Troost developments

Discuss items in the urban core outside of Downtown as described above. Everything in the core including the east side (18th & Vine area), Plaza, Westport, Brookside, Valentine, Waldo, 39th street, & the entire midtown area.
tower
Strip mall
Strip mall
Posts: 174
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2017 8:45 am
Location: Midtown

Re: Troost developments

Postby tower » Thu Apr 26, 2018 8:42 pm

KCtoBrooklyn wrote:Fencing is up around the market building on SW corner of Armour and Troost (blocking the sidewalk and bus stop). I'm guessing this is coming down soon.

I don't know why they would tear this down before the other two buildings (besides wanting to rush it through before it can be stopped).


Yesterday they had the fence up and it looked like they were unloading some wood from a trailer, for some reason.

JBmidtown
Colonnade
Colonnade
Posts: 742
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2015 11:31 am

Re: Troost developments

Postby JBmidtown » Thu Apr 26, 2018 8:47 pm

Maybe it’s a surprise renovation? A gift to the city?

User avatar
chaglang
Hotel President
Hotel President
Posts: 3250
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:44 pm

Re: Troost developments

Postby chaglang » Thu Apr 26, 2018 8:49 pm

It’s to protect the MAX stop. The building could be gone by the end of the weekend.

User avatar
KCtoBrooklyn
Western Auto Lofts
Western Auto Lofts
Posts: 609
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 4:01 pm

Re: Troost developments

Postby KCtoBrooklyn » Mon Apr 30, 2018 4:44 pm

The Armour and Troost project (as well as Armour and Cherry) are on the docket for the City Plan Commission tomorrow.

I have never been to a CPC meeting, but I'm considering checking this one out.

earthling
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 4281
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:27 pm

Re: Troost developments

Postby earthling » Mon Apr 30, 2018 6:47 pm

Isn't that what MAC owns, planning retail development on all four corners?

User avatar
chaglang
Hotel President
Hotel President
Posts: 3250
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:44 pm

Re: Troost developments

Postby chaglang » Mon Apr 30, 2018 8:24 pm

It’s delayed until 5/15. Meanwhile, if anyone here lives in Hyde Park, you may want to start demanding answers from the HPNA about what they’ve been scheming on. It sounds like they are searching for a way to come out in opposition to the entire project.

alejandro46
Parking Garage
Parking Garage
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2018 11:24 pm
Location: North Plaza

Re: Troost developments

Postby alejandro46 » Tue May 01, 2018 11:41 am


User avatar
KCtoBrooklyn
Western Auto Lofts
Western Auto Lofts
Posts: 609
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 4:01 pm

Re: Troost developments

Postby KCtoBrooklyn » Tue May 01, 2018 1:06 pm

The CPC docket with staff reports is available here:
https://data.kcmo.org/Development-Review/City-Plan-Commission-Docket-with-Staff-Reports/yckm-q3pc

The staff report on the Armour and Troost development begins on page 103.

Here is probably the most important part of the report, discussing parking:

With these reductions; the total number of spaces required is 414. A total of 189 are
proposed to be provided, which is a gap of 225. Other options to reduce the total parking
requirement may be available, as outlined in the paragraph below; however, these likely
will not close the gap completely. Staff is supportive of a gap between the number of
spaces required and provided, but is uncomfortable with the extent of the gap proposed.
Staff recommends that the Commission consider a ratio of 0.7 spaces per unit which would
result in an adjusted parking requirement of 279 spaces, or a gap of 54 spaces. This gap
could be reasonably accommodated by one of the other options provided below. Staff
recommends a condition requiring each project plan for each phase be accompanied by
one or more of the proposed alternatives below to fill the gap. Staff believes that this
location, with an east/west bus route on Armour, the MAX route on Troost lend support to
the reduced ratio. Furthermore, requiring more parking only creates an economic incentive
to retain existing surface lots in the area or demolish buildings to create new surface lots in
the area, which is contrary to relevant city policies.

Other options available include Shared Parking (88-420-16-I), Off-Site Parking (88-420-16-J) or
Car-Share Vehicles (88-420-16-P). These options provide the ability to arrange an
agreement in which two or more uses with different peak parking periods (hours of
operation) use the same off-street parking spaces to meet their off-street parking
requirements. The parking can be on a remote or separate lot from the lot on which the
principal use is located. Lastly, car-share vehicle(s) provide for the opportunity of a vehicle
available that can be used for residences within the development.


Overall, it sounds like the city is supportive of this project, which is not a surprise considering that the city has already contributed money and resources in helping MAC obtain all of the necessary parcels. As long as the NIMBYs aren't successful in derailing this, it sounds like they will be able to work something out.

kcjak
Valencia Place
Valencia Place
Posts: 1857
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 3:02 pm

Re: Troost developments

Postby kcjak » Tue May 01, 2018 2:31 pm

chaglang wrote:It’s delayed until 5/15. Meanwhile, if anyone here lives in Hyde Park, you may want to start demanding answers from the HPNA about what they’ve been scheming on. It sounds like they are searching for a way to come out in opposition to the entire project.


