Possible future multi-use development

Issues concerning Downtown as described by the Downtown Council. River to 31st Street, I-35 to Bruce R. Watkins.
KCroots
Pad site
Pad site
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 10:19 am

Possible future multi-use development

Postby KCroots » Sat Jul 12, 2014 7:30 pm

I was born in KCMO and as I age I have this “soulful tugging’ or “inner desire” to one day return to my roots so when the time comes that I pass away I can be buried in my home soil. Call it nostalgia or just old age but it is what it is.

I registered here at KCRag as part of my ongoing research into everything currently “Kansas City MO.” (Changing demographics, business, trends, etc and my overall investment options) Part of my options are either purchasing an older building to completely renovate or just buying one of the many surface parking lots which dot the city and starting fresh from ground up.

My desire is a mixed-use building that will house a restaurant, a bar, a few small office spaces, small sq foot affordable apartment units, and possibly a retail location for a business such as a specialty mens apparel clothing store on the main level next to the restaurant and bar. I’d want to actually own and operate all three of the businesses within the building development as well as live in the building itself. I am not doing anything even remotely related to or themed as lofts! Kansas City needs another “loft” project as much as it needs another Starbucks.

The question that keeps arising for me is where In KCMO (preferably downtown / South Crossroads) is the best fit for such a development / investment. I am not interested in a trendy section of town like the P&L district simply due to the fact I feel P&L is just not a good fit for my ideas, nor for me. I’m also unfamiliar with all the zoning laws or mixed -use zoning areas so any help there is appreciated.

I feel the restaurant and bar will work anywhere the development eventually gets erected. The apparel store would be a destination place, not a convenience mall type of store, meaning that customers would search out the apparel store and travel to it to purchase the types of clothing that are specifically sold there regardless of its location. (Higher end men’s clothing and accessories without the Plaza prices)

The restaurant theme I’m still undecided but leaning towards is a combination Pizza / diner type of place that can operate 24 hours a day. Not a greasy spoon type of diner but still an affordable griddle type diner that offers fast cheap traditional Waffle House type diner / breakfast food.

Food that’s not over priced like in a trendy “over the top” restaurant where a fried egg goes for 5 dollars and you feel like you got stiffed. I want a customer to be able to eat and pay as if they were at the Waffle House but in a slightly nicer setting. (Ok a much nicer setting)

The handmade pizza would also be offered 24 hours and be made with all fresh traditional ingredients but nothing super fancy like goat milk cheese or trendy ingredient’s like hand carved exotic wildebeest meat, blended sprouts with evergreen twinkles and sparkling organic vices from roof top gardens. Such “hipster” menus in trendy restaurants always cause me to personally roll my eyes when reading such descriptive menu “specials”. For me it’s KISS = Keep It Simple Stupid, keep it good, and keep it affordable and customers will return regularly and tell their friends.

The bar on the other hand I want to be small with a much more upscale feel to it where residents of the building and the locals from the neighborhood (or visiting the neighborhood) can have a nice relaxing place to have a drink and meet. The bar theme I would like to achieve is similar to the Black Hound Bar & Lounge in New York.

Here are images of the Black Hound so readers here have an idea of the type of bar style I’m interested in:

Image

Image

Image

I am open to questions, suggestions, and Ideas from KCRag members regarding this development and I’m even open to other parts of the KCMO area as long as they are NOT in the Country Club Plaza or too far outside of the downtown area. Like I said, I’d prefer to help do my small part in helping to revitalize downtown should I decide to make such a transition or investment.

Please no real estate agents, or soliciting me, just discussion. Thank you!

User avatar
grovester
Hotel President
Hotel President
Posts: 3484
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:30 pm
Location: KC Metro

Re: Possible future multi-use development

Postby grovester » Sat Jul 12, 2014 7:49 pm

You've come to the right place. Best of luck.

User avatar
Eon Blue
Colonnade
Colonnade
Posts: 914
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 11:28 pm
Location: Downtown KCMO

Re: Possible future multi-use development

Postby Eon Blue » Sat Jul 12, 2014 8:29 pm

I would like to make a reservation at your restaurant.

Sounds like your head is in the right place and I hope you can make it happen. Don't forget to reach out to the neighborhood for input; based on what I see here, I think you'll find us to be receptive & supportive.

