Renovations of apartment buildings along Armour Blvd.

[KCtoBrooklyn]

I do find it interesting that this building would be all 3-bedroom units - you definitely don't find many of those in this city. I would assume that MAC would have reason to believe that demand exists (or is it that the 3-bed units would be more profitable?).

[shinatoo]

I do find it interesting that this building would be all 3-bedroom units - you definitely don't find many of those in this city. I would assume that MAC would have reason to believe that demand exists (or is it that the 3-bed units would be more profitable?).

Strong need. Have to cater to the average family if you want to have families in the core.

[chaglang]

Anything can be saved. It's only whether or not it makes sense from a business standpoint.

This was a debate on Facebook today. The new renderings are not attractive at all and do nothing to help MAC's case. I would be surprised if they got past Landmarks in that iteration. But the old buildings are so dilapidated that it's been obvious for the last year that MAC couldn't make the financials work. Unfortunately KC Life has primed everyone in Midtown to believe that situations like this are demolition by neglect, but I seriously doubt that's the case here. When a developer that specializes in historic renovations offers to give the buildings away and take an $800,000 loss, it's clear that the buildings are beyond saving. Those buildings have been rotting since the 1980's. With so many existing apartment buildings available in the area that better fit their business model it's commendable that MAC's doing this infill at all.

[KCtoBrooklyn]

Strong need. Have to cater to the average family if you want to have families in the core.

I wonder if this will be directed more towards families, or college kids who can get a lower per bedroom rate with 3 bed units.

[FangKC]

Probably both.

[FangKC]

Midtown developer pursues additional apartment projects

A developer wants to demolish several historic buildings on West Armour Boulevard in midtown Kansas City and replace them with a 40-unit apartment project, saying renovation is not financially viable.

The developer, MAC Property Management, which has converted dozens of historic midtown buildings into hundreds of apartments the past few years, is seeking permission from the City Landmark Commission to demolish the four buildings at 100-118 W. Armour Blvd.

“We’re sorry to see these buildings go, but we’d like to see people consider this in the context of our having created 1,500 apartments and saved 24 buildings,” Peter Cassel said Wednesday.

MAC Property in recent years has restored a large group of formerly grand apartment-hotels built during the mid 20th century between Main Street and Troost Avenue. It also has plans to renovate two other historic apartment-hotels, the Newbern at 525 E. Armour and the Ambassador at 3560 Broadway.

http://www.kansascity.com/2013/07/24/43 ... ional.html

[kcjak]

So MAC says the $150K per unit renovation is too high - they need the costs to be around $75K. But the article mentions they are rehabbing the Newbern is $18.3 million for 108 units ($169K/unit) and the Ambassador is $15.5 million for 115 units ($134K/unit). What am I missing?

[heatherkay]

Maybe that's why they have to come in lower.

[flyingember]

So MAC says the $150K per unit renovation is too high - they need the costs to be around $75K. But the article mentions they are rehabbing the Newbern is $18.3 million for 108 units ($169K/unit) and the Ambassador is $15.5 million for 115 units ($134K/unit). What am I missing?

different tax credits for different buildings
this project is being done with 100% private dollars.

that's not the case for one of those two

http://www.kansascity.com/2013/07/24/43 ... ional.html

The $18.3 million project would create 108 apartments. The developer plans to seek a property tax abatement for the plan this fall.

[earthling]

I don't blame MAC but rather previous owners for letting it rot. OK to demolish if replaced by something better but that rendering looks ghetto. Is a prime stretch in Midtown and deserves better if existing cant be restored. Would rather see another developer do larger market rate building.

[heatherkay]

I'm not super happy about that rendering either, but I'd prefer a new, green building that is attractive and functional to an ersatz historical style.

[earthling]

The rendering reminds of bland 60s ranch houses stuck in the middle of grand old homes in Central Hyde Park/Volker. Let's not allow that mistake again. If it can't meet or exceed the grandness of that stretch, don't bother doing it.

