mean wrote:
A big fat to anyone who thinks KC is ever going to be more than Omaha+. That is Kansas City's destiny. What do you want, Chicago? Then move to Chicago.
KC became Omaha+ because of people like yourself unwilling or too complacent to see the larger picture. There were people like you in the 20th century who thought things like Union Station were a waste of investment.
It is very possible that with leadership like Flunkhouser, citizens like yourself and the Johnson County ethos, that within the next 50 years OKC, Omaha and possibly Des Moines all surpass Kansas City in cultural footprint. There are a lot of people in those cities that actually care about the lifestyle and culture in their communities beyond drinking beer at Grinders and complaining about everything.
mean wrote:
A big fat to anyone who thinks KC is ever going to be more than Omaha+. That is Kansas City's destiny. What do you want, Chicago? Then move to Chicago.
I want a city vibrant and economically relevant enough that my children won't leave for greener pastures in Denver, Portland etc... I do not know if a 1000 room downtown hotel gets us there or not but a strong convention business does have benefits beyond the $ it brings in. First and foremost, it allows the city to support a mixture of entertainment and cultural venues that it otherwise might not be able to support with it's population. Same concept as a college town. Columbia and Lawrence have a lot of advantages over other towns with 60-80,000 people because of the presence of the univerisities. Indianapolis offers a lot more to its citizens because it has a strong convention/sports industry than it otherwise would as a lowly state capital with a well known annual car race.
spivak has been keeping up with this thread and he sent me another email.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey
Just wanted to pass along a little more info. One of your regular posters, Ignatius (who also posts on The Star's Web site), has been shooting down The Star's downtown stats, particularly on the office market. He presented info on your site and others that downtown KC had an office vacancy rate of 13.8 percent in the first quarter of 2008. He has used that stat to go on to say downtown's office market is on the comeback. However, the report he cites is either blatantly wrong or uses a different methodology than any other firm that follows and reports on office markets. Attached are first quarter 2008 reports from two respected firms -- Grubb & Ellis and Colliers -- that show downtown's office vacancy rate at 20.3 and 20.2 percents, respectively. This is in line with what The Star reported in the downtown progress series from Integra Realty Research.
Thanks.
Jeffrey Spivak
Civic Affairs Reporter
The Kansas City Star
1729 Grand Blvd.
Kansas City, MO 64108 jspivak@kcstar.com
816-234-4416
or 800-829-0151, ext. 4416
Why is corporate welfare better than public socialism?
Jeffrey, the source I used was CB Richard Ellis cbre.com. It is the only source I found that includes Class A/B/C space and appears to be the most comprehensive. The problem with the other sources is that they only track Class A/B and typically just the buildings that they are marketing, therefore may be missing buildings fully occupied as they don't draw any attention.
And Class C space should not be ignored as there is a lot of hip, desirable space in Xroads, etc.
trailerkid wrote:
KC became Omaha+ because of people like yourself unwilling or too complacent to see the larger picture. There were people like you in the 20th century who thought things like Union Station were a waste of investment.
It is very possible that with leadership like Flunkhouser, citizens like yourself and the Johnson County ethos, that within the next 50 years OKC, Omaha and possibly Des Moines all surpass Kansas City in cultural footprint. There are a lot of people in those cities that actually care about the lifestyle and culture in their communities beyond drinking beer at Grinders and complaining about everything.
I couldn't agree more. The current success of Des Moines, Omaha and OKC is because their citizens and business communities are making it happen and they're reimagining their cities/downtowns (at least Omaha and OKC are). These cities will, in the not too distant future have a uniqueness to them that will separate them from other cities their size. Too many times development in urban KC is compared to how life is in Chicago or NY, but what we need are some visionaries who can help carve out a niche for KC.
Not sure about Des Moines and Omaha but OKC had a big election a few years ago to tax its citizens for what is happening now. And I believe it passed by a fairly good margin. Maybe the problem in KCMO has more to do with economic decisions made only by the council and not involving its citizens.
Why the fear? Afterall the citizens have approved Bartle's expansion and the Sprint Center. And they also approved the vision of Durwood's downtown plan.
And OKC had a overall, comprehensive vision to present its citizens. Whereas in KCMO it is rather piecemeal, project by project, with no overall, comprehensive vision.
I may be right. I may be wrong. But there is a lot of gray area in-between.
Another thing...is it just me or has there been a demand for downtown living options (condos, lofts, etc) for quite some time? Used to be only Quality Hill, Garment District and River Market were the only places and they were usually pretty booked up. I feel like someone could have gone in earlier, bought some property on the cheap, fixed it up and done pretty well. An unknown market doesn't necessarily mean NO market.