LenexatoKCMO
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 14667
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 3:34 pm
Location: Valentine

Re: Possible future multi-use development

Postby LenexatoKCMO » Sat Jul 12, 2014 9:03 pm

I like the sound of your plan. No shortage of potential spots.

User avatar
FangKC
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12210
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound

Re: Possible future multi-use development

Postby FangKC » Sat Jul 12, 2014 11:51 pm

I don't know how big of a building you are willing to take on, but the Brookfield Building at W. 11th and Baltimore would fit all your requirements. There are seven small retail spaces on the ground floor that formerly housed restaurants, a barber, and an optical shop. There would be space for your restaurant, bar, and a clothing store. You might have to combine retail spaces into larger units though. Cut the seven down to three. There is also plenty of space on the upper floors for office space and conversion to apartments. It's a 12-story building and it's eligible for historic tax credits, and Missouri Housing (MHADC) tax credits. I imagine you could get a property tax abatement from the city and county as well for renovating a building of that size.

The only problematic thing for this building is securing parking, but there are several garages nearby.

Downtown is in desperate need for a 24-hour diner. 11th and Baltimore would be ideal. That location is close to all the apartments in the Library District, Quality Hill, and the Garment District, Clubhouse Lofts, SoHo South Lofts, the Chambers Building, the Professional Building, Waltower Lofts, Grand Lofts, 909 Walnut, Wallstreet Apartments, as well as hundreds of new apartments being developed in the One Light Tower, Midland Office Building, Power & Light Building, Argyle Building, Commerce Tower, and the Mark Twain Building. That location is also in walking distance to all the downtown hotels.

There was some talk that a developer was going to renovate both this building and the Mark Twain Tower across the street into apartments, but the Brookfield Building is still listed on LoopNet, so it appears to be still for sale.

http://www.loopnet.com/Listing/18743121/101-W-11th-Street-Kansas-City-MO/

Google Streetview

http://tinyurl.com/mvl39f5

KCroots
Pad site
Pad site
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 10:19 am

Re: Possible future multi-use development

Postby KCroots » Sun Jul 13, 2014 10:32 am

Fang,

Thank you for the informative post.

I really am struggling to decide what the best option is for my project. Let me just share a few thoughts I have.
Restoring an older building has its pros and cons and while I’m sure many here already understand these I’ll go ahead and list some of them that come to mind for me.

A preexisting historical structure

Pro’s
Tax credits
Saving part of history
Lower construction cost, finish-out only
Lower Architecture costs (they don’t need to design the actual building)
Fewer permits and approvals needed (the building is already built)
The Historic vibe and personality that only older buildings have
A great price for the property (but this is misleading)

Cons
Parking
Parking
Parking

Structural concerns especially the older a building is.

Original design might not conform to current uses or codes

Retrofitting all the electrical and plumbing can be a harder task than one might think.

Also bringing the structure up to disability / handicapped codes can be challenging, even when some aspects of regulations are grandfathered in you still have to add certain aspects including restroom facilities to accommodate the disabled. I mean if they can’t access your building you lose potential clients and get a bad reputation even if your are exempted due to the age of the building. This is one of those dammed if you do dammed if you don’t situations.

Then with some historic structures trying to restore original plaster work or ornate sconces and other significant architectural features can become problematic and costly.

And did I mention parking?




Therefore in some cases it’s simply easier and less hassle (Not cost but rather hassle) to construct new from the ground up which provides everything a new building might need, including an underground parking garage with ample parking, which is extremely important in today’s automobile age.

This Brookfield Building with all its possible 100 apartments however would provide a great draw of potential customers for the restaurant and bar as well as help offset the cost of restoration. That’s if you can rent the apartments with the parking issues. With public transportation there might be a way to help offset the parking, but I’m not familiar with the public bus route in that area.

This building is a much more than I had ever considered but the price and the overall possibilities are also much greater. I see a lot of work needed and the amount of work just to get this place somewhat operational is easily 30 - 40 million Dollars, even when several “expert’s claim it will take 15-20 million. My experience has always proven that what the claimed cost will be you had better double that figure just to cover your proverbial back side.

What does concern me about this building and the red flags that I see are two major issues. First is that an investment firm that had already purchased the property has walked away from it even after spending money doing all the feasibility studies. That’s a MAJOR red flag IMHO. Consider that they paid architects, construction companies and several others to review and write up proposals and to look into the overall feasibility. That’s should send up red flags to anyone else looking at the property and so it might be why it’s still for sale at such a bargain price.

