KCRag Forum

Highlander wrote: One thing I noted when I was in KC was that the P&L District is a pretty well buffered area.  On the south it's bordered abrubtly by I-470, to the east by the Sprint Center, to the west by a construction zone (at least for the time being) and a development that has not yet even filled in.  To the north there are two large parking garages that separate the district from the remainder of downtown.  It's difficult to fit anything in that would create contiguous development with the area around the Transamerica building.  That might be an easy distance to traverse for downtown workers and residents but to average patron at the P&L District, it is out of sight and out of mind.  As far as creating a captive audience, Cordish has done very well.  It may be a while before we see advantages from spillover except on event nights at the Sprint Arena and even then, I understand that venues within the loop but outside the District do not do all that well. 

trailerkid wrote: Go with me on this...

Wasn't the Sprint Center built almost 100% on speculation? The only known tenant was the Big XII and that surely wasn't something that would be hosted every year.

Why doesn't KC assist Copaken in putting this office tower up on speculation? Did anyone ever consider that a big reason why Sprint Prison has been landing tenants is because it has relatively new space that's immediately available? If downtown had properties immediately available that were newer and more modern than the Sprint Prison wouldn't tenants jump at the opportunity if given a competitive incentive package?

The Sprint Center was a pretty big risk, but one that's paying off. Why can't we take the same risk in constructing some of the best spec office space in the metro?

KCMax wrote: My best guesses for why not are (1) the recession; (2) the mayor; and (3) I don't think downtown is lacking for vacancies - am I wrong about that?

Would the West Edge project fit what you're talking about?

trailerkid wrote: just think about it like this...
if you're buying a new house are you going to buy a house from the early 80s for the same price as a house built in 2005?

trailerkid wrote: just think about it like this...
if you're buying a new house are you going to buy a house from the early 80s for the same price as a house built in 2005?

trailerkid wrote: Wasn't the Sprint Center built almost 100% on speculation? The only known tenant was the Big XII and that surely wasn't something that would be hosted every year.

KCMax wrote: I'm not sure I get this. There are houses built in the 80s, even the 50s that sell for a lot more than houses built in 2005. If the 2005 house looks like a sprawled piece of crap, then yea, I would think you'd want the 1980s house.

trailerkid wrote: maybe places are vacant due to the fact they're from the late 70s and 80s (i.e. Town Pavillion, City Center Square) and undesirable to upper echelon tenants.

KC-wildcat wrote: Guys aren't sitting at their desks smoking cigars, drinking scotch, and looking at their orange shag carpet and brown, wall-papered walls. 

FangKC wrote: Scotch, bourbon and martinis have been replaced by prescription drugs.

Eon Blue wrote:What's the story here? Is this a speculative rendering or something concrete?