KCRag Forum

FangKC wrote:An Aldi would probably do well in the former Thriftway store at Westport Road and Main Street.

^Will be interesting to see if national retailers take interest of that stretch once streetcar vote passes or reaches some point of certainty. The old Osco location could attract something too. Locatarians would probably rather see local biz only but a mix of some national retailers could take more interest along that stretch - like Aldi, Sprouts, Trader Joe's, etc. TJs has mostly larger stores now but I have seen some new ones in spaces as small as old Thriftway location (like outside downtown Tampa).

Would love an Aldi somewhere in Midtown. I'd even take a Sprouts.

Hyde Park Response/Concerns about the MAC properties development at Armour and Troost. The ease of parking obsession in this city drives me nuts.

The Hyde Park Neighborhood Association (HPNA) was formed to improve the quality of life of those living, working, or attending institutions within Hyde Park, and it is with that mission in mind that the Board has received input on the Mac Properties developments at Armour and Troost and at 520 E. Armour.

Allan Hallquist, HPNA president, formed a committee of neighbors to discuss the proposed development with Peter Cassel of Mac Properties. Allan has also met with Mac's attorney, Charles Renner; representatives from the Troost Coalition and Center City Neighborhood Council; and discussed the project in a more casual context with many neighbors. In addition to these discussions, neighbors have given comments and concerns to other Board representatives. Allan has been most sensitive to the comments of homeowners in the 3400 and 3500 blocks of Locust, Cherry, Kenwood, Holmes, Charlotte, Campbell and Harrison and those who live along 36th street, as they will be impacted the most by Mac's proposed development. Article IX, Section A of HPNA’s Bylaws states that the Association shall support compliance with current zoning ordinances unless the majority of Nearby Neighbors (those property owners whose property is located within 185 feet of the lot boundaries of the property in question) expressly disapprove.

At the HPNA meeting held on May 15, neighbors discussed the proposed development, and Allan heard a consensus saying that the development is desired, but to negotiate some reasonable changes, particularly with regard to the amount of off-street parking. With that in mind, and Charles Renner's suggestion that Allan submit proposed changes to the plan, Allan wrote an email to Charles offering his understanding of what the majority of Hyde Parkers would support. This was meant to start a dialogue and negotiations to reach mutually acceptable compromise prior to the June 5 City Planning Commission meeting. This email reached some others, and concerns have been expressed regarding the email. The HPNA Board would like to make it clear that this email was not meant to slow down or stop the development, but was sent with careful consideration of the needs and desires of the neighbors most affected.

Those who are interested in learning more about the proposed development may attend a meeting with Mac Properties, the Troost Coalition, and other neighbors tonight, May 30, 7pm at Central Presbyterian Church (3501 Campbell).

As always, HPNA represents neighbors first and will continue to strive to preserve the unique community of our historic neighborhood.

Lydia DeMonte
Corresponding Secretary
Hyde Park Neighborhood Association

anyone attend the hearing last night? i hear it got pretty live.

Yeah, it was definitely very hostile. People wouldn't even let MAC finish their presentation (which wasn't that long) before launching into lengthy rants.

There were some parking complaints, but it seems like most of the ire was directed toward gentrification/apartments being too expensive.

KCtoBrooklyn wrote:Yeah, it was definitely very hostile. People wouldn't even let MAC finish their presentation (which wasn't that long) before launching into lengthy rants.

There were some parking complaints, but it seems like most of the ire was directed toward gentrification/apartments being too expensive.

interesting. seems like that's maybe a win for MAC. parking complaints might warrant some action (or pressure from the City for action) but gentrification complaints, MAC can and will just ignore.

Oh, there still will be parking complaints.

I don't know if the meeting last night will have any impact. As far as I know, no one from the CPC was there. Quinton Lucas showed up towards the end and Justus and Shields sent their assistants, so I don't think the meeting will factor in very much.

The official HPNA response, written by the HPNA president, with no input from the board or neighbors, requests a 1:1 parking ratio. I don't think that is in line with the opinion of most HP residents, but it is clear the president has kept this process closed so he can control the outcome.

KCtoBrooklyn wrote: The official HPNA response, written by the HPNA president, with no input from the board or neighbors, requests a 1:1 parking ratio. I don't think that is in line with the opinion of most HP residents, but it is clear the president has kept this process closed so he can control the outcome.

i'm sure it doesn't/shouldn't matter, but i think it's interesting that the HPNA president and MAC's lawyer are at the same firm (or were until very recently).

the "janssen place" contingent (which includes OG gentrifiers from the 70s-80s who are janssen-adjacent), for a lot of reasons, has a lot of sway over the board and most of the influence with the city. the HPNA president is a great guy and def. part of this insidery milieu. but HP is a huge area, and i feel like there has been a bit of a rift between the janssen place contingent and the other 10K people who live in the area. the parking issue is really only "felt" by people, as he says, right off armour. the gentrification concerns i'm guessing are being voiced by a broader (geographically) contingent.

at the end of the day i think MAC gets to do whatever it wants. I could be wrong, but I am not aware of any major concessions neighbors have gotten from MAC over the years, with the notable exception of OHP getting MAC to not demolish the bldg around armour/baltimore.

It seems like MAC has pretty well tapped out that stretch of Armour. All the remaining buildings have been rehabbed and now most empty lots are getting filled. I’m curious where they expand to next.

I'm not even sure how much the CPC matters. I suspect it'll come down to whether the city council members want to pass on a $78m investment, after years of working with MAC on this deal.

