KCRag Forum

smh wrote: Let us also never forget that it was Shields that championed the Westport development moratorium and it is Shields who thinks parking should be required to be bundled in rent. Both absolutely detrimental to affordable housing. She cares nothing about true affordability. She saw an opportunity to shit on an easy target and took it with hopes of grabbing a few political points.

flyingember wrote:

WoodDraw wrote:That a bit of a weird conversation. It's disappointing that none of the objectors seem to have any competence on how to lower housing costs.

Getting rid of zoning and parking requirements would do far more for affordable downtown housing than anything they said there. The shade thrown at the midland was weird as well.

Getting rid of zoning has little connection to affordable housing. We don't want every project to be contentious.
There's room to rethink zoning without doubt but no zoning could make things very bad for downtown.
https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texa ... 171688.php

And to limit costs for parking within project we need different parking requirements, not none. No parking requirements puts all the power on developers and banks. They could build as many spots as wanted. You want to start looking at parking maximums as a requirement. A maximum that affects only the largest projects could be a good start.

StrangerThings wrote:

ldai_phs wrote:Can someone with working speakers summarize the video?

Shields and Canady continue their argument that the council/city isn't pushing Cordish hard enough and claim Cordish knows they have the upper hand since they already have 7 votes needed. City manager explains what Cordish is willing to do, which involves some movement and that they will turn Midland into affordable units soon in the timeline as opposed to later down the road. Shields and Canady not happy, most other members sit in silence with the exception of the Mayor. That was terrible and very basic, sorry.

One thing I don't think these two council members understand is Cordish DOES have the upper hand. If this agreement isn't legally binding and they can renegotiate, so can Cordish. So all downtown development by Cordish could stop after Three Light if it really came down to it. I just hope their political posturing doesn't mess anything up. We have such great momentum at the moment.

Kansas City officials and Power & Light District developer Cordish are in discussions about a plan to convert the historic Midland office building into 100 units of affordable housing.

...

The 100 apartments at Midland would be in lieu of affordable units in three of Cordish's existing or planned luxury high rises. Two Light, with about 300 units, is scheduled to open this summer. Construction on Three Light, also with about 300 apartments, is expected to begin before the end of the year at Truman Road and Grand Boulevard.

...

The company said the financing structure of Three Light did not permit affordable units. But it offered to reduce the 99-year agreement by half and set aside 10 percent of units beginning with Four Light.

Schulte said Monday that the scenario under discussion calls for Cordish to convert the Midland building, at 13th and Baltimore, to affordable housing at the same time it is constructing Three Light. In exchange, the city would still build the $17.5 million garage and appropriate an additional $3.8 million to pay for additional parking.

...

Mayor Pro Tem Scott Wagner, who attended the editorial board meeting along with Council members Jolie Justus and Jermaine Reed, said the idea seemed to address concerns about affordability. He also and that it was not fair to ask Cordish to reconfigure Three Light to include low-income units at this point.

"You're looking at steel tariffs. The cost of construction is going up, the cost of borrowing is going up," Wagner said. "All of those things are moving.

GRID wrote:Should there should be section 8 housing required in Hallbrook, Briarcliff West etc?

KCPowercat wrote:If they ask for incentives? Sure!

ldai_phs wrote:

KCPowercat wrote:If they ask for incentives? Sure!

But aren’t all lower density suburban developments receiving indirect incentives?

flyingember wrote:

ldai_phs wrote:

KCPowercat wrote:If they ask for incentives? Sure!

But aren’t all lower density suburban developments receiving indirect incentives?

My rough math last time I checked said the average ~1960s or newer subdivision pays enough in city property taxes to pay for it's future road repair and nothing more

So every other city service every single family homes use comes from the e-tax and sales taxes

The city functions only because it has downtown. Tourism, the dense employment and property taxes and low cost per resident for this part of town is funding a huge percentage of the city.

mgh7676 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:04 pm Recently saw a promo video for a possible tower on this site (directly west of H&R block tower). Won't be a new tallest or anything, but would certainly be a nice/unique addition to our skyline. I don't know any additional details or likelihood of the project happening, hoping the video is released sometime soon!

Also, to shoot down any rumors, the proposed tower was NOT in the "Light" series!