First, let me say I wish KC the best of luck, and I'm not even sure our cities compete or are at odds with eachother in any way except for the big, national picture.. despite the OKC Branch of the Fed being part of the KC Fed Bank, there really isn't a lot to link the two city's spheres of influence together. OKC is more aligned with the Big D than with anyone else, which is so close it can feel like it overshadows a lot of OKC's "oomph" in some situations.
In the early 90s downtown was pretty dead and desolate, and there wasn't any body living there then. The Daily Oklahoman's downtown beat writer, Steve Lackmeyer, recently wrote that the only downtown he was more bored in than OKC's at the time was KC's. Then he revisited recently and wrote a glowing report of all of the new changes, comparing them very closely to the dramatic change in DT OKC. But maybe there are problems, snags, it seems?
OKC's success is more wildly successful than anyone ever intended because there were a lot of things that happened during the 90s that brought OKC to its knees and the city really rallied around the oil bust, the bombing, and the F6 tornado in particular. The original Maps 1 passed by a narrow margin, but like 55% (although today EVERYONE loves to say "I voted for it, I believed way back then!" when in fact, they did not). If oil was not surging right now, DT would also not be nearly as active as it is right now. We're in a phase where we're utilizing Big Oil's major presence in OKC to grow, but desperately trying to diversify our economy so that we'll be prepared when it drops back down.
There was Maps 1, passed by about 55%. After that, all of the following initiatives passed by a heavy margin between 1995 and now: Maps for Kids (rebuilding every single inner city school), Zoo Capital Fund (improvements to the zoo, one of the nation's largest, and the surrounding Adventure District), Maps for Kids extension (bond issue for new computers and athletic facilites and stuff like that), the $900 million bond issue last year (passed by 85%, to rebuild all of the roads in town, plus featured a handful of cool downtown projects), then there was the Ford Center tax (which passed by a landslide and will make the Ford Center an all-new facility), and last week voters approved a new $100 million Tinker Bond Issue which will buy an abandoned GM plant and lease it out to Tinker AFB and other private aerospace tenants, creating about 2,000 new jobs). On SSC there's a guy who says everytime he turns around he hears about OKC voting for another tax on themselves.
The result of this heavy civic investment?
The downtown front
Downtown investment is climbing $4 billion since Maps 1 which snowballed into all of this. 3,000 new downtown units. Major new events like the Big 12 Tourney, Olympic qualifying rounds, major regattas, important conventions, an NBA team. Crazy talk for a while of NFL and MLB teams. Downtown office vacancy has gone from nearly 35% to well under 30% now (dipping under 30 for the first time in 3 decades). Not just a new tallest for the city, but for the state, too (take that Tulsa). Several other major corporations moving downtown (SandRidge Energy, American Fidelity, and others). Property values in Bricktown are up 300%. There's a new research district on the NE side of downtown where a lot of that $4 billion investment has been made, with major new institutes popping up for cancer, diabetes, new hospitals, research parks, and biotech companies locating to the area. Every side of downtown is being revitalized. The inner city school district is now the largest in the US with a growing enrollment. Our downtown was ranked one of the top Southern downtowns by Southern Living.
The city-wide front
This year alone...... Forbes has ranked OKC the #6 greenest in the US, the #1 most recession-proof major metro (which enabled us to get very low rates on recent bond issues), #27 best city for outdoors (KC is #17) #1 best bargain to live, and #10 best city for jobs. And then there's Relocate-America which ranked OKC (proper, NOT Edmond, which ranked higher) #70 best place to live (out of 2,000, including suburbs, obviously). AAA ranked OKC the most inexpensive major metro for travel. Southern Living ranked OKC #5 best CBD in the South, and #1 best exit off I-35, our unemployment is now under 3%, one of the lowest in the nation, OKC metro's GDP has gone up 33% in the last 5 years, also leading the pack, we've seen one of the largest net gains in visitors (your newspaper said we were #1 among the metros compares, we were also #1 among new office tenants in downtown). We're starting to see a small spike in population growth in the metro, too, according to estimates, which could be the start of a population growth curve for us.
What the future holds
OKC is becoming a major league city, a major destination for corporate relocations and job seekers, we're NOW retaining our state's college graduates for the first time ever, we're going to see a high-rise construction boom currently already in the pipeline that will be on the level of Charlotte. Planning is currently under way for high-rise masterplanning in the research district northeast of DT, and in the new development zone between downtown and the Oklahoma River. The city is currently drafting up Maps 3, which will reportedly include a major new convention center (the size of St Lou's), light rail, a major new central park in downtown (that has civic leaders taking trips to Chicago's Millenium Park), a grand boulevard entrance for downtown (that will replace the current I-40 land bridge), and there will be a focus on the Oklahoma River, too.