I was at the meeting last night. The concerns about rent and what happens to longtime residents is absolutely valid but the meeting quickly devolved into a situation where anyone not there to air grievances was hooted down. There were comments about parking that could have been talked through but the mood of the room was not conducive to that. One person brought up that more parking runs counter to keeping market rate rents low and I thought people were going to take her head off. There were a few Central Hyde Parkers who were applying a purity test to people making comments: one guy said he'd lived there 18 years and it apparently wasn't long enough for him to be allowed to have an opinion.

The parking is totally overblown. 94% of the people within 1/4 mile have a driveway. The prize comment was the woman who said she didn't like people parking in front of her house who she didn't know, and then whispering to someone on the way out "I've got people from the mosque parking in front of my house!"

In the end, MAC was being asked to answer for the city's lack of an affordable housing policy. It was good that Lucas showed up so he could see the insanity of setting policy on a case-by-case basis. I've never met the HP president, but he's been doing some underhanded stuff with this and MAC had to answer to that too.

I left wondering why the meeting had been set up that way. It was a very poor choice by someone.

KCtoBrooklyn wrote:Yeah, it was definitely very hostile. People wouldn't even let MAC finish their presentation (which wasn't that long) before launching into lengthy rants.

There were some parking complaints, but it seems like most of the ire was directed toward gentrification/apartments being too expensive.

Kind of seems counter productive to oppose apartments because of the cost of rental. The one sure thing to bring prices down is an overabundance of apartments and KC seems to be headed in that direction given what is under construction and on the drawing board. Despite all the city's attempts to push developers into providing lower cost options, supply and demand is an inexorable process that will bring whatever adjustment is appropriate.

I’m sure they are the same residents that just a few years ago wanted to kick out the remaining low income housing on Armour.

mykn wrote:I’m sure they are the same residents that just a few years ago wanted to kick out the remaining low income housing on Armour.

Clearly they figured out that market rate means they can't afford to live in the neighborhood.

I listened to some of the residents speak on the news clip regarding the development and they seemed pretty reasonable. They want the development but claim it doesn't have enough parking. Frankly, I think that's a fair concern. Build 450 units with 225 spaces and you are requiring have of your renters to find space on the residential side streets - it's not ideal for any residential area. My office in the UK didn't have enough parking spaces and it set off a firestorm in neighborhood and this wasn't even the US.

https://www.kshb.com/news/local-news/re ... -hyde-park

chaglang wrote:
The parking is totally overblown. 94% of the people within 1/4 mile have a driveway. The prize comment was the woman who said she didn't like people parking in front of her house who she didn't know, and then whispering to someone on the way out "I've got people from the mosque parking in front of my house!"

I don't understand peoples mindset when it comes to people parking in front of a house. Its a fricking public street?
There are some HOA's in suburbs across America that do not allow on street overnight parking. How is this even legal? Shouldn't these streets just be private if they allow this? Its just mind boggling how people are when it comes to homeownership.

Highlander wrote:I listened to some of the residents speak on the news clip regarding the development and they seemed pretty reasonable. They want the development but claim it doesn't have enough parking. Frankly, I think that's a fair concern. Build 450 units with 225 spaces and you are requiring have of your renters to find space on the residential side streets - it's not ideal for any residential area. My office in the UK didn't have enough parking spaces and it set off a firestorm in neighborhood and this wasn't even the US.

https://www.kshb.com/news/local-news/re ... -hyde-park

All those people complaining have driveways. The MAC development changes nothing about their ability to park in close proximity to their house.

The CPC hearing for this project is happening this morning.

I noticed a few changes in the staff reports. It looks like they reduced their recommended parking ratio for Armour and Troost to .5 (Armour and Cherry is still .7). MAC has increased the ratio to .5, so that is encouraging, if CPC follows the recommendation.

Some friends own a home a few blocks away from Troost project just off Armour (with driveway) and are very excited about the Troost development as all the improvements along Armour have significantly raised value of their home since purchased 15 years ago, especially jumping last 2 years. And they are looking to move within 5 years. They don't really care about how big/small this project is, just that it will involve more improvement with potentially neighborhood shops moving in to the retail spots. In general, they favor more market rate apts as do most of their neighbors who own homes but more important is improvements to a dilapidated prime intersection.

beautyfromashes wrote:It seems like MAC has pretty well tapped out that stretch of Armour. All the remaining buildings have been rehabbed and now most empty lots are getting filled. I’m curious where they expand to next.

That depends on if they are going to continue with new construction, or look for more historic buildings to rehab.

For rehabs, I think they could potentially keep going east and do a couple more buildings between Troost and Paseo. They could look a for more buildings just off Armour. The white painted brick building on Baltimore just south of Armour is one I'd really like to see them take on. The entire 3200 block of Harrison is another option. I think all but 1 or 2 buildings on that block are under single ownership. Those buildings (7 buildings, 52 units) sold 3 years ago for $1.1M. I was hoping MAC would buy at that time - the new owner hasn't seem to have made much improvement.

I think it is likely that we see MAC get more into new construction, especially if these current proposals are successful. I would think they would focus on Main and Troost, around Armour. There was a rumor posted here that MAC had tried to buy the Burger King on Main to redevelop it. In St. Louis, MAC is building a high-end tower in the Central West End, so it is possible they could do something similar here somewhere like the Plaza (if they could get past NIMBYs), River Market, Crown Center, but my guess is that they will stay around Armour.

Investing further E seems like a natural next step (and the BK lot at Armour/Main if they can get it). Maybe also buying out Uptown Shoppes and redeveloping. MAC has been great for Midtown. Hope to see them expand beyond Armour.