Discuss items in the urban core outside of Downtown as described above. Everything in the core including the east side (18th & Vine area), Northeast, Plaza, Westport, Brookside, Valentine, Waldo, 39th street, & the entire midtown area.
A proposal finally from Del. 44 lofts in existing school with 20 more units in appendages attached to back of school. A large pool is planned for the playground area. This plan preserves the open space in front of the school which was a concern for preservationists.
Apparently neighbors are concerned with parking and the pool. Come on, this is much much better than an abandoned building or even worse, demolition. Hope it passes. Pretty exciting if it is done right.
This is great news and IMO I think the neighborhood is probably just voicing normal concerns (or at least I hope). As you said ANYTHING is better than an empty building...
CPC denied this project today. Too dense for the neighborhood and also cited traffic issues. Doesn't seem like a very good plan...maybe this denial will result in a better project?
A cryin shame. I noticed dumpsters there the other day. I hope this building doesn't get any worse, it is so amazing. I think it's been 7 or 8 years since Del bought it.
zonk wrote:CPC denied this project today. Too dense for the neighborhood and also cited traffic issues. Doesn't seem like a very good plan...maybe this denial will result in a better project?
if by "better project" you mean "demolition"? yes.
be careful what you ask for. an empty lot is also low density.
I wonder what percentage of the neighborhood was against it - seems like people who support development like this typically aren't as vocal as those against.
Quite a shame they denied this. I ride by this place twice everyday in the school year and have always thought it's super neat and would be a perfect fit for an apartment conversion. I really hope the developer comes back with a new plan...one that doesn't involve demolition. The only potential problems I saw with this were the proposed add-ons since they could possibly make the project too dense for the neighborhood and might not fit quite right with the rest of the building.
kcjak wrote:I wonder what percentage of the neighborhood was against it - seems like people who support development like this typically aren't as vocal as those against.
kcjak wrote:I wonder what percentage of the neighborhood was against it - seems like people who support development like this typically aren't as vocal as those against.
I really don't get why "too dense" is worse than "abandoned place perfect for drug deals"
I can understand the point if we're talking about a big empty paved lot. Discussions of scale are valid when coming from nothing. But this is going to need to be torn down to not be a dense project. Even if it's kept for a future school it's going to have more density than today once parking is added as would be expected.
What I find to be the real shame is that every board and authority in KC that deals with approval of proposed projects kowtows to any and every objection by neighbors. It doesn't have to be so. They could stand by stated long term goals set by Council and others - such as increasing population - instead of caving to objections that seem to have become knee-jerk responses to any proposal for increased density. Opposition seems to have become a point of pride.
I saw a bunch of construction/engineering trucks out front this morning on my way to work, is something new happening or just fresh plywood over the windows?