disaster, shining star, or in-between

Post by miz.jordan17 »

FangKC wrote:They are winning the PR battle because city leaders are failing to adequately educate citizens about the long-term density problem the City faces, and more specifically, with generating revenue for a municipality that is very large physically for a population that is relatively low for its' space. Thus the need for incentives to regenerate existing neighborhoods, so that in a few years they will produce tax more tax revenue.

The most illustrative example of this problem is a city like Detroit that is physically large, not as dense anymore, and doesn't have the tax-base to maintain itself. It's not so much the population, but that the population is mostly poor. There aren't enough employed middle and upper class people to offset the poverty. More importantly, there is not enough economic activity. Keep in mind that the City of Detroit is not even half the physical size of KCMO.

The water mains break. The streetlights don't work. Snow removal is very slow. The police and fire departments are so ill-equipped and understaffed that they cannot provide even minimal protection. City services are terrible, so they are still experiencing population loss, which makes the problem even worse because taxpayers are being lost. Property in the City is so undervalued that it doesn't generate adequate revenue to maintain infrastructure, and taxes are too high on the remaining residents, who tend to be very poor. Detroit has a problem even collecting property taxes from its' residents.

Now let's look at some basic metrics.

The City of Detroit has a footprint of 143 sq miles.
It had roughly 680,250 people in 2013.
It has a density of about 5,142 per sq. mile.

KCMO has a footprint of 319 sq. miles.
Kansas City has roughly 471,000 people.
It has a density of about 1,474 per sq. mile.

Another comparison. New York City has a footprint of 309 sq. miles. Chicago has a footprint of 227.3 sq miles.

As KCMO develops its' raw land, it becomes even less dense. Because of its' current development patterns, as it continues to grow, basic infrastructure costs per resident will continue to become more expensive. A few economic downturns and bad luck could turn KCMO into Detroit within a few decades.

Detroit is a smaller city physically than KCMO, and has more people and more density per sq. mile. Yet, it still has a problem funding and maintaining itself. Detroit does have certain systemic problems that KCMO doesn't have--mostly a higher unemployment rate, and a long-term history of political corruption. It's population is also poorer.

Essentially, unless KCMO can regenerate its' older neighborhoods, it could easily grow itself outward to an unsustainable situation. The less dense your neighborhood is, the more expensive it is to maintain.

City leadership has done a really poor job educating the public about this. I would go so far as to say that even elected officials don't properly understand the problem. They continue to approve low-density neighborhoods in undeveloped parts of the City. Neighborhoods that are much less dense than the City was originally.

The Kansas City Public School District's opposition to granting incentives now will eventually come back to bite them in the ass. Their revenue stream is constricting. It's not because of incentives the City grants. It's because the vast majority of their district territory is slowly losing tax value. Most of the district sits east of Troost. Property values east of Troost continue to go down. If they continue contesting every incentives deal for development, developers will just not work in older parts of KCMO. It won't be worth the trouble. Vacant land and empty buildings will sit longer and there will be less likelihood that tax values go up on those properties in the future, so the school district will see even less revenue over time.

The reason for this is that rents are not high enough in most of KCMO to justify the expense of renovating or building new. The developer cannot yet earn enough profit on the project to justify the time and stress of doing it. It takes longer to develop an older property than on raw land in the suburbs. There are more carrying costs and challenges. There are more hoops to jump through. And without incentives, the payoff is not big enough.

At least with incentives, there will be a time when revenues will go up on those properties when the incentives expire.

I would wager that if all the people who are opposed to giving incentives actually tried to redevelop property in an older neighborhood, they would change their mind about giving them by the time they went through the process.

Even neighborhoods outside of the Kansas City Public School District will face this financial problem eventually. As the neighborhoods grow older and children leave home, enrollments will decline. Aging neighborhoods will produce less revenue, and because those neighborhoods were not dense enough to begin with, there will not be adequate property tax revenue for those school districts either.

Keep in mind that people like Crosby Kemper can always afford to move when the City hits the skids. The Kempers can take their banks and museums to more affluent suburbs outside the borders of KCMO.
For those of who are uneducated on the situation, how did the city acquire so much land, and why did they do it?
longviewmo
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1008
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 12:58 am
Location: Manhattan, Kansas
Contact:

Re: Crown Center: urban disaster, shining star, or in-between

Post by longviewmo »

miz.jordan17 wrote:For those of who are uneducated on the situation, how did the city acquire so much land, and why did they do it?
Annexation, and so others would not get it.

