KCRag Forum

If all built, that's 4700 units, at 1.5 people per that's 7000 more people.

earthling wrote:KCBJ downtown housing project list..

What is "The View 2"? I thought the View was a luxury condo building on the northside of downtown. Are these related?

^Was about to post that question... has it been discussed on the rag?

flyingember wrote:If all built, that's 4700 units, at 1.5 people per that's 7000 more people.

And doesn't include Light 3 and 4, which seem realistically doable. Probably another 500+.

ldai_phs wrote:

earthling wrote:KCBJ downtown housing project list..

What is "The View 2"? I thought the View was a luxury condo building on the northside of downtown. Are these related?

The view II is in the west bottoms. Same developer I believe as the original view. I guess he is not creative when it comes to names.

http://www.kansascity.com/news/business ... 41102.html

He is certainly creative when it comes to plastering the building with vinyl banners.
25 TEAR TAX ABATEMENT!
PUTTING GREEN!
ETC.!

I tweaked a wikikc map to remove a small number for projects complete through to the Missouri and Grand project groundbreaking in a week. This is both empty lots and parking lots. if anyone thinks there's a lot of parking being lost from recent projects it's not even a scratch.

http://wikikc.org/Save_The___________%2 ... _Buildings

List of river market projects

1. 2nd & Delaware - Second and Delaware apartments
2. 501 Grand Blvd - Centropolis on Grand apartments
3. 531 Grand Blvd - apartments and retail
4. 3rd & Walnut - apartments
5. Berkley Riverfront Park - apartments and office space
6. Vacant lot between Richards & Conover Lofts and Colonial Patterns on 5th - extension of River Market West apartments
7. 429 Walnut Street - Brown & Loe restaurant
8. 5th & Oak - restaurant, bar, and office space
9. 5th & Wyandotte - unknown development
10. 3rd & Grand parking lot - more parking

http://www.kshb.com/news/local-news/riv ... or-decades

This news continues to be pretty great from a residential standpoint. While there are retail and restaurant locations opening in the area, I feel like we are in the calm before the storm as far as another wave of announcements starts to come in. As soon as all of these people are closer to moving in, there will certainly be more demand downtown for firsts and alternatives to firsts (medium to larger scale grocer, Target, chain clothing stores, large-scale liquor store, $8-$15 fast casual trendy food joints, etc.). How weird will it be in 5 years or so when AMC announces a big new complex downtown? I hope the city passes an ordinance assessing additional taxes to a downtown AMC.

Crown Center really saved itself by pivoting towards a family demographic, but it is really lacking from a young professional/DINK perspective. I'd imagine even people with a lot of disposable income have a hard time spending $500 on a pair of dress shoes at Hall's.

bobbyhawks wrote:I hope the city passes an ordinance assessing additional taxes to a downtown AMC.

Isn't this illegal? That you can not target taxes on a specific business? A type, sure, but not a specific one.

flyingember wrote:

bobbyhawks wrote:I hope the city passes an ordinance assessing additional taxes to a downtown AMC.

Isn't this illegal? That you can not target taxes on a specific business? A type, sure, but not a specific one.

SARCASM FONT

" I'd imagine even people with a lot of disposable income have a hard time spending $500 on a pair of dress shoes at Hall's."

Back in '73 I bowled with a guy who was head of the altering for a top-of-the-line clothing stores on the Plaza. Visited him and he showed me a sport coat and pants combo a customer had bought. Was asked to guess the price and I wasn't even close. Can't remember what the price was but it was quite a bit north of what even a good suit would cost.
Hey, if ordinary folks are willing to pay the big bucks for a purse or other accessary even sneakers what's $500 for a pair of dress shoes.

Add 2805-09 Gillham to the list of redevelopment projects.

The property has two vacant lots on each side of the existing apartment building that can be developed.

http://tinyurl.com/zb7acls

The article:

http://tinyurl.com/z4c625s

Will a cap on incentives kill KC development?

http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/n ... rcent.html

It will be interesting to see, but it is at least coming at a time in the city's history when there is genuine desire to build things downtown, regardless of the incentives (for the time being). I know it is a small example and not directly in the area being discussed, but the mixed use apartment complex proposal that created so much drama in the Westside on 17th is still moving forward, even after the developer was denied both a zoning amendment and 30 years of tax abatement. Maybe instead of "will a cap kill development," we should be asking, "how will a cap change the type of development we are getting?"

bobbyhawks wrote:It will be interesting to see, but it is at least coming at a time in the city's history when there is genuine desire to build things downtown, regardless of the incentives (for the time being). I know it is a small example and not directly in the area being discussed, but the mixed use apartment complex proposal that created so much drama in the Westside on 17th is still moving forward, even after the developer was denied both a zoning amendment and 30 years of tax abatement. Maybe instead of "will a cap kill development," we should be asking, "how will a cap change the type of development we are getting?"

Can there not be some sort of compromise where the school district gets to receive its share of property taxes and the rest forgo them? And maybe have the developer contribute to improving infrastructure around their sites (sidewalks, landscape, bike racks/share, bike lanes)? I just feel like there has to be a more creative solution than just completely limiting all incentives- it just seems rather counterproductive and ignorant.

Maybe instead of "will a cap kill development," we should be asking, "how will a cap change the type of development we are getting?"

A fair question. I've always been for incentives that let a project go above and beyond or eliminating a barrier like historic preservation costs. Making a project financially sound is a bad practice.

A better project doesn't have to mean more units. It could mean better materials, adding retail or such.

If the city and neighborhoods understand what incentives get them it's an easier decision. This is rarely known today because developers tend not to pay for two plans nor do they want to show they don't really need incentives.

My problem with incentives as they have been asked for lately is that (based on my perception) they are most often a hostage negotiation tactic, rather than a demonstrated added benefit to the community. If a company came out with a proposed project, then after getting feedback from the community added elements that require such tax incentives, I'd be open. That is not how they have been used lately, and it may be possible that an across the board cap is the only way to prevent the inside baseball game from being abused and expected. I don't know if 50% if fair or makes sense, but I definitely can see the argument for the 75% cap from a "we need money near-term" and "this should not be the default expectation" perspectives. I think the cap encourages a more long-term approach and vision than the previous 100% abatements did. 100% lets more speculators in who don't really care about the overall benefit to the city so long as real estate appreciates over that period of time. Not my arena, so I may be way off base here.

I worry that a 50 percent cap is too blunt an instrument to impose on the City's ability to do development projects. Such an action doesn't take into account that some areas are more difficult to develop--to begin with, and that some projects are more expensive than others due to a variety of factors.

It also doesn't take into account that you are limiting the City's ability to compete with other adjacent municipalities and states--that have no limits on incentives, where it is cheaper to develop, and where more lucrative incentives packages might be available. Many competing municipalities don't have the development challenges that KCMO has.

On my walk recently, I snapped a few pictures of one of the remaining empty parcels near the convention center. Cushman has the listing, will be curious to see what happens down the road.







Listing PDF: http://x.lnimg.com/attachments/35F4E88D ... E58C4E.pdf