KCRag Forum

Well... we're not there yet. There will be a backlash about the height. And the parking. And the aesthetics. Basically, everything that makes this a watershed project is going to piss people off.

Perhaps neighborhood residents need an alternative proposal. Some developer should put forth a proposal on one corner for a one-story stucco plasma center with asphalt parking surrounding it; a 20-bay car wash on another corner; a 24-hour one-story stucco pawn shop on another corner; and on the SE corner inside the renovated Boulevard Manor Hotel, a residential drug treatment center, and next to it on the vacant lot, a new one-story building housing multi-faith-operated soup kitchen (3 meals a day). Put the two proposals side-by-side and let them pick.

Add a day job pickup location to the soup kitchen for good measure.

FangKC wrote:Perhaps neighborhood residents need an alternative proposal. Some developer should put forth a proposal on one corner for a one-story stucco plasma center with asphalt parking surrounding it; a 20-bay car wash on another corner; a 24-hour one-story stucco pawn shop on another corner; and on the SE corner inside the renovated Boulevard Manor Hotel, a residential drug treatment center, and next to it on the vacant lot, a new one-story building housing multi-faith-operated soup kitchen (3 meals a day). Put the two proposals side-by-side and let them pick.

That’s funny but there are people complaining that this proposal violates the area plan, which by reference incorporates a 2015 MARC study that proposed a one story medical office building and some 2 story townhouses for those corners. Honestly there would be less of a fight if MAC used all 4 corners as surface parking lots.

That’s funny but there are people complaining that this proposal violates the area plan, which by reference incorporates a 2015 MARC study that proposed a one story medical office building and some 2 story townhouses for those corners. Honestly there would be less of a fight if MAC used all 4 corners as surface parking lots.

This is unbelievably sad to me. Is this perception accurate? The MAC project as described by KCtoBrooklyn (4 10-story buildings @ Troost/Armour, mixed use, plus 8-story across from Newbern) is perfect. It represents the scale that the neighborhood was originally built to, and rebuilds the mixed uses that are so important to making a "there" there in Hyde Park; making it a true neighborhood again. It includes parking.

This is ground zero for KC urban neighborhoods, some of our densest midtown blocks. I frankly don't understand how you could be a property owner in the vicinity and be against something of this nature, an investment of this size that potentially significantly improves the uses/value of every single lot it touches (seedy gas station, seedy strip mall, rotting building, surface parking). Aren't the potential of projects like this why one would want to live in a neighborhood like Hyde Park in the first place?

So how do kcmo residents actively engage the council to encourage this type of density.

rxlexi wrote:

That’s funny but there are people complaining that this proposal violates the area plan, which by reference incorporates a 2015 MARC study that proposed a one story medical office building and some 2 story townhouses for those corners. Honestly there would be less of a fight if MAC used all 4 corners as surface parking lots.

This is unbelievably sad to me. Is this perception accurate? The MAC project as described by KCtoBrooklyn (4 10-story buildings @ Troost/Armour, mixed use, plus 8-story across from Newbern) is perfect. It represents the scale that the neighborhood was originally built to, and rebuilds the mixed uses that are so important to making a "there" there in Hyde Park; making it a true neighborhood again. It includes parking.

This is ground zero for KC urban neighborhoods, some of our densest midtown blocks. I frankly don't understand how you could be a property owner in the vicinity and be against something of this nature, an investment of this size that potentially significantly improves the uses/value of every single lot it touches (seedy gas station, seedy strip mall, rotting building, surface parking). Aren't the potential of projects like this why one would want to live in a neighborhood like Hyde Park in the first place?

Beacuse the scale is not "historically appropriate", because the density is "out of character in a single family neighborhood", because there are "concerns" about noise and traffic and parking. I'm not saying these are valid or correct. But there is a generational divide on this, and the people fighting it are generally longtime residents who moved in in the bad, old days and helped stabilize the neighborhood. They absolutely should be commended for that, because they did it with little help from the city. But it gave rise to a neighborhood focused on SFHs, because the apartments were either empty (on Armour), or falling apart (all the 4-plexes), or owned by absentee landlords. So, no, there are people who didn't move to Hyde Park for this - or they moved to Hyde Park because for so long, fully occupied, large apartment buildings were not part of the equation. I think that's where people are coming from and why obvious positives like MAC redeveloping every damn building on Armour at market rate are met with some reticence. More residents represent an unknown and a change from the familiar. That isn't to defend this, because there's a certain amount of "what did you expect?" - this is a neighborhood in the city, where the SFHs have driveways, and the apartment buildings all predate any current residents - but I see where they're coming from.

^ Yes, and I think people want neighbors like themselves. If you’re a family with kids, you want to see the same move in next door. Single, same. So, when the demographics of a neighborhood change with a huge focus on apartments for mostly singles, it can be difficult for those already there. It’s what has to happen for the long term viability of city neighborhoods though.

This isn’t Overland Park. Fuck them and I have no sympathy for their reactionary NIMBYism.

Would it help if the city undertook an educational campaign linking density, transit, services, and tax revenue? Maybe these folks just don't see the relationships.

The City absolutely must do a better job educating residents on the above. People have forgotten that KCMO south of the river has lost about 150,000 residents--many of which would be paying taxes to help improve virtually every service the City provides. KCMO has virtually the same population it did in 1980, but spread over a much, much larger footprint that must be maintained.

chaglang wrote: Beacuse the scale is not "historically appropriate", because the density is "out of character in a single family neighborhood", because there are "concerns" about noise and traffic and parking. ...

I guess they aren't aware that there used to be two 8-story buildings on those vacant parcels.

And should "historically appropriate" always be what we seek? At one time, people in these parts lived in teepees, stick and grass huts, and log cabins.



Cavalier Apartment Hotel



SE corner of Troost and Armour. That is the Cavalier Apts. on the left.



East side of Troost south of Armour. That is the Cavalier Apts. in the background.



Looking south at the Troost/Armour intersection. That is the Senate Apartment Hotel looming on the right side.

And today: https://goo.gl/maps/NVg8ytf1MAL2

How did we get it so wrong?

I know the answer to that.

It’s historically appropriate, as long as nobody parks their car on the street in front of my house. I know it makes no sense.

Also, I learned a few days ago that there is a move to get an ordinance through council that would result in additional parking for this project, partly to make up for the other MAC buildings on Armour. It would completely preempt the neighborhood level discussion, which for the most part has not focused on parking. This is mostly being pushed by HKC members so if it happened I assume the ordinance would come from Shields.

They still sell "Drugs" on the SE and SW corners though? Historical use?

shinatoo wrote:They still sell "Drugs" on the SE and SW corners though? Historical use?

I saw this one from a mile away.

cubsmike33 wrote:So how do kcmo residents actively engage the council to encourage this type of density.

The documents on the KCMO Development Tracker look like they were submitted to the City Plan Comission, so I'm guessing that is the next step. It takes 6 weeks after submitting the docs to have your hearing with the CPC, which happen on the first and third Tuesdays of the month. So I assume this hearing will be the first Tuesday of May.

Here are the members of the CPC. I'm not sure about their contact info:

Babette Macy, Chair Rev.
Stan Archie, Vice-Chair
Coby Crowl
Bobbi Baker-Hughes
Diane Burnette
Matthew Dameron
Margaret J. May
Tammy Henderson

Unlike elected officials, we're not supposed to engage with CPC outside of the hearings so they are not biased to any project. If a developer or other person does try to influence a member that member should recuse themselves.

You can write to the City Planner assigned to the project. They will compile all comments and submit them along with the documents to the CPC.

I know at least some of the CPC members are on this site too.