It's why Raytown and Gladstone exists in the form they do, aren't bigger, and why Lee's Summit extends so far north and south.

Google "annexation kansas city history" and the first result is a city map that downloads when you click on it (and why I'm not linking it here).

This is also somewhat informational.
aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12624
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: Crown Center: urban disaster, shining star, or in-between

Post by aknowledgeableperson »

"Annexation, and so others would not get it."

And the city didn't want to be landlocked like St Louis and other older eastern cities. It realized people were moving out past the city limits so to recapture that population it annexed. You look at the population growth of Kansas City from 1950 to 1960 that was the result of annexation. Same thing for the growth from 1960 to 1970. Without annexation the city would have lost population during that 20 year period much like for the period 1970 to 1990. Much of what KCMO annexed in 1947, 1957 and 1958 south of the river was already mostly developed and populated. The city first annexed north of the river in 1950 to capture the downtown airport and to landlock NKC which was incorporated in 1950. Then in 1959 to landlock Gladstone. The 1961 annexation south of the river helped landlock Raytown.
From Wiki about Gladstone:
"One version is told in a beautiful, framed calligraphy scroll which was signed and presented to the City on July 4, 1976 by two members of the first City Council who were instrumental in the City’s incorporation in 1952. The story goes that when the Petition for Incorporation was presented to the Circuit Court of Clay County, the bearers were informed the Petition was incomplete because the name of the proposed new city was not shown. As time was of the essence (Kansas City had plans to annex this area), a hurried meeting was called and Mrs. Maria Harless, who later became the first City Clerk, suggested the name of Gladstone. At that time, much publicity was being given to Southwestern Bell Telephone Company’s opening of the new Gladstone telephone exchange in this area. Mrs. Harless reasoned that the publicity this name received would also provide some much-needed publicity for this newborn city. Thus, the name Gladstone was borrowed from the telephone company.
But don't forget KCMO had a history of annexation. In 1897 the city more than doubled it's size and in 1909 in more than doubled again.
User avatar
KCtoBrooklyn
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1260
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 4:01 pm

Re: Crown Center: urban disaster, shining star, or in-between

Post by KCtoBrooklyn »

Metrowiremedia has recently posted an article titled, UC-B, Milhaus detail new Crown Center project, however, details are noticeably absent from their post. Was anyone at this KC Downtowners event? Did they reveal any renderings?
hartliss
Colonnade
Colonnade
Posts: 791
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 4:05 pm
Location: Brookside

Re: Crown Center: urban disaster, shining star, or in-between

Post by hartliss »

KCtoBrooklyn wrote:Metrowiremedia has recently posted an article titled, UC-B, Milhaus detail new Crown Center project, however, details are noticeably absent from their post. Was anyone at this KC Downtowners event? Did they reveal any renderings?
I was there, here are some screen shots from their presentation.

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image
User avatar
Eon Blue
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1124
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 11:28 pm
Location: Downtown KCMO

Re: Crown Center: urban disaster, shining star, or in-between

Post by Eon Blue »

Why the big setback from Gillham?
earthling
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 8519
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:27 pm
Location: milky way, orion arm

Re: Crown Center: urban disaster, shining star, or in-between

Post by earthling »

Yeah, a bit much of a setback. Would be nice for the 'townhomes' to be rowhouse style with stair stoops to sidewalk.
hartliss
Colonnade
Colonnade
Posts: 791
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 4:05 pm
Location: Brookside

Re: Crown Center: urban disaster, shining star, or in-between

Post by hartliss »

Eon Blue wrote:Why the big setback from Gillham?

They did talk a lot about the tricky grade on these blocks, not sure if that is why though. Was really impressed with Milhaus, FWIW.
TheBigChuckbowski
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3546
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:36 pm
Location: Longfellow

Re: Crown Center: urban disaster, shining star, or in-between

Post by TheBigChuckbowski »

Gillham is a Boulevard and requires some trees, etc. Certainly wouldn't need that much of a setback but maybe that's the rationale?

I'm more concerned with the parking garage. Is it really not wrapped in apartments and retail or is the rendering just not detailed enough? That stretch of 27th already has an ugly parking garage across the street so that block will be monumentally awful for a pedestrian.

