Bannister Mall/Cerner

[earthling]

$1.75 billion in public money could have done a whole lot to improve public transit downtown and in the wider city. It might have bought 35 more miles of streetcar or light-rail lines, for instance.

Frankly, the attitude that "well, at least they are staying in KC" is a big part of the problem. It's why we spend billions of dollars of public money on suburban parking lots that benefit nobody except the corporation cashing the check. .

Yes, the City should've pushed for downtown, yes the Bannister project is astoundingly shitty and should at least be mixed use in order to get City help. But the reality is, Cerner probably would have not expanded in KC market if not getting what they want.

So I'll say it infinitely with conviction even though of course I'd rather they be downtown...

while true do
echo 'at least they are in KCMO'
done

[pash]

.

[earthling]

Nope, Cerner wouldn't have moved the HQ to another market but they would have likely expanded to another market if they didn't get what they wanted. If you think they wouldn't you are kidding yourself (back at ya). The City is thinking about job growth for whole city proper, not particularly about a particular location even though DT is preferred.

The logistics would be more difficult for them to go downtown than the mall spot that had all the power/sewer infrastructure ready to go. And of course the parking problem and given slow rate of transit improvements.

I dislike everything about the outcome, but this outcome doesn't surprise me and the alternative is they likely would've expanded in another market or KC burb. It's not an horrific outcome, it's a massive missed opportunity and sad to see. But... 'at least they are in KCMO'.

[flyingember]

That's a good point. A LOT of people in KC have worked at Cerner. They're a lynchpin business for IT and medicine in the metro. They train up workers that scatter across the city.

tens of thousands of future jobs will be in demand in KC because they expanded in KC

[pash]

.

[earthling]

Agree and have made those points myself. The CEO doesn't understand only boomers love office parks and millennials hate them, the target audience for Cerner growth - WTF. The reality is the Cerner CEO had the upper hand and could have placed those jobs at any of their dozens of sites around the world. They already had a large site near Bannister (Marion Labs site) and mall site was ready to go with infrastructure in place to start building relatively quickly. Yeah to the urbanist it sucks but is the outcome really that surprising? It's not horrific, it's a major missed opportunity. A major growing company keeping/growing jobs in KCMO and the metro is hardly a disaster.

The regional ecodev people are more concerned about Sprint. They are in a dire situation now. Softbank could sell off Sprint assets in parts (the spectrum alone is worth far more than the company) or TMobile merger may eventually be approved and while it would be cheaper to operate in KC, at this point it doesn't seem likely they'll stay. And while Sprint only employees about 7K in KC directly, there are over 100 companies that have presence in KC servicing them. Meanwhile we bash Cerner's growth for not boosting downtown even though boosting KCMO tax base and still drawing people into metro despite all suburban presence.

[GRID]

Nowhere else in the country do businesses get billions of dollars in handouts to build suburban office parks. If you think Cerner would have moved its headquarters to another metro, you're kidding yourself.

The reason nobody held Cerner to a higher standard is simply that we don't have a higher standard.

The only way that could have been done is if the KC metro were on the same page. Cerner would have simply jumped the state line and built something halfway to Emporia or Lawrence instead because Kansas is the only state that would give Cerner anything close to what Missouri did. The Cerner incentives and the terribly planned project that KCMO is getting out of this deal is a direct result of the state line economic border war. KCMO and Missouri really didn't have a choice, especially after losing the previous project which was to include the soccer stadium to Kansas.

This is a terrible project for KC. It's actually a net loss for the city, even over 15-20 years. The city is giving back to Cerner every single dime of economic activity the project will generate, including the Etax and Sales taxes. Financially, the city would have been better off had Cerner built in Kansas because many thousands of employees that work there will still live in KCMO and pay the KCMO etax. KCMO will not get that revenue now.

The office park will clean up the area. It will look better from the interstate. That's about it though. It's really sad that Cerner played KC like this and the metro (primarily kansas side) has created such a terrible situation that forces the city to settle for poorly planned and located projects funded by mass corporate welfare.