In this article the main problem I noticed with the project was clearly mentioned,

[quote] and that parking arrangements could be worked out with one or more garages in the area.[/guote]

Article link

http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/n ... l?page=all

Notice that the parking “could be” worked out. Meaning it wasn’t and might not be able to. So now they might just be trying to unload a building after discovering there are no parking arraignments that make it feasible or will pass the permits for required parking needed to give such a project the green light. Sure they might secure a parking garage a few blocks away but try renting apartments and telling tenants this. It will fly as much as a cow with small paper wings.

As for the price of the building, it seems to be a bargain right, heck there are homes in nice neighborhoods that cost that much money or more with only have 4,000 sq ft. But this can be deceptive. Ever see those little Epson desk printers they use to sell in many places like Sam’s Club or other such places? Neat little printers that cost 50 bucks, and guess what, people bought them when the HPs were going for 200 bucks or more. Well what was the catch? The Epson Company basically gave these printers away because they knew they would make money on the tiny little ink cartage’s that were needed to keep the printer working. People quickly caught on and learned that buying something for price doesn’t always work out. (nope I never was one to fall for that little game nor have I owned an Epson) but the same principal applies here. Sure you might be able to pick this building up for less than a nice house in Mission Hills but you might end up paying a lot more in the long run when you can’t rent apartments due to the fact there is no parking.

I’m sure the current owners are also struggling and anxious to unload this building because if the moldings are beginning to fall off and the building is a hazard they are responsible for fixing these issues. That means they are spending money that is not in their best interest especially when they are not planning to follow through on the development of this project.

Kind of like that old classic car a guy buys an old Junker with the intent of restoring but it sits there rotting away in his yard. Then the city gets on him for the car not having tags and being an eye sore, then the neighborhood association or local regulations chime in and it gets to the point the guy just wants to sell the car to be rid of the problems and pressures of spending money. The same thing here, but on a much larger scale.


I will say that I personally think this building would make a better boutique hotel than it would apartments, just due to the neighborhood and the surrounding issues, but mainly because the parking. Hotel guests can be inconvenienced a little in terms of parking for a day or two whereas a regular tenant experiencing this inconvenience wouldn’t be happy after about 3 weeks. Plus a hotel you can have valet parking but not so much in a low rent apartment building.

Also a boutique hotel would then allow for the restaurant to be used for room service and with all the additional retail space you could do both a diner and a nice restaurant and still have enough space on the 2-3rd floors for small retail or office space. Again I’m just not sure I would want to inherit another developer’s nightmare, especially one on this scale.

User avatar
beautyfromashes
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3740
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:04 am

Re: Possible future multi-use development

Postby beautyfromashes » Sun Jul 13, 2014 4:15 pm

How about the Berlau Paper building? Just went in the market.

KCroots
Pad site
Pad site
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 10:19 am

Re: Possible future multi-use development

Postby KCroots » Sun Jul 13, 2014 5:26 pm

beautyfromashes wrote:How about the Berlau Paper building? Just went in the market.



Thank you for the suggestion but the building in just not a good fit.


A side note, not sure about others but to me this Berlau Paper building kind of has a Texas School Book Depository feel to it with the arched windows on the upper floor.

see comparison below, first image is the Berlau Paper Building

Image


Below Texas School Book Depository

Image

User avatar
beautyfromashes
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3740
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:04 am

Re: Possible future multi-use development

Postby beautyfromashes » Sun Jul 13, 2014 6:10 pm

KCroots wrote:Thank you for the suggestion but the building in just not a good fit.


Not a good fit financially, size, location?

Why so many different ideas for one building? Bar,restaurant,clothing store, apartments,office... Hard to do more than a few things we'll, unless you are planning to recruit existing businesses or franchises. If location isn't an issue (seems strange that it's not) why not buy an old building in the West Bottoms? It would be cheaper and you would have less risk.

KCroots
Pad site
Pad site
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 10:19 am

Re: Possible future multi-use development

Postby KCroots » Sun Jul 13, 2014 7:07 pm

beautyfromashes wrote:
KCroots wrote:Thank you for the suggestion but the building in just not a good fit.


Not a good fit financially, size, location?

Why so many different ideas for one building? Bar,restaurant,clothing store, apartments,office... Hard to do more than a few things we'll, unless you are planning to recruit existing businesses or franchises. If location isn't an issue (seems strange that it's not) why not buy an old building in the West Bottoms? It would be cheaper and you would have less risk.



