Three Light

[kas1]

What makes this whole situation ridiculous is that the city's literal goal for the past decade has been to get downtown rents up to this level so that new construction is financially viable. The project that got approved last week is the first downtown residential project not to receive incentives, isn't it? So rents right now are exactly at the sweet spot where they can perfectly cover development costs with very little left over. How can the city council now turn around and cast this as some sort of problem? If rents at this level are a problem, then what exactly was the plan supposed to have been all this time? If they start imposing affordable housing mandates on new construction then all they are doing is forcing market rate rents up even higher to subsidize those units. Kansas City does not have an affordability problem, but policies like these could help create one.

[normalthings]

It's not about solving problems, it's about looking good. It's a horrible "solution" to a non existent problem.

[WoodDraw]

This is an absurd proposal. You don't turn luxury apartments into subsidized housing. I can't believe people here are actually defending it.

[kboish]

I'm wondering if the rent controlled units will have access to the pool, workout room, entertainment kitchen area, the multiple lounge areas throughout the building, the spa, the cabana area, and whatever other amenity areas there are in the building. I'm just not sure how that works in a situation like this.

[KCPowercat]

Let's not forget we also have a ton of residential high rises (and many in the luxury class) sitting 30 blocks south of downtown that are about to be connected by fixed rail. Sure other cities are building more downtown towers than use recently but they don't have another urban neighborhood like the plaza either....

[GRID]

Let's not forget we also have a ton of residential high rises (and many in the luxury class) sitting 30 blocks south of downtown that are about to be connected by fixed rail. Sure other cities are building more downtown towers than use recently but they don't have another urban neighborhood like the plaza either....

While most cities don't have anything like the plaza, I would argue that most cities do have clusters of residential towers in neighborhoods outside of their downtowns that would rival or exceed the plaza as far as number of units.

Milwaukee has the north shore, Cleveland has areas like Ohio City, Shaker Square, Gold Coast etc, Pittsburgh has the bluffs, Oakland area etc, Baltimore has Canton, Harbor East etc, Denver has Cherry Creek, Cheesman Park etc. StL has CWE, Clayton etc.

There are only a few cities that don't really have secondary areas of high density luxury residential. Indy comes to mind.

Just saying, most cities also have a lot of urban development occurring outside their CBD as well. Honestly, plaza development has somewhat slowed as far as large high density projects. The area is getting some really nice infill projects still, but NIMBYs are tough on anybody that wants to do anything over five stories in the plaza area, so those types of projects are not really proposed there as much.

I'm not saying anything at all negative about KC. I'm only saying that the urban redevelopment there is really nothing out of the ordinary and it might actually be somewhat lagging compared to most cities even though its feel like it's booming to locals. City hall needs to keep that in perspective so they don't mess up KC's progression into the next level of urban redevelopment.

[mean]

I live like a ten minute bus ride from any downtown job. I could bike there faster, probably. The housing here is dirt cheap. These ridiculous political stunts are an embarrassment.

[DaveKCMO]

This is an absurd proposal. You don't turn luxury apartments into subsidized housing. I can't believe people here are actually defending it.

I can't believe people are defending another subsidized parking structure.

[moderne]

It could be argued that downtown does not have enough luxury housing and the Light towers are not luxurious enough. There is nothing downtown that compares to Kirkwood, Alameda towers or the Walnuts. The square footage offered at the Lights is just too small. If there were this level of housing DT maybe the people who make decisions where businesses are located would choose DT for both.

[KCPowercat]

Let's not forget we also have a ton of residential high rises (and many in the luxury class) sitting 30 blocks south of downtown that are about to be connected by fixed rail. Sure other cities are building more downtown towers than use recently but they don't have another urban neighborhood like the plaza either....

While most cities don't have anything like the plaza, I would argue that most cities do have clusters of residential towers in neighborhoods outside of their downtowns that would rival or exceed the plaza as far as number of units.

Milwaukee has the north shore, Cleveland has areas like Ohio City, Shaker Square, Gold Coast etc, Pittsburgh has the bluffs, Oakland area etc, Baltimore has Canton, Harbor East etc, Denver has Cherry Creek, Cheesman Park etc. StL has CWE, Clayton etc.

There are only a few cities that don't really have secondary areas of high density luxury residential. Indy comes to mind.

Just saying, most cities also have a lot of urban development occurring outside their CBD as well. Honestly, plaza development has somewhat slowed as far as large high density projects. The area is getting some really nice infill projects still, but NIMBYs are tough on anybody that wants to do anything over five stories in the plaza area, so those types of projects are not really proposed there as much.

I'm not saying anything at all negative about KC. I'm only saying that the urban redevelopment there is really nothing out of the ordinary and it might actually be somewhat lagging compared to most cities even though its feel like it's booming to locals. City hall needs to keep that in perspective so they don't mess up KC's progression into the next level of urban redevelopment.

Ok..guess I was thinking of the new hotnesses like a Nashville that keeps getting thrown around...not more established east coast designed cities that for sure have more urban styled neighborhoods.

It is booming here for what KC is...the constant comparison to other cities doesn't accomplish anything. Just works people up into these "yeah we are okay but look at what everybody else is doing" discussions. Fruitless.

[GRID]

My point of bringing up other cities is only to show that KC is just now getting into "new construction" of luxury apartment high rises. I know KC has also done a lot of office conversions, probably more than most cities its size, but I don't know how much of that is true upper bracket luxury and till recently there has been little inventory of new construction high rise living in KC. Therefore the high end market has not fully developed in KC to create a constant demand like you see in other cites like Austin, Nashville, Charlotte etc. Even Baltimore is building very high end towers that would cater to very affluent CEO's and other business people. Get those people living downtown instead of southern JoCo and then you would be amazed at how quickly things start to progress.