But, this project is going to make such a dramatic and positive difference in this area. It will be night and day.
User avatar
KCtoBrooklyn
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1260
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 4:01 pm

Re: Crown Center: urban disaster, shining star, or in-between

Post by KCtoBrooklyn »

Thanks for sharing!

Was there any sort of mention of other phases at this presentation (be it this developer's option to purchase land to the south, or Hallmark having any plans for the land to the north)?

I am a little surprised that the retail is going on McGee rather than Gillham. It makes sense on McGee in the context of this development, but I would think Gillham would work better in the grand scheme of things. Plus, it would have much better visibility for the businesses.
TheBigChuckbowski wrote:I'm more concerned with the parking garage. Is it really not wrapped in apartments and retail or is the rendering just not detailed enough? That stretch of 27th already has an ugly parking garage across the street so that block will be monumentally awful for a pedestrian.
I agree in theory, but I think the steep slope of 27th might have made things difficult. Plus, it looks like the amount of frontage for the garage is not too excessive (definitely looks like much less than the garage across the street).

I am a little disappointed they are vacating Oak St, but overall, I am pretty pleased and excited for this development.
hartliss
Colonnade
Colonnade
Posts: 791
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 4:05 pm
Location: Brookside

Re: Crown Center: urban disaster, shining star, or in-between

Post by hartliss »

KCtoBrooklyn wrote:
Was there any sort of mention of other phases at this presentation (be it this developer's option to purchase land to the south, or Hallmark having any plans for the land to the north)?
Yes, they also have an option to develop the land circled in red (current development is in blue). I believe he said they have purchased it already.

Image
moderne
Oak Tower
Oak Tower
Posts: 5492
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 2:50 pm
Location: Mount Hope

Re: Crown Center: urban disaster, shining star, or in-between

Post by moderne »

The parking garage is very much smaller and less obtrusive than the giant cavernous Hallmark garage across the street. The setback on Gillham may be for continuity with the setback of the Hallmark and Crown Center buildings to the north. Sorta reminds be of the setback from the street of the apartment buildings on Gillham. Gives much more the feeling of an European Blvd. I like retail on McGee as this could be a nice pedestrian street more than Gillham, the angle makes it a more direct path from the south to CC. The buildings themselves almost look like the same 1976 era of San Francisco Tower.
kcjak
Penntower
Penntower
Posts: 2429
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 3:02 pm

Re: Crown Center: urban disaster, shining star, or in-between

Post by kcjak »

News from Hallmark today is that The American Restaurant will reinvent itself as a venue exclusively for pop-up dining experiences featuring world-renowned chefs and special events. The restaurant will continue operate under the current hours/schedule through the end of the year and the new concept will begin mid-January with a series of limited engagements with guest chefs.
mgh7676
Western Auto Lofts
Western Auto Lofts
Posts: 552
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:00 am

Re: Crown Center: urban disaster, shining star, or in-between

Post by mgh7676 »

The renderings of 27/Gillham previously seen from a presentation last month are now on UC-B's website. I feel like this development should have it's own thread.
http://uc-bproperties.com/property/27gillham/
User avatar
FangKC
City Hall
City Hall
Posts: 18141
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound

Re: Crown Center: urban disaster, shining star, or in-between

Post by FangKC »

moderne wrote:The parking garage is very much smaller and less obtrusive than the giant cavernous Hallmark garage across the street. The setback on Gillham may be for continuity with the setback of the Hallmark and Crown Center buildings to the north. Sorta reminds be of the setback from the street of the apartment buildings on Gillham. Gives much more the feeling of an European Blvd. I like retail on McGee as this could be a nice pedestrian street more than Gillham, the angle makes it a more direct path from the south to CC. The buildings themselves almost look like the same 1976 era of San Francisco Tower.
I'm guessing the parking garage placement might have to do with the need for future replacement. It appears to be a completely separate structure--independent of the apartment buildings. They appear to have chosen not to put all the parking underground to save money. You could completely hide the parking if you excavated the grade closest to Gillham down several levels and built the east wing of apartments atop the garage.

There is a trade-off here. Putting the garage completely underground and building apartments on top of it is more expensive because you have to excavate the grade. However, it also protects the garage structure from degradation from weather. The building on top of it protects it.

Unless an above-grade garage is maintained well, the decks can degrade over time from freezing and water damage. Several garages have been demolished for this reason.

