OFFICIAL - East Village

[mister816]

i thought this project died

[DaveKCMO]

civic mall TIF to be retired: http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/n ... turns.html

[grovester]

That needs to be front page in 60 pt.

[missingkc]

I'll bite: what?

[FangKC]

I think the East Village has its' own TIF district, and that district still remains in place.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/TIFC-Plans/eas ... 079712.pdf

This is my take. The East Village development was hampered by Swope Community Builders being solely responsible for development. They lost their initial development partner--Sherman Associates. I don't think Swope had enough experience with putting together denser urban projects. I also think they had a hard time attracting other developers. The other thing is that Swope is a non-profit developer. Since they aren't driven by the need to make a profit, they aren't as driven to get the overall project finished, and get tenants paying rents.

It was a big setback when the federal government didn't budget for building the new GSA Building there. That left a lot of uncertainty about what to do, since in the initial plan, the GSA project was going to take up to three of total number of blocks being redeveloped.

The Economic Crisis of 2008 dried up a lot of investment capital. When it hit, some of the parcels had not yet even been cleared. The P&L District got in under the wire, so to speak. The East Village is a much larger physical space than the P&L District. Within that development, the Sprint Center took almost four city blocks by itself.

Now we have Van Trust joining in as a development partner in the East Village. They have valuable experience developing properties, and I assume will also bring in access to capital. The next phase of the East Village is the block bounded by 9th, 10th, Holmes and Charlotte. Van Trust plans 180 apartments there with a parking garage. Van Trust also has more experience developing higher-end product. Van Trust probably also has more of an inside track on who is in need of office and retail space.

[DaveKCMO]

I'll bite: what?

high rate of government property ownership?

[missingkc]

Is "high rate of government property ownership" what you had in mind, harbinger911?

[JBmidtown]

Is "high rate of government property ownership" what you had in mind, harbinger911?

it's likely more divisive than that

[grovester]

Pretty sure he would have spelled it gummint.

[taxi]

I disagree. Giving development rights to a large parcel like this sets up for disappointment or, worse, complete failure. I am watching this happen in Columbus Park. If makes more sense to me to split it up into 5 or whatever number parcels and give development rights to that many groups, which all must adhere to an approved plan or amend it through the usual channels. That way when one messes up, another is there to step in and pick up the slack. It also makes for more diversity in styles and is more interesting, less homogenized.

[FangKC]

No. Swope did the 9th/10th, Cherry to Holmes block. I will agree with you though that their final product for that block is terrible. The parking garage should have been centered in the block, and wrapped with apartments. The garage should have also included parking for the apartments so that the entire NE part of the block didn't require surface parking.

While I'm complaining about the development within the Civic Mall TIF, I have to point out the really bad long-term planning involved. There should have been some underground parking placed under the north block of Ilus Davis Park, and maybe even half of the south block as well. That could have reduced the amount of above-ground garage parking for the Dunn headquarters and the Federal Transportation Building. If not that, it could have negated the need for that block of surface parking the Federal Courthouse requires on the 8th/9th/McGee/Oak block.

Van Trust became a partner in November of 2013. I assume that they came in and had to start from scratch, which means doing site studies, planning, picking architects and contractors, and figuring out financing packages, which takes time. I am also disappointed that the number of housing units for the East Village has been reduced by at least half.

I would not oppose Swope being booted to the curb as primary developer, and someone with better experience allowed to oversee development in the future. I tend to agree with Taxi that there should be one managing developer for the entire neighborhood, but that individual developers should be given rights to specific parcels. That way you can attract experienced developers from other cities--in addition to local ones--that want to enter the market, but don't want to do a huge redevelopment. Having several developers would also spread risk, and open up a variety of channels to capital. Because there are several developers, they are also not as likely to use one architectural firm, so you get a variety of styles and product. Some developers are simply more agile and can produce finished buildings quicker than others.

[UrbanKC]

Ugly, low density, parking garage extends through one whole street

Due to zoning restrictions and other issues, chances are that the parking garage was put there to help serve as a code fall-back when they build additional apartments in the East Village. The city has some ridiculous restrictions as far as the parking you have to provide residents, even in high-density residential zones. Although a large parking garage taking up half a block really sucks, it's probably the best option if you want the rest of the East Village to be just residences, with limited off-street parking.

That one garage, by proximity to the rest of the blocks per code, could serve the off-street parking requirement for all the blocks north of 12th Street.

They actually put it in a good location for the East Village, as it's tucked into the corner closest to the USDOT, Federal Courthouse & the Ozark National Life buildings. That northwest side of the village won't get much development anyway, so it was probably better to locate the parking garage there, so they can save on space elsewhere.

Why force yourself to provide an island of parking in the middle of your block to satisfy codes when you can provide off-street parking elsewhere, and be able to take up most of the block with development and maximize your building efficiency?

[DaveKCMO]

there is no minimum parking requirement for the loop.

[UrbanKC]

there is no minimum parking requirement for the loop.

Well then that's helpful, and makes complete sense. I'm not up to the city code as far as the downtown area goes.

[FangKC]

The other weakness in your argument is that if the garage was built as a fall-back for residential apartments, then why did the East Village Apartments, on the same block, still require so much surface parking?

[UrbanKC]

The other weakness in your argument is that if the garage was built as a fall-back for residential apartments, then why did the East Village Apartments, on the same block, still require so much surface parking?

It wasn't really offered as an argument, merely a possible explanation.

You need 1 off-street parking spot per unit, typically.

If the parking requirements applied to this case:
I wasn't sure how many units the East Village Apartments were. It appears they have about 50 units or so. I've counted about 70 spaces in the lot from aerial photos. But if I recall, that lot to the north has the potential to contain additional apartments, eliminating at least 1/2 or 2/3 of the spots. Which means they will have to account for the existing building, and the new building with off-street parking, which the garage provides them with, plus any additional apartments they'd want to build off that specific site.

But seeing as there is no minimum parking restrictions downtown, then there's obviously another reason for the parking garage, and I was wrong in my explanation.

[grovester]

When was the parking minimum lifted and when did the garage get built?

[moderne]

Wasn't the garage constructed also to service the FFA building?

[FangKC]

I believe Moderne is right. I recall when that garage was announced, it was to provide parking for FFA. It's possible that before that garage was built, FFA employees parked on surface lots in the area, and they had to build a garage so those lots could be developed later.

[beautyfromashes]

How did Swope get the development of East Village? It seems they would have to have had some agreements with companies or retail that wanted to be there, right? Did no one else present a proposal? Does getting a development and then doing nothing take you off the cities list for future projects?