KCRag Forum

I've seen more recent plans of the 39th St building and it is much better. One driveway and a larger lobby that opens to the sidewalk. Still could be improved but way better than the original garbage they put out.

don't fight this project because of aesthetics. if you want better, lobby for design guidelines (which we clearly don't have) or get a meeting with the developer. why give opponents the ammunition when you won't get what you want with internet chatter? taking the long view, things are improving and will only get better if we attract outside developers.

It seems like if we could get a group that goes to as many of these development meetings as possible we may be able to accomplish these things. Outlining our selves as a happy medium may get them talking to us and getting better designs rather than simply gutting density like the nimbys want. We should also post Facebook groups and on Reddit to get as many like minded as possible. I'm not saying the other people don't deserve their voice but I do believe they are in the minority and if we could show that the majority or at least a lot of people do want density we may get better projects than the renderings show rather than worse

DaveKCMO wrote:don't fight this project because of aesthetics. if you want better, lobby for design guidelines (which we clearly don't have) or get a meeting with the developer. why give opponents the ammunition when you won't get what you want with internet chatter? taking the long view, things are improving and will only get better if we attract outside developers.

This has nothing to do with "aesthetics"! If I gave a damn about that I wouldn't cut the upper floors of the building images. It has to do with the first floor relationship to the street. If an urban building fails to be pedestrian friendly at the first floor, then it fails to add a greater value to neighboring properties and the greater neighborhood. A building that fails at this can lower the value of the area. Density for density sake is the wrong argument. Even "aesthetic" is a trivial player in this discussion.

AlbertHammond wrote:A building that fails at this can lower the value of the area.

I haven't heard it put that way before. What's your source for that?

The CPC hearing was yesterday. Did these pass?

plan revisions are on page 207 of this report: https://data.kcmo.org/Development-Revie ... /yckm-q3pc

they reduced the width of the vehicle entries and improved transparency. looks like we're also removing a billboard!

That's good, solid infill and a big improvement on the vehicle entries. Now all 39th needs is a streetscape do-over.

chaglang wrote: Now all 39th needs is a streetscape do-over.

Absolutely! 39th is a mess and needs to be redone all the way from State Line east.

beautyfromashes wrote:

chaglang wrote: Now all 39th needs is a streetscape do-over.

Absolutely! 39th is a mess and needs to be redone all the way from State Line east.

i suggest a 2+1 configuration from 71 to state line. this would allow a dedicated, shared center-turn lane and leave one excess lane for either a bike facility or on-street parking.

I’d probably prefer more space used for sidewalks instead of on street parking. Perhaps bike lanes on one side and expanded sidewalks.

Does the development moratorium apply to these apartments or is this outside "the Plan"?

JBmidtown wrote:Does the development moratorium apply to these apartments or is this outside "the Plan"?

if they were at CPC yesterday, that means they were in the pipeline before the moratorium.

Just noticed this segment from Fox4

http://fox4kc.com/2017/10/13/midtown-ne ... ment-plan/

And a quote from Mary Jo Draper, who apparently is entitled to determine who should and should not be renting in the neighborhood:
"It’s hard to imagine where all the people are going to come from that are going to be able to afford an $1,800 a month apartment," Draper said. "We don’t see that there are that many people who have incomes like that. I certainly don’t have an income where I could afford that kind of an apartment."

The "involve neighborhoods sooner" line is the tell that the argument isn't really about rent costs. It's hard to imagine a neighborhood sitting down with a developer to discuss unit pricing. Earlier arguments about the project referenced how incompatible the style is with the neighborhood, but that argument has disappeared. So my guess is that people opposed to the project don't like the contemporary architecture, but have refocused their concerns around (sigh) density and parking, because those are the only arguments that carry weight at council.

By contrast, the proposed hotel on Pennsylvania/40th got almost no opposition despite the fact that it would almost certainly increase traffic and property values in the neighborhood. But it's laden with old timey architectural doo-dads, so it's ok.

It's hard to imagine a neighborhood sitting down with a developer to discuss unit pricing.

I can imagine it. There was a recent star piece about one neighborhood near downtown not wanting to price out existing residents when new homes were coming in. People were worried they were going to lose multi-generation homes

And since design and materials connect to rent price, a neighborhood that would support a certain rent target would have to expect a certain project quality. the discussion of what the project looks like connects directly to rent targets.

Since a developer is likely targeting a certain underserved demographic (based on income) so units can be filled the success of the project in terms of community support depends on the community and developer coming together on price as much as design

First it's too big, then traffic issues, then it doesn't fit in with the surrounding neighborhood, then it's parking and then rents are pricing people out of the area. I'm afraid the opponents aren't interesting in resolving any of these issues, but are against almost all development in the area that doesn't invoke the pioneers days.

Ember, you may be presuming a level of sophistication regarding construction costs that isn't native to many neighborhood level discussions.

Here's an article about log cabin skyscrapers in Alaska: https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/log ... whitehorse

The cases were held over to the next CPC, so there's still time to write a letter. Patty Noll is the staff planner for the cases. Emails should be sent to her (patty.noll@kcmo.org) and addressed to the City Plan Commission. The case numbers are 14872-UR and 14874-UR. Also, copy the 4th District reps and their aides.

How do you live in Midtown for such a long time and not find a way to own a house?! Houses cost so little in the period before 10-15 years ago. I’m sorry. It’s a risk of renting that prices could go up.

A few things:

1. The developers of the 39th West apartments are having a meeting with the Valentine Neighborhood Association to present their revised plans. The meeting is on Oct. 30th at 7pm at the Writer's Place. The notice I saw did not say it was open to everyone but it was shared with surrounding neighborhoods so if you live in the area I would encourage you to attend.
2. I only recently found this forum and I'm so happy I did. An urbanist can feel like a real outcast in KC but this place gives me some hope.
3. Getting on a neighborhood board is not super difficult and in my opinion is the number 1 way you can influence things. I know because I did it. These boards are typically starved for help especially from younger folks and if you demonstrate a willingness to volunteer for some of the less important things, you'll gain influence on some of the bigger things.
4. Why isn't there a more formal organization around some of these ideas to increase density and walk-ability? I know Bike Walk KC does good things but I'm wondering if there's an organization that advocates on a broader level. I'm a little overextended right now so I don't think I could spearhead such an effort (I realize others are too and maybe that's why we don't have one) but I would certainly participate. Creating an official, organized counter voice to HKC would go a long way and that type of organization could recruit people to run for their neighborhood boards. Is there something I'm not aware of? If not, is there interest?