Building a separate above-grade garage is cheaper, but it is vulnerable to weather, which means it might need to be replaced at some point. Buiding a separate parking structure that is not integrated with any of the other buildings means they can do this in the future.

I believe one of the earlier development drawings for Crown Center included adding apartments on the north side of 27th Street that would have concealed the exposure of the mammoth garage. I don't know if this is still the goal. If it is, it would hide that garage and create a nicer facade along 27th Street. In that case, having another garage across the street would seem to detract from the general aesthetic they might be attempting to accomplish.

Below is a previous illustration of a plan Goody-Clancy Architecture did awhile back that shows plans for buildings along that narrow strip between the garage and 27th Street.

Image

This image shows a building (on the right) that appears to be planned for the narrow strip of land up against the Hallmark garage on the north side of the street. The cross street is McGee.

Image

If that is Crown Center/Hallmark's eventual plan, it would seem to me that there should have been a coherent overall design plan that the developers of this apartment complex should have had to adhere to--as part of the sale--meaning they couldn't place a garage facade fronting the street. From earlier redevelopment drawings for the south part of Crown Center, it seemed to me that lessons had been learned about improving their property. That included creating nice pedestrian oriented streets and hiding garages,

From my own critical viewpoint, the designers of Crown Center failed to create a successful pedestrian environment pleasing to human activity in the original phases of the development. The frontages along Grand and Pershing fail in that respect. The stretch of Grand south of the Crown Center shops entrances to 27th Street is a disaster. It doesn't create that pedestrian activity and cohesion. J.C. Nichols created a better mixed use development with the Country Club Plaza.

The Goody-Clancy drawings appeared to be an attempt to remedy some of the problems with the development.
flyingember
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9862
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: Crown Center: urban disaster, shining star, or in-between

Post by flyingember »

From my own critical viewpoint, the designers of Crown Center failed to create a successful pedestrian environment
I'm not certain they ever intended to build a pedestrian environment.
wasn't the original goal to create a place people didn't need to leave. like the stores would provide people living and working there everything they need?

almost every building has some sort of direct path to the shopping space to where you stay inside the development or don't even need to go to street level by using a walkway
User avatar
DaveKCMO
Ambassador
Posts: 20039
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:22 pm
Location: Crossroads
Contact:

Re: Crown Center: urban disaster, shining star, or in-between

Post by DaveKCMO »

not sure if previously reported, but the westin's rooms are about to get a $17 million makeover.
User avatar
DaveKCMO
Ambassador
Posts: 20039
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:22 pm
Location: Crossroads
Contact:

Re: Crown Center: urban disaster, shining star, or in-between

Post by DaveKCMO »

unforked is now open!
User avatar
PumpkinStalker
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3979
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2003 12:04 am
Location: Waldo

Re: Crown Center: urban disaster, shining star, or in-between

Post by PumpkinStalker »

Crown Center is applying for two KC programs to help improve public areas and renovate the Westin and Sheraton.

"Crown Center officials are applying for two City of Kansas City programs that would improve Crown Center public areas and enable renovations at the Westin and Sheraton hotels, allowing them to remain competitive with other hotels in the metro area.

The two programs include:
• A reimbursement of a portion of Kansas City's convention and tourism tax.

• The creation of a Community Improvement District (CID) that would raise tax revenues from hotel guests.

The city recently awarded similar incentive programs to two other Kansas City hotels.

"A priority for city officials has been making Kansas City a competitive convention destination and we want to support this strategy," says Stacey Paine, president - Crown Center. "To compete with new hotels and renovations under way at other city properties, these programs would enable Crown Center's hotels to update their 1,500 rooms beginning later this year."

If approved, Crown Center would spend about $30 million over the next several years to renovate guest rooms, and half of the renovation costs would come from the tax reimbursement. Tax dollars generated from the CID would be used to improve the public areas of Crown Center, including Crown Center Square, the fountains, the link and the ice terrace.

"For more than 45 years, Hallmark and Crown Center have literally invested millions of dollars into the betterment of our property," Stacey says. "Taking advantage of these city programs now allows us to invest in our property in a way that levels the playing field with other convention hotels and helps make Kansas City a premiere destination for both locals and travelers."

If these programs are approved by city officials, Crown Center will be the first local entity to make a contribution to the city's newly formed Shared Success fund, a program to benefit distressed areas and strengthen surrounding neighborhoods. A $250,000 contribution is planned."
Post Reply