KCRag Forum

taxi wrote: Perhaps he will only park historic cars in there.

Then when someone runs into the building they can be surprised when a car falls out.

Numerous mentions in the proposal of parts of the building which are inconsistent with a modern office building. Well maybe a modern office building is not its best use. There has to be a way to get that pool back into service in some capacity. Hotel, health club, residential, something.

What I remember is other developers couldn't find a way for it to work as an office building. It was just a bad design for that.

Suddenly this developer has this strange (at best) plan that somehow does work?

.

What happens if they get all the tax credits and go-aheads they want? There's got to be a way to stop such destruction of a historic building

Word on Twitter is that a decision was delayed.

.

I hope they bring back the old name of the building.

In an interview in the BizJournal, there was mention by the developer or the developer's architect that there will actually be six floors of parking in the building, getting historic tax credits shouldn't be a problem, and the whole project isn't that big of a deal.

This is very frustrating

JBmidtown wrote:This is very frustrating

the council doesn't have to take the EDC's recommendations on incentives. it also has to get through city planning first.

Eventually, (maybe soon) the downtown market will be able to stand alone without incentives. The council better get a plan in place because when that happens, the city would have no recourse to deny a terrible project like this one. The developer would just go without the incentives and do what they want.

beautyfromashes wrote:Eventually, (maybe soon) the downtown market will be able to stand alone without incentives. The council better get a plan in place because when that happens, the city would have no recourse to deny a terrible project like this one. The developer would just go without the incentives and do what they want.

other than modifying the existing zoning (DC-15) to require transparency, which is in progress now...

So, the owner of the P&L could decide to remove the lights on top and replace it with a helicopter pad and the city would have no recourse? We have building codes in place for any new construction or refurbishment. We can't put into the code a predevelopment plan that requires approval by a board representing the interests of the citizenry?

beautyfromashes wrote:So, the owner of the P&L could decide to remove the lights on top and replace it with a helicopter pad and the city would have no recourse? We have building codes in place for any new construction or refurbishment. We can't put into the code a predevelopment plan that requires approval by a board representing the interests of the citizenry?

i doubt a helipad is allowed.

most people don't want a design review incorporated into the development process. they tend to go awry. best to just make the requirements in advance and hope staff does their job.

DaveKCMO wrote: i doubt a helipad is allowed.

Cause that'd be ridiculous.

I'm not sure of the implications, but it appears, for now, that the Codes Department is denying the developer's request for turning the bottom 6 floors into parking because the aisle widths are too narrow.

Staff Report I found in Kiva

KCDowntown

I'd like to think of it this way

the developer believes they can only fill the units at their preferred rates with a certain number of parking spots. The city denied the skinnier aisle widths required to fit that many spots in. So in some manner the developer has to go back and rethink the project. It's possible the bank is demanding a certain number of spots per unit to give a loan so this could potentially change the ability for the project to move forward.

Alternatively that amount of parking is really not required and they're just trying to get away with ignoring codes.

If it is required and they want to move forward they need to find alternatives. But if they can find alternatives, why would they not use those six floors for tenants and put all the parking there?

I doubt it's the case but I would love this to be the city and developer working together on a stupid bank requirement to get this bank to start taking no parking development seriously. That this really is the best project to get a conversion of this building and the developer knew they were never getting approved by the city.

looks like a good project for a "developer in the public interest". a parking-free mixed use redevelopment taking advantage of historic tax credits!

I would not take on a zero parking provided apartment development of more than a handful of units.

We are not there yet.

edit: It may take a public-private partnership (with the public carrying the risk) to do so, and prove the viability.