Not a good fit due to the fact the building is very narrow and long which means not enough street frontage for a restaurant, bar, and a retail store. By the way I’d like a large retail location with a minimum of about 8,000 sq feet. I’m leaning on doing a 2 story retail location with about 4,000 sqft on each level and then a small little backroom.

The location is ok, and financially the building is probably ok, (actually I’m not sure what the price is but I’m sure its reasonable for the area)

Why these particular types of businesses, the apartments and the office space? Well first this would be a building I plan to retire in and live out my final years in, therefore these are the businesses I prefer to have very close to me.

The restaurant is so I don’t have to have anyone cook for me in my home. All I have to do is go downstairs whenever I’m ready to eat anything and have a decent cheap restaurant available. The bar would be a place to hang out and socialize and the retail men’s store would be a business that would be like my retirement job that keeps me occupied.

As for the office spaces, I want something that’s more of an office suits type of situation where all office tenants have basically little small offices and share the services of the conference room, receptionist and the bathroom facilities. This allows for small individual self employed people who are accountants types or others who just need a professional office space but don’t need all the overhead.

Often these types of single self employed business types will also rent in the same building if the apartments are nice, small and very affordable. They will also be more inclined to commit to longer leases as well, and that makes for good long term tenants.
That and the fact they too I’m sure will enjoy the bar and restaurants’ easy accessibility.

I do NOT plan on having any franchise operations, meaning these three businesses will be “individual” businesses. I will hire the proper people to manage their daily operations while I simply oversee things from an owner’s perspective.

As for the West Bottoms, its not a matter of risk therefore needing to look for a cheaper property isn't part of the issues. This project is not for a return investment as much as its a place to spend my final years (hopefully at least 10-15 years). I will have the development paid for when its built, therefore any revenue the development earns will be used for upkeep, taxes and other general expenses as well as funding a portion of my pension. I wont be pressured to see a financial return of the stress of making payments. If the building fails to draw tenants and the businesses all fail the place will be paid for so it wont be any real major loss.

That and I'm leery of the West bottoms due to the fact it is possible that one day that area could again flood

KCroots
Pad site
Pad site
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 10:19 am

Re: Possible future multi-use development

Postby KCroots » Sun Jul 13, 2014 10:03 pm

Fang you’re right about the paper building

Another location I am seriously interested in is the corner of Main Street and Warwick Trfy. This is right across the street from the Federal Reserve building on Main Street. I’m not sure if those empty parking lots or the structure on the corner are even available or for sale but I’d level the corner building and dig a parking garage across all those lots and then a 4-5 story building there if the zoning permitted. That would be a decent location for what I want in terms of everything. The diner would be a wrap around from main to Warwick so its very visible when anyone is driving North On main towards downtown.

All the high density apartment /condos right there behind the location and the Federal Reserve being directly across the street with an exit/ entry to their parking garage with a traffic signal. Plus parking along the side street and the traffic on Main Street would only help. I think it’s also close enough to down town too but not too far out of downtown. Think the area is called Union Hill.

There are several lots or places around downtown or close to it that I really like but each place has its own unique “feel” to it and therefore the design or presentation of the structure would have to fit accordingly to each different location that I would consider.

User avatar
FangKC
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12210
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound

Re: Possible future multi-use development

Postby FangKC » Mon Jul 14, 2014 3:26 am

The Main Street at Warwick location would be a good site for your project, if you could buy the property.

I know it's larger than you might need, but this design would look great on the NE corner of Main and Warwick.

Image

If you are more inclined to build new, there are four primary neighborhoods undergoing redevelopment now where you could possibly build from scratch.

The East Village, which is the area of downtown east of Locust, north Truman Road, south of Admiral Boulevard, and west of the I-35 Loop. The neighborhood is already set up by the City for redevelopment using TIF, various housing credits, and tax abatements. The area has a primary developer overseeing the project. There is an overall design plan developed, but I'm sure there is flexibility with individual parcels. The design plan includes a mix of housing, office, retail and maybe a hotel. Some of the land has been set aside for a possible future General Services Administration building. The land has already been mostly cleared. You should look over the East Village thread of the forum for more information, and background.