Most cities have already put up large towers like one and two light. They are still putting those up, but they are also putting up true luxury towers, often mixed with full service hotels etc. These are places that will actually compete with Hallbrook etc for where CEO's want to live. KC is probably nearly ready to go to that next level and that could be part of the future phases of Cordish. But with all companies in JoCo and KC's general CEO culture being suburban oriented, it's going to take some time and risk to build an urban high end market.

That's why I said downtown KC needs true luxury residential as much as it needs affordable housing.

It's just another piece of the puzzle that will help bring companies back downtown.

[KCPowercat]

We need affordable housing downtown 100x more than worrying about where a CEO might lve...

[GRID]

We need affordable housing downtown 100x more than worrying about where a CEO might lve...

You need both. Eventually without the high end stuff and all the indirect economic benefits of that (office space, more hotels etc), you will quickly run out of people to fill up mid and affordable housing. Only so many people making 30-40 grand a year are going to commute to Bannister or 135th Street or Village West. They might try it for a year, but most will eventually just get a place closer to work.

What is the point of prematurely slowing urban residential growth when it's really just now getting started and somewhat fragile? All I'm saying is KC should probably let Cordish build out. When the city starts seeing renderings for towers show up from other developers, then it might be time to start taking some risks to get some other issues taken care of like affordable housing.

[WoodDraw]

This is an absurd proposal. You don't turn luxury apartments into subsidized housing. I can't believe people here are actually defending it.

I can't believe people are defending another subsidized parking structure.

I'm not the one that made the shitty agreement. But trying to "fix" subsidized parking by subsidising luxury apartments seems like a dumb idea.

[KCPowercat]

We need affordable housing downtown 100x more than worrying about where a CEO might lve...

You need both. Eventually without the high end stuff and all the indirect economic benefits of that (office space, more hotels etc), you will quickly run out of people to fill up mid and affordable housing. Only so many people making 30-40 grand a year are going to commute to Bannister or 135th Street or Village West. They might try it for a year, but most will eventually just get a place closer to work.

What is the point of prematurely slowing urban residential growth when it's really just now getting started and somewhat fragile? All I'm saying is KC should probably let Cordish build out. When the city starts seeing renderings for towers show up from other developers, then it might be time to start taking some risks to get some other issues taken care of like affordable housing.

Agreed on cordish but using this garage as a little leverage to get things we need but aren't as profitable to cordish isn't a bad thing.

[GRID]

We need affordable housing downtown 100x more than worrying about where a CEO might lve...

You need both. Eventually without the high end stuff and all the indirect economic benefits of that (office space, more hotels etc), you will quickly run out of people to fill up mid and affordable housing. Only so many people making 30-40 grand a year are going to commute to Bannister or 135th Street or Village West. They might try it for a year, but most will eventually just get a place closer to work.

What is the point of prematurely slowing urban residential growth when it's really just now getting started and somewhat fragile? All I'm saying is KC should probably let Cordish build out. When the city starts seeing renderings for towers show up from other developers, then it might be time to start taking some risks to get some other issues taken care of like affordable housing.

Agreed on cordish but using this garage as a little leverage to get things we need but aren't as profitable to cordish isn't a bad thing.

I agree. Hopefully both sides can work together and come to an agreement that everybody is happy with. Just remember, the city did have an agreement that it should think twice about before tearing up and Cordish is still pretty much the only game in town right now.

[GRID]

I guess I don’t understand why Cordish is getting so much crap from people. Social Media, the KC Press etc are all jumping all over Cordish now that their investment is starting to be successful. Cordish came to KC when pretty much nobody else would. Downtown was a joke. Haunted houses, parking lots, blocks and blocks of just urban waste outside of a few blocks of mostly empty office towers. Even with incentives, Cordish invested a lot of money into a very risky downtown KC when nobody else would hoping someday hotels, jobs and residents would come back. Most of the money the city has given to the P&L District has gone to infrastructure replacement and the construction of parking structures (below ground and structured) that is used and needed by the public. Without the cordish garages, the city would have had to build them anyway for the Sprint Center. Only they would just sit unused all the time like the stupid Kemper parking garage did. Also money went to other great projects that otherwise wouldn’t have been possible like the Midland Theater, Main St Theater etc. It’s not like the city just gave Cordish 200 million dollars like you see in suburban corporate welfare projects all around metro KC still today.

It’s okay for Cordish to come out this profitable and hopefully the city doesn’t begin to banish what is probably the only company that had the vision and interest to help turn downtown KC around.

KC is quick to hate on developers, yet at the same time, projects like Bluehawk in JoCo get built with FAR more unnecessary corporate welfare incentives without anybody batting an eye. Where is the “affordable housing” for that project? It's no wonder local developers stick to building in the burbs. Some things never change in KC.

[flyingember]

What is often missed, a company being profitable brings more speculative investors to an area that use these profits as part of their risk analysis.

So Cordish was the city's chicken

[KCPowercat]

It is a bit ridiculous but I'm not seeing much cordish hate.

[chaglang]

This is an absurd proposal. You don't turn luxury apartments into subsidized housing. I can't believe people here are actually defending it.

I can't believe people are defending another subsidized parking structure.

I'm not the one that made the shitty agreement. But trying to "fix" subsidized parking by subsidising luxury apartments seems like a dumb idea.

Given the options, it seems preferable to subsidize the thing that people can live in.

Worth noting that mixing market rate and affordable hasn't slowed MAC down one bit. And I bet nobody knows which of their buildings have affordable units.