This project could have re-invented and re-defined South Kansas City by giving it a brand new identity and a clean slate of residential mixed use neighborhoods that would have possibly even started the gentrification of the single family areas around it.

Or it could have instantly put downtown KCMO right up with Denver, Minneapolis, Charlotte, Austin etc as a truly booming downtown by adding millions of sq ft of office space plus all the spin-off hotel and residential development that would have followed, not to mention making improved transit happen faster etc.

Instead, it's basically just a city/state funded office park in an isolated location surrounded by surface parking that will never do anything for SKC and Downtown KC will continue to have one of the lowest percents of regional employment of any major city in the US.

It's not too late. This is why I'm still so vocal about the project. If enough people put enough pressure on Cerner, maybe they will see the light and see just how much they could have really changed KC. They still have time to make that Bannister project better and they still have time to have some sort of presence downtown. Just a single 700,000 sq ft building alone downtown would be like adding another One KC place. Cerner could break off part of this project and invest in downtown and still have a huge project at Bannister. They are already all over the metro. I don't see how they are able to recruit nationally with all these suburban campuses. Young people don't want to live and work in places like Village West or some secure campus in a suburban ghetto, not when they can go to San Fransisco, DC, Seattle, Boston, Chicago, Denver etc and live and work in an urban environment. Cerner is stuck in 1980.

[nomadcowatbk]

[quote="AlbertHammond"

Maybe it is on one side of Hwy 71 or both sides. They say they want to attract "millennial" employees. Well...millennials supposedly want to live an urban lifestyle, so watch the east downtown, hospital hill and beacon hill neighborhoods explode with development. They walk/bike/transit to work which lowers the requirement for parking spaces.

[/quote]

they'll just move to the suburbs when their yet to be conceived kids reach school age

[aknowledgeableperson]

Is Cerner having any problems getting employees to fill positions at the Village West site? How about their site already in South KC? Or even their current HQ in NKC?

Cerner could have easily chosen an area in Lees' Summit east of Todd George along 50 Highway. Or had another South KC location at or nearby the old RG Airport. Or even an area along I49 between Raymore and Peculiar. And another area in KC would be by KCI. And that's just on the Missouri side. So Cerner had many options.

But Cerner picked an area that was a KC eyesore and needed redevelopment. I don't think Cerner will have any problems filling it's openings. For jobs like that and people needing jobs like that this will be a good move for the City. Is it ideal? Well different people will have different opinions on that. I do believe the City comes out ahead with this project.

[flyingember]

The way the city comes out ahead is because this isn't a relocation. Those incentives to move everyone from elsewhere in the city would be the stupidest thing that could have been done.

A similar example is Applebees. They kept moving back and forth for incentives before they moved out of the region. Their last round of KC/MO incentives were pegged to the number of new jobs they created from a baseline. In theory they didn't get incentives most years because they shrunk instead.

I'm always for incentives that only happen if a place hires people with a baseline of current employment in the region.

Perception matters and KC gaining 16,000 jobs from a large national tech company helps sell KCMO to more companies.
When they see KS add a piddly number of job across the region and MO adds 16,000 just with one company who looks like a city you want to move to?

If we want to go to the state and gain money for more transit having a track record of bringing development money and new employers to KC will make a big difference. Remember, the Cerner site is on one proposed commuter rail line.

[GRID]

I know I keep pounding away and beating this dead horse, but I have major issues with this Cerner project especially since they are using an insane amount of incentives to build it.

Look at what Under Armour released today. They are building a new 4 million sq ft campus for 10,000 employees near Downtown Baltimore. I can't find any incentives they are getting. I'm sure they will get some, but it will not be anything near what Cerner is getting, not in the same universe.

Imagine this along the riverfront, in the crossroads, in the east village area or even at the Bannister Mall site. Is anybody at Cerner seeing what companies are building across the country right now????

[flyingember]

A better comparison example would be them locating in the east or west bottoms or West Paseo. That Baltimore project is locating in an industrial area.