Not your grandparents' OKC..
I just love the smell of skyscrapers in the morning... http://okmet.org / OkMet forums Keep Tulsa Lame.
trailerkid wrote:
KC became Omaha+ because of people like yourself unwilling or too complacent to see the larger picture. There were people like you in the 20th century who thought things like Union Station were a waste of investment.
It is very possible that with leadership like Flunkhouser, citizens like yourself and the Johnson County ethos, that within the next 50 years OKC, Omaha and possibly Des Moines all surpass Kansas City in cultural footprint. There are a lot of people in those cities that actually care about the lifestyle and culture in their communities beyond drinking beer at Grinders and complaining about everything.
Maybe you can stop trying to insult me long enough to actually have a chat?
All I'm saying is, unless Kansas City experiences massive, unprecedented (excluding the first waves of in-migration), sustained population growth over the course of several years, the best we can realistically hope for is to keep up with the pace of growth in other cities. The cities we compete with will generally be growing at comparable rates, and those who are ahead of us in certain areas will most likely continue to be ahead of us in those areas, while those who are behind us in other areas are going to continue to tag along behind us in those areas. I don't see how we can force a lot more than that to happen. Obviously we need real transit real soon, more development downtown, more residents, etc. But even if we could put the much-fawned-over "starter line" in operation tomorrow, we're what, a decade and a half behind Denver and St. Louis, and four years behind Minneapolis? We have to do these things just to stay in the game in terms of not bleeding residents to these other cities, not because we're in a "race" that we have a realistic chance to "win".
"It is not to my good friend's heresy that I impute his honesty. On the contrary, 'tis his honesty that has brought upon him the character of heretic." -- Ben Franklin
Adding more housing downtown may be a big challenge, even apartments. Due to rising construction/capital costs, apartment construction for the metro is expected to be at the lowest level in 20 years. Western JoCo is expected to get the bulk so downtown may be lucky to get anything at all outside of what is currently U/C.
Vacancies get tighter as a result, which will mean higher rents.
One solution I've been talking about for a while is renting out the slow moving condos. It would increase downtown residential population faster if some condo buildings were converted to lease.
ignatius wrote:
Adding more housing downtown may be a big challenge, even apartments. Due to rising construction/capital costs, apartment construction for the metro is expected to be at the lowest level in 20 years. Western JoCo is expected to get the bulk so downtown may be lucky to get anything at all outside of what is currently U/C.
I just think that this argument is a falacy. The slow economy just doesn't sell me. Posts on other threads indicate that rental occupancy rates are shrinking rapidly DT. Construction rates in other cities indicate that though the economy is slowing consumption, people still need a place to live. With skyrocketing gas prices, DT is looking better and better. 200,000 daytime workforce? If even 1% would like to live closer to work, we're looking at a sizeable need. Lastly, apartment complexes and condo developments are going up all over the place out south. Why? Why is the economy less of a factor 10 miles south of DT. Why is the economy less of a factor in Seattle, Denver, and Omaha?
City government, take a chance on DT housing, just like you took a chance on SC, P&L, and PAC. Extend TIF or some other tax incentive to a developer and increase rental occupancy. If the developer is not willing to take a risk with the high construction costs, subsidize the construction in some manner, so that we can keep on pace in this uncertain market. In due time, market forces will pick back up and development will take care of itself. Currently, as we slide back into mediocrity watching other cities subsidize and incentivize developers, we are losing hundreds, if not thousands, of potential city dwellers.
In terms of high end condos, data does not appear to support the need. In terms of rental, however, we need it, and we need it now. For the love of god, STRIKE WHILE THE IRON IS HOT! Give me some apartments for current lower wage earners to live in. Give me apartments to attract new workers.
may very well be the phrases that are all to commonly used on this board. These may very well be the feelings, expressed by a few, but shared by so many other in our city that makes our metro area second class in the opinion of many:
"this would never work in Kansas City........."
"the rest of the Metro will never go along...."
"it is a complete waste of....."
"Kansas City doesn't have the....."
"we can't............this, because there isn't ..........."
"this is not what is needed for............"
It would be real nice to hear someone occasionally say, "we can, or we're going to."