[flyingember]

The rendering reminds of bland 60s ranch houses stuck in the middle of grand old homes in Central Hyde Park/Volker. Let's not allow that mistake again. If it can't meet or exceed the grandness of that stretch, don't bother doing it.

yeah, this is a stupid idea.

we would NEVER get infill in the east side if we follow this rule

the most interesting cities are ones with variety side by side. nothing in KC is historic to the point that tourists will stop coming if a modern building goes up.

look at our latest tourist destination, the super modern kauffman center. right across from the art deco P&L building

[kcjak]

The rendering reminds of bland 60s ranch houses stuck in the middle of grand old homes in Central Hyde Park/Volker. Let's not allow that mistake again. If it can't meet or exceed the grandness of that stretch, don't bother doing it.

Exactly. I'm OK with a replacement, but they at least need to try for something more cohesive with the architectural style of the neighborhood...or at least the block. Hell, even the U-Store-It place put up faux exterior to match the surroundings. If the current version is put up it will end up no better than that tiki-looking apartment complex from the 50s off of Gilham that was finally demolished not long ago.

We should demand grandiose, but a 50s-style block house with fancy metal work doesn't cut it. I can't imagine the current version gets approved by the Hyde Park architectural board (or whatever it's called) in September.

[FangKC]

What firm designed this building at Kirkwood on the Plaza?

https://maps.google.com/?ll=39.037703,- ... 8,,0,-9.18

[Midtownkid]

It would honestly be terrible to lose these great apartments by an interesting historic-kc architect on such a prominent boulevard. Just look at the way the bricks are patterned on the facade and the overlapping porches. They have so much character.



I think the real issue here is that not only would they not have to pay for a renovation, but they also get way more units in that space. Which is unfortunate. There is so much empty land in KC.

They also make a great counterpoint to these on the opposite side of the street on the next block. They better not come under fire next.



These are even more amazing.

[earthling]

There are good examples of modern infill that compliments art deco buildings. Mill Creek Terrace along J C Nichols Pkway does a fairly good job complimenting the old art deco buildings that are mixed in. Armour replacement doesn't have to be that but at least make an effort to pursue architecture that compliments art deco, not mundane infill for the sake of infill, not on this strip.

[moderne]

These buildings are nouveau, not deco.

[earthling]

Yes I know but the rest of the strip is mostly deco leaning. If these are torn down, there are types of modern architecture that could complement the rest of Armour. Would rather see the existing ones sit for another 5-10 years than torn down for mundane infill - I'd volunteer to help keep up the facade until a developer comes along with better proposal. As I was saying, let's not make the same mistake like when bland 60s ranch houses were stuck in the middle of Central HP/Volker homes, just makes ya sigh that people can have that poor of taste and destroy the integrity of a hood like that.

Another architectural tragedy that happened to Armour was tearing down a grand stone home at Main for an ultra utilitarian office building. There is enough momentum going now to up the ante in design, not bland things down, especially on a strip as unique as Armor. It doesn't have to be costly design, just thoughtful to that stretch.

[chaglang]

Yes I know but the rest of the strip is mostly deco leaning. If these are torn down, there are types of modern architecture that could complement the rest of Armour. Would rather see the existing ones sit for another 5-10 years than torn down for mundane infill - I'd volunteer to help keep up the facade until a developer comes along with better proposal. As I was saying, let's not make the same mistake like when bland 60s ranch houses were stuck in the middle of Central HP/Volker homes, just makes ya sigh that people can have that poor of taste and destroy the integrity of a hood like that.

Ok, the new design is crap. But I hope the neighborhood isn't so distracted by that that they spike the whole project. If those buildings are unsalvagable now - and developers and real estate agents I've talked to say they are - then clinging to them for 5-10 years isn't going to help. The buildings won't heal themselves, and volunteer facade maintenance won't do much good. And 5-10 years isn't a guarantee. It wouldn't be surprising for those to sit 10-20 years before anything happened with them. Right now MAC is one of the few developers working in that part of town, and shooting down their plan in favor of no plan doesn't make much sense. I'd push hard for a redesign that the neighborhood and Landmarks Commission is comfortable with and get something built there. At the very least you'll get someone who does good work and maintains their property well. Just because it's modern and not historic preservation doesn't necessarily mean it's the "same mistake" that was made in other parts of Midtown in the 60's.