This is going to be offices and manufacturing

[GRID]

A better comparison example would be them locating in the east or west bottoms or West Paseo. That Baltimore project is locating in an industrial area.

This is going to be offices and manufacturing

That area is not really like the bottoms, I guess the west bottoms a little since it's being re-purposed, but the east bottoms is a dense and still utilized industrial area. It's industrial now or it was, but much has been replaced with big box retail (which will be razed for this) and the rest of the area is being wiped clean. The UA campus is mostly office and some research and development. It's also only part of the overall redevelopment of the Port Covington area. The use would be very similar to the new Cerner campus plus the existing Cerner buildings on the other side of Banister. The city and state are cleaning up the area and creating parkland and lakes and well as rebuilding the waterfront into a public park. The area will be mostly office and some residential with a lot of recreational amenities. Cerner could have done something very similar with the riverfront.

UA is going into the southern part of the district (the grey area of the image below), while the rest will be a master planned urban mixed use development and recreation space.

[missingkc]

At least Kansas Citians won't have to look at buildings that say "Erase All Doubt" and "I Will". But yeah, much more attractive than Cerner's.

[Highlander]

God, every time i think about this project I get more and more upset. I can just imagine having 2 or 3 new 30+ story towers downtown with 1,500 more people in our city's core on a daily basis. It just kills me that the city just let this happen. I HATE this project.

The whole project is way more than 1,500 people.
Anyway, Kansas City is made up of many different parts with many different needs. Would it be nice if it were downtown? For downtown supporters yes but for those around the old Bannister Mall area this may be one thing, with a few other projects, that brings the area back into a middle class neighborhood again. And I am not talking about just the immediate area around the project.

Wishful thinking. This project is a premier example of throwing good money after bad.

SE KC will derive no benefit from Cerner being there. Nobody is going to move into the neighborhood, restaurants are not going to move in etc... Exxon (much, much bigger than Cerner) was located in the downtrodden Greenspoints area of Houston (a 70's-80's hotspot long past its prime) for many years with absolutely no impact on the area. It just continued to go down hill until Exxon finally bolted late last year to the Woodlands. There's no critical mass in SE KC and this project will not create it. That's the unfortunate truth. It is a horrible decision by Cerner that does nobody any good at all and is just a huge missed opportunity for KC.

[Highlander]

I do believe the City comes out ahead with this project.

The project is a disaster that will be regretted by everyone involved in 20 years. More of what KC is famous for - dispersal of infrastructure/employment centers to the point that there's no critical mass anywhere. City leaders did not think this through.

[aknowledgeableperson]

As an isolated project it may not have the big crowning success. But as a part of what is together planned west of 435, north and south of 87th plus the area south of Bannister as a whole these projects do have a chance to rebuild the surrounding area. It is very likely the city will have another big employment center at the old RG Airport and north of that which has started with the National Nuclear Security Admin. complex.
Are these two areas an example of what you are talking about? Well, yes. And much like anything else there are advantages and disadvantages. But with a land mass the size of KCMO you will have a spreading out of employment and housing centers. And throw in the surrounding metro area that will just add to it.
Can people gripe about this dispersal within the city? Yes. But would they gripe more if Cerner went to another part of the metro? Probably so. For the most part the city leaders are following the wishes of the people who elected them. And people don't want to lose employers and the jobs they provide. Sometimes no matter what the cost is.

[DaveKCMO]

The project is a disaster that will be regretted by everyone involved in 20 years. More of what KC is famous for - dispersal of infrastructure/employment centers to the point that there's no critical mass anywhere. City leaders did not think this through.

at least one person on the council voted no.

[loftguy]

...... For the most part the city leaders are following the wishes of the people who elected them.

City leaders are empowered to lead, to take us where we need to go not necessarily where the average person 'wants' us to go.

The average person does not have enough information, education and inspiration to make such decisions.

[aknowledgeableperson]

The trouble is there is no universal agreement, or shared vision, on where we want to go or what we want to be, or should be. Even among those who have the information, education and inspiration.