DEAD > 1640- BNIM HQ

[kboish]

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

Shirley Helzberg wants to reno the building at 1640 to become the HQ for BNIM. Sounds like it would have potential ground level retail. This also abuts the shiny parking garage built by Helzberg where the film row building was torn down... so, I guess BNIM will have plenty of parking spots

EDIT: I meant to label this "1640 Baltimore- BNIM HQ"...in case a mod wants to change it.

[KCPowercat]

They were threatening to jump the border right?

[droopy]

They were threatening to jump the border right?

BNIM? Last I remember they were moving to the TWA building

[normalthings]

They were threatening to jump the border right?

BNIM? Last I remember they were moving to the TWA building

Correct. Only a two year lease though.

[flyingember]

They were threatening to jump the border right?

That was Barkley, back in January

[KCPowercat]

I was thinking of Barkley

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

[DaveKCMO]

TIF approved, with additional PILOTs for the taxing jurisdictions: http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/n ... hools.html

[DaveKCMO]

from the 10/6 city plan commission agenda:

4 JR 18. Case No. 14600-UR -- About 1 acre generally located at 1640 Baltimore Ave, to consider rezoning from District DX-15 (Downtown Mixed Use) to District UR (Urban Redevelopment), and approval of a preliminary development plan for the reuse of an existing structure.
Applicant: Lacy & Company, repr BNIM & Lathrop & Gage

[DaveKCMO]

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

In the end, the committee voted 5-0 to recommend approval of tax increment financing for developer and philanthropist Shirley Helzberg's $13.2 million plan to redevelop the vacant 42,910-square-foot warehouse building that has stood at 1640 Baltimore Ave. since the 1930s.

councilman lucas explains his vote: https://www.facebook.com/quinton.lucas/ ... 9575828652

[grovester]

I thought that was a really good explanation of the process.

[flyingember]

Decent points.

Say they don't expand and move somewhere smaller later, or only use half the space in the long run
One thing in the favor of this project is the more developers that want to renovate office space to current demands, the better.

KC has too much older office space available and I bet if we can get some good renovations and new space built like this and the Corrigan building and Two Light we could get some new eyes on downtown for major renovations like the Ten Main tower or to build new space.

It's your classic chicken-egg issue.
you need to prime the system to get to the point that developers want to do office space. we're much further along on residential and hotels. we're not there on office and retail yet

[flyingember]

incentives should be used as sweetners to get better projects, regardless of where they are.

what should be specific is to set a minimum standard to get incentives accounting for scale of the project in the area, status of the area and such.

a struggling neighborhood under that standard probably would qualify for more incentives, but if incentives can get a project 50% bigger downtown and thus more tax income from all sources, it should be approved.

it's all based on the classic idea that a rising ride raises all ships

[pash]

.

[DaveKCMO]

The council should have voted down the incentives package if for no other reason than that BNIM's executives were publicly quoted beforehand saying that they were committed to downtown, that it was an important part of their corporate culture, and that they simply could not imagine moving to the suburbs.

Huge missed opportunity to signal to downtown developers and tenants that the handouts are winding down, and that at some point the city intends to start taking the TIF "but-for" provisions seriously.

of course they wouldn't leave downtown, but they would probably not have taken on an ambitious green project in a derelict building they didn't already own.

[pash]

.

[DaveKCMO]

the pitch details two projects without incentives (marriott and travois), comparing them to the BNIM/helzberg project:

http://www.pitch.com/kansascity/whod-ha ... id=6328961

it's important to note that even WITH the TIF, BNIM will be paying $26/sf in rent -- "making it one of the more expensive office leases in Kansas City."

also notable that during the film row debacle, neighborhood leaders asked helzberg to demolish 1640 baltimore for her parking structure instead of the smaller orion pictures building. she refused.

[kboish]

I just don't think people who say "downtown is totally fine now" really go down there much. There is sooo much empty land and sooo much of it is totally blighted. You can walk a block from the PAC and find abandoned lots and dilapidated structures. Not to mention east crossroads (to a large extent), east loop, and north loop waste lands...don't forget people, we still have undeveloped grass fields in our business district. I do hope (believe) that someday no incentives will be necessary downtown, but I also think it will be abundantly apparent when that day arrives.