http://kcrag.com/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1994

Image

Image

Image

Another area is the Columbus Park neighborhood, which is east of Oak Street, north of 5th, south of 3rd, and west of Gillis. There is an overall developer in place, and a design plan. However, I'm sure if you wanted to build there, a specific building and parcel could be designed and built for you. Again, I'm sure the City has set up the area as a redevelopment district with all the associated incentives. See the Columbus Park thread on this forum.

http://kcrag.com/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=2271

Image

The third neighborhood is Union Hill. This is the area east of Main, north of 31st Street, Mostly west of Cherry Street, and south of 27th. Development has already occurred there, and more is being built now, and planned. I'm less familiar with whether this area has an overall City redevelopment district set up. It may have been more of a piece-meal development by individual developers and their parcels. Hallmark owns some of the land, and I've seen preliminary design schemes for redevelopment of 27th Street between Gillham and Main. See the Union Hill thread on this forum.

http://kcrag.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=18991

Image

E. 27th Street concept by Crown Center developers.

Image

The fourth neighborhood is the Port Authority's Riverfront Project north of Columbus Park. The area is east of Oak Street, west of I-35, and north of E. 1st Street / Guinotte Avenue. Front Street runs through the middle of the area. See the Port Authority Riverfront Project thread on this forum. The Port Authority just recently announced that is is dividing up the area into separate parcels to be developed by individual developers instead of having one big developer do the entire neighborhood. One apartment building with retail has already been announced.

http://kcrag.com/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=7575

http://www.kcportauthority.com/index.php/the-port-authority-of-kansas-city-chooses-flaherty-collins-as-the-first-developer-for-the-berkley-riverfront/

Image

Image

KCroots
Pad site
Pad site
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 10:19 am

Re: Possible future multi-use development

Postby KCroots » Mon Jul 14, 2014 9:11 am

Fang

Thank you for taking the time to post the wonderful information and suggestions. I like the images as well.

The more I think about this entire project the more I’m inclined to build new. Just the parking alone is the major reason. Even if that means the project will cost more I just think having its own parking is so important. If I was to purchase two properties in Downtown one being a surface lot and the other being an older building for restoration and both sitting next door to each other, the surface lot would still be needed for parking for the building, so in many ways the dynamics of what was already there still stay the same. (If that makes any sense) Meaning sure the building was restored but by needing the parking the surface lot is now destine never to be developed. If I can get a surface lot to develop and create new development and an underground parking then that would go a lot farther to improving or developing any area the project might eventually call home.

Another option is to buy a surface parking lot next to an already standing historic building that’s in need of parking then work together to create an underground parking garage that both buildings can use and benefit from. Meaning that if I built a building maybe I could run cost analysis and build an underground parking garage that’s 3 levels down opposed to just one, then rent the remaining spaces and find a way to connect them to the neighboring building. This is a huge task but one that would go a long way in reducing the number of surface lots while helping improve development.

Moving along,

I really like the look of the building located at 254 E 20th street. Not sure the name of the place but I like the vibe of the building. If I decide the downtown area is where this might go then I’d love to recreate something like that but not as tall. I think a modern building can be created to have the same type of vibe and look to it yet fit all my needs.

The image you inserted which you suggested would look good along Main at Warwick I agree to an extent but yes it’s too tall by about 2 - 3 floors. If Main and Warwick was the corner chosen, a totally different style of building would have to be constructed than the style of building that’s at 254 E 20th Street. That style just wouldn’t fit into the Union Hill neighborhood.

One of the things I am causally working on is the layout of each of these businesses for the main level. Once I have a feel for what is actually needed then that will give me a better idea of the size of lot I will need.

I am tinkering around with the design in AutoCAD with just a rough floor plan, no elevations as of yet. Maybe one day soon I can post a rough image of my ideas.

I don’t even have a time frame set for this development or location chosen, but I am working on the details and trying to slowly put it all together. That way when the time or opportunity arises to go forward I will have as much together as possible which should help expedite matters.

Anyone know what the Zoning is at Main and Warwick? And if so can you explain it here.

much appreciation !

User avatar
taxi
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1478
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:32 am
Location: North End
Contact:

Re: Possible future multi-use development

Postby taxi » Mon Jul 14, 2014 9:16 am

You might also consider the Norman School, at 37th and SW Trafficway. It is not on the market, but has been stagnant and I hear it could be purchased. It is a very cool building.

User avatar
beautyfromashes
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3740
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:04 am

Re: Possible future multi-use development

Postby beautyfromashes » Mon Jul 14, 2014 9:29 am

I wouldn't think Warwick and Main would be a good location. It seems you have a connection to Union Station. Why don't you work with the city on changes to Washington Square Park that have been discussed http://kcrag.com/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=19440&hilit=washington+square+park.

