KCRag Forum

Jesus. Those pictures should make HKC and most core neighborhood associations ashamed of themselves. Just print them on placards that say “This is What Historic KC Looked Like” and sit silently in the back of every meeting they push their parking agenda at.

Writing the staff planner is the way to go.

The redevelopment at Armour and Troost needs to be a game changer. The proposal by Antheus Capital managed by MAC Properties fits the bill. The partnership has proven, in its investment and management of rental properties along Armour Boulevard, to be a contributor to the long-term revitalization and success of mid-town Kansas City. I am excited by this proposal.

chingon wrote:Jesus. Those pictures should make HKC and most core neighborhood associations ashamed of themselves. Just print them on placards that say “This is What Historic KC Looked Like” and sit silently in the back of every meeting they push their parking agenda at.

They don’t want historic KC. They want 1970 KC. Because by the time the current people in charge had time to sit back and reflect, so much had already been torn down.

Most the people posting here have a sense that if we take an 1890s way of thinking on mixed use supporting neighborhood resources, limited setbacks and reduced single use zoning, multi mode streets, mixed housing styles and making use of existing green landscapes like true parkways and parks with more than fields of grass we can create a lot of value for residents.

In that sense it doesn’t matter if a new building looks like the old building. But that in supporting a new building there’s a much better chance of saving the old buildings nearby by creating interest in the area. And interest comes with dollars.

flyingember wrote:Most the people posting here have a sense that if we take an 1890s way of thinking on mixed use supporting neighborhood resources, limited setbacks and reduced single use zoning, multi mode streets, mixed housing styles and making use of existing green landscapes like true parkways and parks with more than fields of grass we can create a lot of value for residents.

In that sense it doesn’t matter if a new building looks like the old building. But that in supporting a new building there’s a much better chance of saving the old buildings nearby by creating interest in the area. And interest comes with dollars.

Nicely said. I’m going to borrow this.

chaglang wrote:

flyingember wrote:Most the people posting here have a sense that if we take an 1890s way of thinking on mixed use supporting neighborhood resources, limited setbacks and reduced single use zoning, multi mode streets, mixed housing styles and making use of existing green landscapes like true parkways and parks with more than fields of grass we can create a lot of value for residents.

In that sense it doesn’t matter if a new building looks like the old building. But that in supporting a new building there’s a much better chance of saving the old buildings nearby by creating interest in the area. And interest comes with dollars.

Nicely said. I’m going to borrow this.

Yeah. this is a very good point. New buildings (especially on vacant lots) help save other old buildings.

And here's a key thing about that point. It doesn't need to be what we do *everywhere* for it to work.

Having a row of single family homes on Charlotte, Holmes, etc and then have mixed use dense, tall, buildings on 39th or Armour or Truman is exactly how the city was built out.

The city needs a task force of planning staff + an incentive account + urban developers ready to take on project + new residents ready to move in + grants for existing building improvements + retailers ready to occupy a building + the police ready to support the community

This team could come together, cut red tape, identify clusters of projects that will add value and improve neighborhoods and spend 2-4 years per area doing this repairing structures and building new. Then move onto the next cluster of projects. Imagine a 40-year plan where this team makes 10 big impacts. Bring confidence back to neighborhoods and prime the pump for further improvements.

Hey, not to abruptly change the conversation but Parcel Viewer is showing the Marquette Building is now owned by PIEA, not Oliver Abnos.

Wow, that's great!

Any idea what might be happening with it? MAC still interested? It seems like they have moved on, for the time being.

chaglang wrote:Hey, not to abruptly change the conversation but Parcel Viewer is showing the Marquette Building is now owned by PIEA, not Oliver Abnos.

What building is that?

It's the building on the SW corner of Armour and Forest.

My fear is that something was entered incorrectly at the county level and the info is just being pulled into Parcel Viewer.

chaglang wrote:It's the building on the SW corner of Armour and Forest.

My fear is that something was entered incorrectly at the county level and the info is just being pulled into Parcel Viewer.

Yep, the county is wrong. Carry on.

chaglang wrote:It's the building on the SW corner of Armour and Forest.

My fear is that something was entered incorrectly at the county level and the info is just being pulled into Parcel Viewer.

Oh, I've always called that building the Boulevard Manor Hotel. I didn't realize it was also callled The Marquette.

flyingember wrote:+ the police ready to support the community

NIMBY (but unironically)

Demolition and water shut-off permits pulled for the buildings on the NE, NW, SW corners at Armour.

Pulled?

JBmidtown wrote:Pulled?

Received.

Traffic control went up there last weekend.

Yeah, you can pull (receive) a permit to build a building, but if the inspector doesn't like what you're doing he can pull (revoke) your permit. It makes no sense.

I really hope the market building doesn't get torn down before the plans are finalized and approved. I would hate to see it demoed and then this plan falls apart.

I also think that if a compromise with the neighborhood is necessary, keeping the market building might be one of the best options. Perhaps they are tearing it down to remove that possibility.

The City should have set up a condition on the Market Building that it could only be demolished after all plans were finalized and approved, as well as financing approved.