Also, you've got to think about the development markets separately- office, retail, hotel, multi-family, etc. The office market is just getting going (Corrigan, BNIM, ATA development at 3rd and grand mentioned it was maybe office). You can't compare office to the multi-family and hotel development going on right now.

It is also ironic that someone from Travois, a company that makes its living off government subsidies, is the one calling for a limit to the subsidies.

[grovester]

The transition away from incentives will be a lot slower than people like. The fact that there are currently any projects without them is amazing.

[loftguy]

The transition away from incentives will be a lot slower than people like. The fact that there are currently any projects without them is amazing.

Grovester is spot-on right.

Those who are clamoring for an end to incentives are uninformed and/or carrying some other motivation. There are a lot of people who adhere to the concept that it's just a big money grab for rich developers. That's simply not true. Yes, some developers make a lot of money and I too feel some degree of envy for their fortunes and sometimes feel like I have not been very smart....otherwise I would be an equally rich developer. However, I hope they make enough money downtown to keep investing here for a long time. If they don't, then they are going somewhere else. That's the fact. You have to recognize the delicate and clear tipping point.

We haven't said it for a while on this thread, but suburban developers are receiving incentives on thousands of developments ringing the perimeter of our metro area on a daily basis in the form of new public infrastructure and investment...and there is nearly no conversation about the wisdom of these massive expenditures. They add great costs to the city, county, fire, police, ambulance, schools, libraries, etc.... And what is the future return on any of the majority of these far flung investments? I'm certain that dollar for dollar it's negligible compared to the same dollar invested today in our downtown.

Do you get the fact that developments in our existing downtown create lower impact on each of these civic operations....?

Do you get the fact that 10-15 years will pass quickly and these downtown projects will soon be contributing a full tax load? And without said incented development those future tax revenues will not appear?

The urban core is more difficult and expensive to assemble and develop and it is in an area where primary public investments were long ago made, though neglected by public leaders for half a century or more.

We are rebuilding the engine of our metroplex (because we didn't put any oil in it for decades). It is an investment that is needed and creates dividends for the improved future of every part of the region.

The decision makers need to continue developing greater understanding and scrutiny to applications for incentives. However, it is critical that they be judicious and fully informed and not offer decisions based on personal bias or 'feelings'.

[Pork Chop]

The transition away from incentives will be a lot slower than people like. The fact that there are currently any projects without them is amazing.

Grovester is spot-on right.

Those who are clamoring for an end to incentives are uninformed and/or carrying some other motivation. There are a lot of people who adhere to the concept that it's just a big money grab for rich developers. That's simply not true. Yes, some developers make a lot of money and I too feel some degree of envy for their fortunes and sometimes feel like I have not been very smart....otherwise I would be an equally rich developer. However, I hope they make enough money downtown to keep investing here for a long time. If they don't, then they are going somewhere else. That's the fact. You have to recognize the delicate and clear tipping point.

We haven't said it for a while on this thread, but suburban developers are receiving incentives on thousands of developments ringing the perimeter of our metro area on a daily basis in the form of new public infrastructure and investment...and there is nearly no conversation about the wisdom of these massive expenditures. They add great costs to the city, county, fire, police, ambulance, schools, libraries, etc.... And what is the future return on any of the majority of these far flung investments? I'm certain that dollar for dollar it's negligible compared to the same dollar invested today in our downtown.

Do you get the fact that developments in our existing downtown create lower impact on each of these civic operations....?

Do you get the fact that 10-15 years will pass quickly and these downtown projects will soon be contributing a full tax load? And without said incented development those future tax revenues will not appear?

The urban core is more difficult and expensive to assemble and develop and it is in an area where primary public investments were long ago made, though neglected by public leaders for half a century or more.

We are rebuilding the engine of our metroplex (because we didn't put any oil in it for decades). It is an investment that is needed and creates dividends for the improved future of every part of the region.

The decision makers need to continue developing greater understanding and scrutiny to applications for incentives. However, it is critical that they be judicious and fully informed and not offer decisions based on personal bias or 'feelings'.