KCroots
Pad site
Pad site
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 10:19 am

Re: Possible future multi-use development

Postby KCroots » Mon Jul 14, 2014 11:51 am

beautyfromashes wrote:I wouldn't think Warwick and Main would be a good location. It seems you have a connection to Union Station. Why don't you work with the city on changes to Washington Square Park that have been discussed http://kcrag.com/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=19440&hilit=washington+square+park.


Please explain in some detail why you don’t think Main and Warwick would work


My connection to that area is the fact I was born at St. Mary's Hospital there on Main Street (where the Federal Reserve Bank now sits). As a child I would visit Union Station and spent a lot of time in the general neighborhood. My Grandfather (who I never knew, and died before I was born) worked for the Union Pacific Railroad back in the hey-day of the railroad. What boy growing up back then didn't like trains? I'd visit another train museum / rail yard at the base of the Broadway Bridge that sat at W 2nd Street and Wyandotte Street. That small rail yard is long gone and a new development sits there, but so goes life. By the way and a little off topic, if anyone has any decent pictures of the old St. Mary's Hospital I sure would appreciate seeing them.


I recently came across this old image out in front of St. Mary's Hospital and this image is looking North on Main Street just steps north of Warwick taken back in 1969.

Image

That picture above and several other old rare images of the area can be seen at this link

http://www.professionalcar.org/the-hist ... mpany-1127

So the closer to the Old St. Mary's Hospital I can get this project, the better the connection to my "roots". However I am open to anything in the overall general area.



As for Washington Sq park, it's a neat option but I really don't know anything about the plans for that park / area.

Again on a side not and not related to downtown, anyone know the plans for the old Mission Shopping Center that sits at Johnson Drive and Shawnee Mission Parkway. On Google Earth it shows a razed lot of nothing but dirt. I remember going to the Macy's there as a child back in the day when ladies still wore horn-rimmed glasses and wore gloves. I also remember the Christmas decorations that hung on the light poles down Johnson Drive, ok I'm rambling

thanks!

KCroots
Pad site
Pad site
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 10:19 am

Re: Possible future multi-use development

Postby KCroots » Mon Jul 14, 2014 12:04 pm

taxi wrote:You might also consider the Norman School, at 37th and SW Trafficway. It is not on the market, but has been stagnant and I hear it could be purchased. It is a very cool building.



Yes a neat building but I don't think it would work for the type of retail locations I have in mind.


thank you for the suggestion

zonk
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1207
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2003 12:07 pm
Location: downtown

Re: Possible future multi-use development

Postby zonk » Mon Jul 14, 2014 12:30 pm

KC...how large a building you looking for? Budget? PM me...I've got a 3-story building in the crossroads which is getting ready to go to market. Historic already approved. Building gutted and remediated. Adjacent garaged parking as well as adjacent surface parking.

swid
Strip mall
Strip mall
Posts: 263
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 8:29 pm
Location: Financial District

Re: Possible future multi-use development

Postby swid » Mon Jul 14, 2014 12:37 pm

KCroots wrote:Again on a side not and not related to downtown, anyone know the plans for the old Mission Shopping Center that sits at Johnson Drive and Shawnee Mission Parkway. On Google Earth it shows a razed lot of nothing but dirt. I remember going to the Macy's there as a child back in the day when ladies still wore horn-rimmed glasses and wore gloves. I also remember the Christmas decorations that hung on the light poles down Johnson Drive

This thread has the blow-by-blow of Mission's ineptitude in efforts to redevelop that area.

KCroots
Pad site
Pad site
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 10:19 am

Re: Possible future multi-use development

Postby KCroots » Mon Jul 14, 2014 12:42 pm

swid wrote:
KCroots wrote:Again on a side not and not related to downtown, anyone know the plans for the old Mission Shopping Center that sits at Johnson Drive and Shawnee Mission Parkway. On Google Earth it shows a razed lot of nothing but dirt. I remember going to the Macy's there as a child back in the day when ladies still wore horn-rimmed glasses and wore gloves. I also remember the Christmas decorations that hung on the light poles down Johnson Drive

This thread has the blow-by-blow of Mission's ineptitude in efforts to redevelop that area.



Thank you!


Return to “Downtown”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests