Capping the Loop

Issues concerning Downtown as described by the Downtown Council. River to 31st Street, I-35 to Bruce R. Watkins.
User avatar
grovester
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3702
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:30 pm
Location: KC Metro

Re: Capping the Loop

Post by grovester » Wed Mar 07, 2018 2:23 pm

Yep, great time to flail them in public about garages and subsidized housing!

User avatar
TheLastGentleman
New York Life
New York Life
Posts: 442
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:27 pm

Re: Capping the Loop

Post by TheLastGentleman » Wed Mar 07, 2018 2:33 pm

I hate the idea of having cracks in the cap. Maybe they could design ventilation stacks so the fumes and noise don't bother the park. If done right, they could become landmarks like the bartle pylons

kas1
Parking Garage
Parking Garage
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2015 10:36 pm

Re: Capping the Loop

Post by kas1 » Wed Mar 07, 2018 2:46 pm

Something I failed to consider when I made my first post about ventilation is that the westernmost block would naturally have openings due to the way that Truman Rd functions as a de facto on/off-ramp at that spot. Assuming that those gaps qualify for the safety regs, that cuts down on the continuous tunnel area a bit, but it still leaves well over 800 feet between there and Grand. While I understand the desire to value-engineer the hell out of this thing, I'm wary of a bait-and-switch where we get images of a full cap and then at the last minute we instead get a couple small caps with a huge hole between them.

WoodDraw
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1289
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 8:53 pm

Re: Capping the Loop

Post by WoodDraw » Wed Mar 07, 2018 5:29 pm

kboish wrote:
WoodDraw wrote:It sounds like cordish knows that they're going to have to find a significant part of this. I'm both thankful and nervous at the same time.
How do you reach the conclusion that Cordish will contribute anything to this? they are not even funding parking garages physically attached their buildings.
According to the article, they funded the study. My assumption is that cordish, aeg, and our convention business will all be asked to pay with some money coming in from private philanthropy.

In return, I expect all of those to ask for something.

horizons82
Strip mall
Strip mall
Posts: 135
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2016 8:41 am

Re: Capping the Loop

Post by horizons82 » Wed Mar 07, 2018 6:17 pm

kboish wrote:
WoodDraw wrote:It sounds like cordish knows that they're going to have to find a significant part of this. I'm both thankful and nervous at the same time.
How do you reach the conclusion that Cordish will contribute anything to this? they are not even funding parking garages physically attached their buildings.
They can fund their garages, but the city legally agreed to fund the garages a decade ago. Why would cordish leave money on the table? I can't fault them on that, as much as I hate the deal.

In return for providing the majority of funding, I'd expect cordish (or whoever) to get: control of the retail/food spaces within the park, first right of rental of park, & naming rights.

User avatar
beautyfromashes
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 4198
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:04 am

Re: Capping the Loop

Post by beautyfromashes » Wed Mar 07, 2018 6:30 pm

horizons82 wrote: In return for providing the majority of funding, I'd expect cordish (or whoever) to get: control of the retail/food spaces within the park, first right of rental of park, & naming rights.
Oh great! 670 Live! Park. &

kboish
Penntower
Penntower
Posts: 2332
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 12:25 am
Location: West Plaza

Re: Capping the Loop

Post by kboish » Wed Mar 07, 2018 6:54 pm

horizons82 wrote:
kboish wrote:
WoodDraw wrote:It sounds like cordish knows that they're going to have to find a significant part of this. I'm both thankful and nervous at the same time.
How do you reach the conclusion that Cordish will contribute anything to this? they are not even funding parking garages physically attached their buildings.
They can fund their garages, but the city legally agreed to fund the garages a decade ago. Why would cordish leave money on the table? I can't fault them on that, as much as I hate the deal.

In return for providing the majority of funding, I'd expect cordish (or whoever) to get: control of the retail/food spaces within the park, first right of rental of park, & naming rights.
The city agreed to fund the garages to the same extent Cordish agreed to include affordable housing in their developments...which is to say, it was written without recourse. Neither is obligated.

Before my following rant, let me just say, if 3 light passed today with its proposed amendments, I'd be totally fine with it, but I also think its good to discuss it further.

Here is what i don't understand. People say, why not let the city fund the garages in exchange for cordish paying for the cap or some portion of the cap. Even if the new, lower estimate is correct, the cap costs $140 million. How much of that is Cordish will to pay for? $1million? That gets us nowhere. $10 million+? Still not even close and you can bet they're not paying that much. And you suggested Cordish pay, "the majority of the funding". Thats crazy. They would never do that. Thats at a minimum $70 mil. That would cover garages for 3, 4, 5, and 6 light.

If they were willing to pay for any of that, the city is smarter to ask them to put that money into the garage. The garage incentive is coming out of EXISTING general fund monies. Not future hypothetical TIF, not abatement, not new CID sales tax, but EXISTING money. That means corresponding cuts in actual services are being made to make this happen(1). It seems to me that if Cordish has money to throw around on a cap, the city is smart to tell them to put that money into the garages and protect the general fund. I'm not saying the city shouldn't support the garages, but what I am saying is its ludicrous to think Cordish will or should put significant money into the cap. The garages are directly tied to and support Cordish's investment and at least garages have a revenue source to help reimburse your investment.

Besides, the cap is a long way off and is unlikely to happen unless MODot steps up. And we know thats not happening. This is all likely a pipe dream.

(1) I will note, the amendment proposed today (which if passed as described, i would support) addresses this issues by forming a new CID for a 1% additional sales tax in the district. This allows the city to not use general fund as the source of debt payment...however it is not approved yet and this brings the districts overall sales tax to 13%. Thats pretty high? Is it worth it? I think its better than using the general fund.

flyingember
One Park Place
One Park Place
Posts: 6771
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: Capping the Loop

Post by flyingember » Wed Mar 07, 2018 7:27 pm

The garages cost $x. They are part of a big picture that bring in taxes worth $y over the long run.

So right now with conflicting needs, accept the deal that gets the city decades of new income rather than a short term benefit and a new liability. Six towers could provide a huge portion of the money to cap the loop without needing to change deals.

mean
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 10731
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 9:00 am
Location: Historic Northeast

Re: Capping the Loop

Post by mean » Wed Mar 07, 2018 7:41 pm

beautyfromashes wrote:
horizons82 wrote: In return for providing the majority of funding, I'd expect cordish (or whoever) to get: control of the retail/food spaces within the park, first right of rental of park, & naming rights.
Oh great! 670 Live! Park. &
:lol:

Well played.

horizons82
Strip mall
Strip mall
Posts: 135
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2016 8:41 am

Re: Capping the Loop

Post by horizons82 » Wed Mar 07, 2018 7:49 pm

kboish wrote:Here is what i don't understand. People say, why not let the city fund the garages in exchange for cordish paying for the cap or some portion of the cap. Even if the new, lower estimate is correct, the cap costs $140 million. How much of that is Cordish will to pay for? $1million? That gets us nowhere. $10 million+? Still not even close and you can bet they're not paying that much. And you suggested Cordish pay, "the majority of the funding". Thats crazy. They would never do that. Thats at a minimum $70 mil. That would cover garages for 3, 4, 5, and 6 light.
You lamented them not paying for their garages, implying they can't or would never pay for said garages. They're taking advantage of the language of the contract to extract funding. Any business person worth anything would try the same thing. Cordish asking for funds to build the garages, saying it's needed, is not the same thing as Cordish being unable to pay for the garages. Quit acting like they are.

Would you prefer I say they could be the largest private player in this? ST has suggested as much. I have no idea what their internal accounts look like, but they seem fine as an outsider. One light cost $80 million alone. I mean for ffs they're the main player in a $2.2 billion development in Spain.

Lastly, you're implying it'd all be an upfront payment. What if they agreed to provide payments back to the city over XX years till they've hit YY million? Seeing as they can/will own the whole north side of this thing, that's a lot of value captured by them.
beautyfromashes wrote:Oh great! 670 Live! Park. &
:lol:

kboish
Penntower
Penntower
Posts: 2332
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 12:25 am
Location: West Plaza

Re: Capping the Loop

Post by kboish » Wed Mar 07, 2018 8:13 pm

horizons82 wrote:
kboish wrote:Here is what i don't understand. People say, why not let the city fund the garages in exchange for cordish paying for the cap or some portion of the cap. Even if the new, lower estimate is correct, the cap costs $140 million. How much of that is Cordish will to pay for? $1million? That gets us nowhere. $10 million+? Still not even close and you can bet they're not paying that much. And you suggested Cordish pay, "the majority of the funding". Thats crazy. They would never do that. Thats at a minimum $70 mil. That would cover garages for 3, 4, 5, and 6 light.
You lamented them not paying for their garages, implying they can't or would never pay for said garages. They're taking advantage of the language of the contract to extract funding. Any business person worth anything would try the same thing. Cordish asking for funds to build the garages, saying it's needed, is not the same thing as Cordish being unable to pay for the garages. Quit acting like they are.

Would you prefer I say they could be the largest private player in this? ST has suggested as much. I have no idea what their internal accounts look like, but they seem fine as an outsider. One light cost $80 million alone. I mean for ffs they're the main player in a $2.2 billion development in Spain.

Lastly, you're implying it'd all be an upfront payment. What if they agreed to provide payments back to the city over XX years till they've hit YY million? Seeing as they can/will own the whole north side of this thing, that's a lot of value captured by them.
No. I'm approaching this from a different perspective than you. You are trying to see how a private company can maximize their investment by taking advantage of contract language and leveraging future projects. Thats fine. I'm trying to see how my tax dollars can best be put to use by taking advantage of that same contract language in relation to the city's broader revenue sources and funding obligations.

We will reach different conclusions.

And yes, i do understand that Cordish has access to plenty of capital and has the ability to fund the garages. Thats not what I've said. I've said they are not funding their own garages.

horizons82
Strip mall
Strip mall
Posts: 135
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2016 8:41 am

Re: Capping the Loop

Post by horizons82 » Wed Mar 07, 2018 8:52 pm

kboish wrote:No. I'm approaching this from a different perspective than you. You are trying to see how a private company can maximize their investment by taking advantage of contract language and leveraging future projects. Thats fine. I'm trying to see how my tax dollars can best be put to use by taking advantage of that same contract language in relation to the city's broader revenue sources and funding obligations.

We will reach different conclusions.

And yes, i do understand that Cordish has access to plenty of capital and has the ability to fund the garages. Thats not what I've said. I've said they are not funding their own garages.
But even from a tax dollar angle, your argument is that a $70 million investment from Cordish is better spent on the towers than later on the park. I disagree. In theory, the city funding contribution should help to short the lag between each building's construction. Obviously that translates into added property, employment, and sales tax revenue for the city sooner than it would be there otherwise.

Following that, if Cordish's funding is gone from the park, the city reallocating its $70 million to the park does nothing to shorten the time those lots remain undeveloped or underdeveloped, but it does have those towers paying higher property taxes from the start.

User avatar
KCPowercat
Power & Light
Power & Light
Posts: 28609
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
Location: Quality Hill
Contact:

Re: Capping the Loop

Post by KCPowercat » Wed Mar 07, 2018 11:00 pm

I'm a big fan of the cap but if they don't reroute Truman and fully fleshout the cap, I think KCMO's investment isn't nearly as beneficial and would better be used in parking garages....I'd only support a cap in the "cheaper form" with a lot of private investment.

User avatar
DaveKCMO
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 16552
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:22 pm
Location: Crossroads
Contact:

Re: Capping the Loop

Post by DaveKCMO » Fri Mar 16, 2018 7:20 pm


User avatar
FangKC
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12895
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound

Re: Capping the Loop

Post by FangKC » Fri Mar 16, 2018 8:24 pm

While this ideal is popular on this forum, I predict that any money the City spends on it won't be popular with many KC residents.

User avatar
Highlander
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9009
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 1:40 pm
Location: Houston

Re: Capping the Loop

Post by Highlander » Fri Mar 16, 2018 8:45 pm

FangKC wrote:While this ideal is popular on this forum, I predict that any money the City spends on it won't be popular with many KC residents.
When it appeared on FaceBook, there were lots of comments section and nearly everyone of them saying it was a waste of money. Most common response - fix potholes first. People don't think things through.

User avatar
grovester
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3702
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:30 pm
Location: KC Metro

Re: Capping the Loop

Post by grovester » Fri Mar 16, 2018 10:03 pm

It should be primarily privately funded.

User avatar
DaveKCMO
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 16552
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:22 pm
Location: Crossroads
Contact:

Re: Capping the Loop

Post by DaveKCMO » Sat Mar 17, 2018 9:22 am

grovester wrote:It should be primarily privately funded.
Here's how the park that triggered the latest obsession was funded: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klyde_Warren_Park
Construction of the park was funded through a public, private partnership including $20 million in bond funds from the city of Dallas, $20 million in highway funds from the state and federal government through TxDOT, and nearly $50 million from private donations. In March 2009, the Park was selected to receive $16.7 million in stimulus funds that were specifically for transportation enhancement construction.
IMO what keeps that park afloat is the intense programming. It's location is less than ideal (big stroads and big setbacks) and the roar of cars underneath is omnipresent.

Imagine if we spent $139 million improving Washington Square Park or Penn Valley Park and then programming the shit out of it?

User avatar
grovester
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3702
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:30 pm
Location: KC Metro

Re: Capping the Loop

Post by grovester » Sat Mar 17, 2018 9:42 am

I tend to agree. This is a Cordish thing, if they want it, they should pay for it (mostly).

For my bang for the KCMO buck, I'd opt for losing the north trench.

User avatar
Highlander
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9009
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 1:40 pm
Location: Houston

Re: Capping the Loop

Post by Highlander » Sat Mar 17, 2018 4:27 pm

grovester wrote:I tend to agree. This is a Cordish thing, if they want it, they should pay for it (mostly).

For my bang for the KCMO buck, I'd opt for losing the north trench.
I think a mixture of funding sources (like Dallas) would be most appropriate. I think the federal government should at least help fund similar projects around the US since they instigated the wasteful practice of destroying large swaths of urbanity all around the US for highways (I think it's the biggest mistake the US made in the 20th century). The north loop, including the green slope to the highway is unfortunately twice as wide as the south loop. It would not be really cap-able but the highway could simply be removed. Not sure what that would accomplish though. That side of downtown is too undeveloped to make a useful park there and infilling the space would take decades. A cap on the south loop from the convention center to just north of Sprint Arena would be an absolutely brilliant addition to the city. Having it done solely by Cordish makes it far too easily controlled by Cordish.

Post Reply