At the Fourth District community meeting last night, someone from my neighborhood association (Volker) mentioned that residents of Hyde Park were upset at the increase in number of residents being reported for violating city codes. The residents feel that long-time residents are being targeted for baseless and frivolous code complaints. A large number of complaints were recently filed on the same day, and residents assume that the complaints are being filed by one of the developers wanting to run longtime residents out of the neighborhood. :roll:

User avatar
chaglang
Hotel President
Hotel President
Posts: 3250
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:44 pm

Re: Troost developments

Postby chaglang » Tue May 01, 2018 3:17 pm

That sounds nuts, except John Hoffman did that to Longfellow in 2011 or 2012, to increase the value of the houses he was building. After a long and very angry meeting, the city finally agreed to cancel the violations. That they would let a developer do that in the first place is mind-boggling, but they defended it for well over an hour at that meeting.

The scheming I mentioned has more to do with parking (not enough) and height (too much). There's a bylaw that won't let the HPNA endorse a rezoning unless some number of neighbors nearby give consent. Which puts the endorsement in the hands of a few property owners on Harrison.

moderne
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3927
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 2:50 pm
Location: downtown

Re: Troost developments

Postby moderne » Sun May 06, 2018 1:22 pm

The Rime Buddhist Center has purchased land at 1616 East 30th and is fundraising to build a Buddhist Temple at the site.

User avatar
chaglang
Hotel President
Hotel President
Posts: 3250
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:44 pm

Re: Troost developments

Postby chaglang » Mon May 07, 2018 1:49 pm

Very cool.

User avatar
FangKC
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12571
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound

Re: Troost developments

Postby FangKC » Mon May 07, 2018 10:39 pm

Wonder Shops and Flats set to bring Blip Roasters, Bike Walk KC, medical group to Troost

http://www.startlandnews.com/2018/05/wonder-shops-and-flats-troost/

User avatar
FangKC
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12571
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound

Re: Troost developments

Postby FangKC » Wed May 16, 2018 8:20 pm

Demolition has started on the Market Building at Armour and Troost.

User avatar
FangKC
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12571
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound

Re: Troost developments

Postby FangKC » Thu May 17, 2018 2:07 pm

$80M project at blighted Troost intersection wins PIEA incentives

Incentives for an $80 million mixed-use project that would include 450 apartments and 28,000 square feet of retail at the corner of Armour Boulevard and Troost Avenue were green-lighted Thursday by the Planned Industrial Expansion Authority.

MAC Properties, the developer of the project at a blighted Kansas City intersection, asked the board for three incentives:

a sales tax exemption on construction materials
an abatement of property taxes for 20 years
$3.5 million from the city's Business Interruption Fund

...

An additional building that would be solely residential located at Armour and Cherry Street also is included in the project and would have up to 110 units.

...

That 28,000 square feet of retail would include anywhere from 10 to 20 shops. He said part of the plan to encourage small business owners and entrepreneurs to lease the space will be the built-in infrastructure for small restaurants in some of the spaces. He said on average, converting a standard retail space into a restaurant can be cost-prohibitive and exceed $200,000. But having restaurant infrastructure built into the space would allow for lower startup costs. He said the spaces would be small, with the hope that the restaurants would become successful, move to larger spaces and allow new business to continue to begin there.
...

Members of two local neighborhood associations attended the hearing and requested more time to discuss parking and other issues. Currently, the project has a parking ratio of 0.4, meaning for every five apartments there would be two parking spaces. MAC Properties will charge for those spaces.

...


https://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/news/2018/05/17/mac-properties-troost-armour-project-incentives.html

flyingember
One Park Place
One Park Place
Posts: 6439
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: Troost developments

Postby flyingember » Thu May 17, 2018 3:42 pm

I would say the small restaurant spaces are the best part. It's probably the easiest industry to move upwards in without a high school education in a neighborhood in need of good quality jobs for more people period.

I would put this feature as something the city should aim for when talking about future projects.

JBmidtown
Colonnade
Colonnade
Posts: 742
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2015 11:31 am

Re: Troost developments

Postby JBmidtown » Thu May 17, 2018 4:58 pm

It’s pretty telling that the NIMBY neighborhood associations care more about parking than providing economic mobility for east of Troost residents. Fuck off HPNA.

Also MAC properties is such a game changer. I wish other developers approached development like they did.

missingkc
Colonnade
Colonnade
Posts: 772
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2002 7:16 pm
Location: Charlotte, NC

Re: Troost developments

Postby missingkc » Thu May 17, 2018 8:09 pm

How nice if the NIMBYs, instead of crying about parking spaces, would demand better public transit.

User avatar
FangKC
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12571
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound

Re: Troost developments

Postby FangKC » Fri May 18, 2018 1:16 pm

MAC Properties Plans $78M Project to Revive Troost/Armour Intersection

...
Cassel said the buildings planned at the intersection will range from one- to eight-stories, with only one tower planned there. The project at 520 E. Armour would include 110 apartments and be up to eight stories tall.

...
If all goes according to schedule, construction would being in April 2019 with full build-out expected in April 2023.


The 520 E. Armour building site (at Cherry). It's across from the Newbern Apartments.

https://tinyurl.com/ydcorvow

https://cityscenekc.com/mac-properties-plans-78m-project-at-troost-and-armour-intersection/

User avatar
chaglang
Hotel President
Hotel President
Posts: 3250
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:44 pm

Re: Troost developments

Postby chaglang » Fri May 18, 2018 1:35 pm

Having been in many neighborhood meetings on this, I can say that the parking concerns are not widely held. But they are held by a few (really, 4 or 5 people) who are very vocal and somewhat well connected at the city level. It's essentially an issue that HPNA leadership has raised and remained focused on, on its own.


Return to “Urban Core”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests