NE Johnson County

CU_Girl · Post by **CU_Girl** » Sat May 03, 2003 2:01 pm

Just wondering what people felt would be the key problems NE JoCo will be facing in the future, as development in the County is pushing further and further south and west. Last summer when I was home I was amazed at the 135th/151st Street development and the luxury developments going in in western Lenexa. I live here (NE JoCo) so I have my own opinions but I'm interested in what others have to say!

KCgridlock · Post by **KCgridlock** » Sat May 03, 2003 2:54 pm

Well, I think NE JoCo is doing ok. They have some advantages that inner ring suburbs in other parts of the city do not like Grandview, Raytown, etc... mostly good infrastructure due to Kdot and good location very close to urban KCMO, yet without the KCMO problems.

But...problems will arise, the worst will probably be the loss of high quality retail. Even with stable neighborhoods, businesses will follow the new homes and unload older properties. Those properties will become vacant or subpar retail. Eventially this will lead to residents leaving and to be closer to businesses again. I think the cities of Merrian and Mission have done a very good job trying to control that with the Merrian Town Center and redevelopment of Johnson Drive though.

Basically, it's an area with good schools and nice stable neighborhoods right in the middle of the metropolitan area. Five minutes from the Plaza and ten to everything else. All because it's west of state line and not part of the urban city of KCMO.

The jury is still out on how well NE JoCo does, but I think it will remain a top area of the metro. Most people I know in NE JoCo despise everthing outside the 435 loop as much as I do

.

tat2kc · Post by **tat2kc** » Sat May 03, 2003 4:28 pm

I think areas like Mission Hills and such, nearer the state line will do fine. I think the ones built inside the loop tend to be of better quality, even if they are older.

It is not only 135th and 151st, but as far down as 199th. I am not sure tho, that luxury is quite the word I would use. Many of the homes are not built with quality materials. Expensive does not equal quality. My in-laws have a home in south joco around 140th and Roe, near the new golf course. They have moved back to Denver and and renting their home out now. Its nice and big, but it is also bland earth-tone, pressed wood siding, small lot, baby trees, and worth $300,00. For that price you could get something with character inside the 435 loop! Rarely do you see a full brick home, or even one with actual wood siding. Usually it is either vinyle siding, or a pressed woood producut thing with a wood design stamped in. Or some faux stucco. I have serious doubts about how those homes will look in 15 or 20 years.

Post by **dangerboy** » Sat May 03, 2003 7:05 pm

In general NE Joco is like most inner suburbs because it is faced with many of the challenges that led to decay and blight in central KCMO and western KCK. The population inside I-435 is increasingly on the decline, the infrastructure is aging, much of the housing is from the 50s-60s and wasn't built to last, etc.

The declining population and business/retail tax base is really challenging the Shawnee Mission school district, as is a really troubled state school funding system. Although the district has a tradition of excellence, it is currently at a crucial point that will determine whether it maintains or declines.

However, the area also has a lot going for it. It provides a good alternative for people who want semi-urban neighborhoods close to the center of metro area. It also has the opportunity to learn from the mistakes and successes of other inner suburbs and urban areas.

phxcat · Post by **phxcat** » Sat May 03, 2003 8:14 pm

I think a lot of this will have to do with how well the area handles the Hispanic comunity. The Price Chopper/Venture site in Roeland Park had been on the decline, and although I don't know if Venture has been filled yet, the Price Chopper has gone completely Spanish and is doing very well. The difference between NE JoCo and a lot of similar areas is that there is a major political boundary at 47th street that has always separated the school systems and the real estate. That has probably kept it from going urban longer than it should. Now, however, that is changing. If you look at the KSBE website, they show all the dempographics of all of the schools in the state. SM North, West, and Northwest are all showing a huge gain in minority students over the last ten years. If the area can accept that change as added diversity, NE Jo Co has a bright future as a strong core community. If people develop the mentality of white flight or that they have to fight to keep other people out, it may have a rough future.

CU Girl- Where did you go to school? Where are you from? I'm a North west grad, but I kind of wish I'd gone to North.

CU_Girl · Post by **CU_Girl** » Sun May 04, 2003 5:47 am

phxcat--

i actually went to SM EAST for hs. i kind of wish that hs would see more of a diverse influx of students, but so far that hasn't happened on a large scale in the mission hills/pv area. i have noticed a significant shift in the northernmost parts of the county as far as demographics go, even since i was in hs in the mid-late 90s. i think i'm going to check out the ksbe website to see the figures.

personally, whenever i come home from school on break i am simply amazed/saddened by the overall amount of sprawl occurring in joco to the south and west. it's funny; i learn about sprawl, suburbanization, white flight, etc. etc. etc. in class at Cornell, then I come home and have a larger than life examply in my own backyard (as most suburbanites do i suppose!)

i do worry about ne joco, certain parts definitely seem more susceptible to decline (mission, rp, n.op, merriam, etc.) as opposed to others (pv, mh, fairway, westwood hills). however, i am impressed by the revitalization plans taken by mission, op, etc. to preserve their downtown. i just hope some of them get off the ground. i have worked fairly closely with the mission/johnson drive project. don't want to get into too much detail here but i do hope things start moving soon. does anyone have any recent info on their downtown revitalization? sometimes i get a little removed from things at home while at school, though i try to keep up!

anyways, keep the replies coming! i love to hear other opinions and perspectives!

--CU

DanCa · Post by **DanCa** » Mon May 05, 2003 3:33 pm

I posted about this somewhere else comparing NE JoCo to northern Orange County, CA, where I currently live. In OC, many of the older suburs have filled in with Hispanic immigrants. This tends to happen where the housing is cheapest first. I could see areas like Merriam and parts of Northern OP and Shawnee becoming predominantly Hispanic. Out here immigrants from Mexico have brought life to older suburbs but also a problem of overcrowding. Of course the outrageous cost of housing adds to that here.

KC0KEK · Post by **KC0KEK** » Wed May 07, 2003 4:06 pm

One problem is that a lot of the NE JoCo housing stock is at a crossroads. In Fairway, a prime example is the Mission Highlands subdivision, which is almost entirely 70-year-old, two- or three-bedroom, one-bath houses, usually selling for between $110K and $130K. For most families with more than one kid, such homes aren't an option, charm or no charm, so they head to the new subdivisions, where you get more house for the money. Poorly constructed? Maybe, but is that really a decisive factor when chances are that your job will have you moving in a few years?

Many of the owners of homes in subdivisions such as Mission Highlands have recently faced or will face a big decision: Stay and spend at least $100K to update and expand the home, or rent it out and spend just enough to maintain it. (By the way, $100K is the low end. Remodeling runs between $200 and and $300 a square foot, so an extra bedroom and full bath quickly add up.)

If you spend the $100K, you'll have to live there for at least another 10 years before you can hope to recover your investment. Few banks or mortgage companies will back a buyer who wants a house that's $75K or $150K more than the neighborhood average. You'll have to wait quite a while for property values to catch up.

If you want a worst-case scenario, go to the corner of 60th and Buena Vista in Fairway. This Mission Highlands home was torn down last week after being an eyesore for more than a year. The owner apparently tried to remodel it on the cheap and wound up with a contractor who botched the job. (The other option probably was to let it go to pot or rent it out.) While you're there, go a block north to 5909 Buena Vista, and you'll see a house that's been abandoned for a couple of years.

NE JoCo cities need to figure out what to do to encourage investment in older neighborhoods such as Mission Highlands, and they need to figure it out now. Rentals and blight could spoil some wondeful places before this decade is out.

DanCa · Post by **DanCa** » Thu May 08, 2003 4:07 pm

I was pondering the same thing yesterday as I walked about a mile to the post office here in Orange County. The area I live in was buit up in the late 60s and early 70s. I live in a 33 year old 2bdr. condo and I've done extensive remodeling as have many of my neighbors. I was noticing how many ranch houses in the area have been updated with things like new roofs, driveways, windows, doors, etc. So it got me thinking, why do so many people here remodel/restore older houses and they don't in the KC area? My conclusion was the same as yours. In KC, it's actually cheaper to move up to a brand new house than re-model an older one. But out here, the new houses have little to no yard (most are now built directly on the street), have high price tags ($450K for a 3bdr, 1200 sq. ft. house) and extremely high taxes (new subdivisions charge "mello-roos" taxes to finance schools, roads, parks and services) so it's actually cheaper to stay in your 30 year old home and rennovate/update it.

Like you said, the houses in Fairway and Mission are quaint. But many are on the small side. People will always do whatever's cheaper so maybe cities can create incentives. So far I've come out ahead on my condo. I bought it for $135K over two years ago, put around $25K into it and could sell it today for about $230. It's a completely different market out here.

KC0KEK · Post by **KC0KEK** » Thu May 08, 2003 5:58 pm

Fairway recently hired a consulting firm to help the city come up with an overall game plan for residential and commerical development. I attended the first meeting, in January, and I was surprised to hear that one past proposal for Mission Highlands was for a developer to buy out the homeowners, tear down the houses, combine two, three or four lots into one, and build larger homes, similar to what's available a few blocks away in Mission Hills and other parts of Fairway. I didn't hear who proposed that or when it was, but I suspect that someone, somewhere still has it in the back of their mind. I don't think that, at the time it first came up, it was formal, serious proposal but rather an idea that was kicked around. But considering what happened to the neighborhoods where Merriam Town Center and the Lenexa Costco now are, it's certainly not outside the realm of possibilities.

DanCa · Post by **DanCa** » Fri May 09, 2003 11:08 am

Considering that Fairway is closer to the urban core of KC and a little more "urban" than cities like Lenexa and Olathe, I'd go with denser development rather than McMansions. Maybe townhouses and upscale condos. Or if they want larger lots like Mission Hills, then at least have them be custom-built and higher quality homes that you would see in Mission Hills rather than cookie-cutter beige boxes like So. OP.

KC0KEK · Post by **KC0KEK** » Fri May 09, 2003 12:30 pm

DanCa wrote:Considering that Fairway is closer to the urban core of KC and a little more "urban" than cities like Lenexa and Olathe, I'd go with denser development rather than McMansions. Maybe townhouses and upscale condos. Or if they want larger lots like Mission Hills, then at least have them be custom-built and higher quality homes that you would see in Mission Hills rather than cookie-cutter beige boxes like So. OP.

A few years ago, condos were proposed for Fairway, along Mission Road around 58th Street or so. I didn't live here at the time, so I don't know why they weren't built. (The city might have denied the proposal.) At the January 2003 planning meeting, townhouses, condos and patio homes all were discussed informally, but it was clear that most residents don't want them or any density higher than what's already here. The overall message was, "We like the way things are, so don't change them." It's fine to think that way, but you also have to realize that living only by that philosophy can wind up causing problems in the long run.

Post by **dangerboy** » Fri May 09, 2003 1:20 pm

KC0KEK wrote:The overall message was, "We like the way things are, so don't change them."

As long as they don't complain about sprawl in other areas damaging the inner suburbs. If you don't want people moving to the fringe you have to provide opportunities for them somewhere, including some new denser construction in older neighborhoods.

San Diego has a interesting policy that uses infrastructure funds as an incentive for neighborhoods accepting higher density. In other words, allow some townhouses/stores/whatever and you will go higher on the list for new roads, sidewalks, libraries, etc.

KC0KEK · Post by **KC0KEK** » Fri May 09, 2003 2:22 pm

I think that Fairway almost has to consider more density if they're not comfortable raising taxes significantly over the next decade. The only other option is to replace some residential with commerical. For a land-locked city, I'm not sure what the other options would be for increasing the tax base.

The San Diego idea is interesting.

DanCa · Post by **DanCa** » Mon May 12, 2003 11:36 am

Where I live, we have many infill projects going on. You wouldn't believe how many houses they can cram into a small area. Most infill projects are either condos/townhuoses or houses built directly on the street, close together and with small backyards. I've also heard talk about redeveloping old, dying strip malls into mixed use property with housing over stores and offices. Too bad they keep voting down light rail though. As density rises, so does traffic.

Post by **dangerboy** » Mon May 12, 2003 12:04 pm

DanCa wrote:Where I live, we have many infill projects going on. You wouldn't believe how many houses they can cram into a small area. Most infill projects are either condos/townhuoses or houses built directly on the street, close together and with small backyards. I've also heard talk about redeveloping old, dying strip malls into mixed use property with housing over stores and offices. Too bad they keep voting down light rail though. As density rises, so does traffic.

I don't know about Joco, but the same thing is definitely happening in KCMO. Especially in the West Plaza neighorhood where tear-downs are becoming popular and people are building giant new houses right up to the property lines. It's also happening in Waldo, where in many cases it makes more sense to start over than to rebuild the old tract houses. Lots of infill townhouses/rowhouses going into Union Hill and Westport. It will probably spread to NE Joco as the economics make it more feasible.