It continues to amaze me that all the TIF and downtown progress discussions, with their mischaracterizations and illogical arguments, always sidestep the basic question from an economic perspective: is there demand for urban living? Economic incentives may help build lots of new shiny towers but they can't fill those towers with residents. People have to want to spend $200K at a minimum on a place that as a rule will offer much less living space than a house in the suburbs. The people of Kansas City just don't want to make that trade yet, as evidenced by the failed Broadway condo tower, the sputtering P&L tower, that twin tower project on Grand that never went anywhere, the Cordish tower(s), and the various other proposals for new highrise construction, not to mention the East Village, Founders at Union Hill, even the Plaza proposals that have to be downgraded... We could hand those developers big checks and make sure their towers get built, but it won't be real progress until people choose en masse to spend a lot of money on an urban residence.
I feel like I'm the only one who sees things this way, and it frustrates me that everyone else talks about Kay Barnes vs Mark Funkhouser and wastes their energy making divisive comments. I haven't had much to say lately because everyone is so determined to see it their way and not allow any other perspectives. It is funny to me that some of you have actually convinced yourself that Mark Funkhouser the SuperAuditer is single-handedly staving off a whole host of developers who desperately want to build new things. That couldn't be further from the truth. Developers have tried and not done very well for one reason - people aren't buying their product!! Things look different in other cities because high demand causes new projects to be sold out very quickly. How many new construction projects in downtown KC have sold out faster than expected...?
If you all want things to change, convince your suburban neighbors to buy a condo. That is the only real building block of momentum. And please stop the nonsense about Barnes vs. Funkhouser and those stupid references to Wichita and Des Moines. It's just a waste of energy and a diversion from real solutions.
Last edited by eliphar17 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 6:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
KC-wildcat wrote:
I just think that this argument is a falacy. The slow economy just doesn't sell me. Posts on other threads indicate that rental occupancy rates are shrinking rapidly DT. Construction rates in other cities indicate that though the economy is slowing consumption, people still need a place to live. With skyrocketing gas prices, DT is looking better and better. 200,000 daytime workforce? If even 1% would like to live closer to work, we're looking at a sizeable need. Lastly, apartment complexes and condo developments are going up all over the place out south. Why? Why is the economy less of a factor 10 miles south of DT. Why is the economy less of a factor in Seattle, Denver, and Omaha?
City government, take a chance on DT housing, just like you took a chance on SC, P&L, and PAC. Extend TIF or some other tax incentive to a developer and increase rental occupancy. If the developer is not willing to take a risk with the high construction costs, subsidize the construction in some manner, so that we can keep on pace in this uncertain market. In due time, market forces will pick back up and development will take care of itself. Currently, as we slide back into mediocrity watching other cities subsidize and incentivize developers, we are losing hundreds, if not thousands, of potential city dwellers.
In terms of high end condos, data does not appear to support the need. In terms of rental, however, we need it, and we need it now. For the love of god, STRIKE WHILE THE IRON IS HOT! Give me some apartments for current lower wage earners to live in. Give me apartments to attract new workers.
First off, there's only 100,000 workers downtown. There hasn't been a lot of condo development out south, more conversions than new and the new condos haven't done that well from what I've seen. Apartment complexes go up out South because that's where the city's job growth is. 1 out of 2 new jobs in the 15 county metro and 1 out of every 2 new people go out to JoCo. The bottom line is the JoCo economy is providing steady growth and very large percentage of the metro's growth. Additionally, greenfield development is less expensive, which is another reason for suburban growth. Downtown KC just has to start growing its economy. The huge office vacancy downtown is a monumental problem. It needs to become a destination for workers.
You're definitely right that the city is blowing it's opportunity downtown because there's not enough rentals, and they're not doing enough to strike while the iron is hot. You're just not going to get additional rental units without subsidy and the city is unwilling to do that. Additionally, even with a subsidy, downtown renters would have to be willing to pay the highest rental rates in town to make the deal work.
I agree that there's not enough demand for the higher end condo units and at the prices they sell for, they don't work as rentals.
eliphar17 wrote:
It continues to amaze me that all the TIF and downtown progress discussions, with their mischaracterizations and illogical arguments, always sidestep the basic question from an economic perspective: is there demand for urban living? Economic incentives may help build lots of new shiny towers but they can't fill those towers with residents. People have to want to spend $200K at a minimum on a place that as a rule will offer much less living space than a house in the suburbs. The people of Kansas City just don't want to make that trade yet, as evidenced by the failed Broadway condo tower, the sputtering P&L tower, that twin tower project on Grand that never went anywhere, the Cordish tower(s), and the various other proposals for new highrise construction, not to mention the East Village, Founders at Union Hill, even the Plaza proposals that have to be downgraded... We could hand those developers big checks and make sure their towers get built, but it won't be real progress until people choose en masse to spend a lot of money on an urban residence.
I feel like I'm the only one who sees things this way, and it frustrates me that everyone else talks about Kay Barnes vs Mark Funkhouser and wastes their energy making divisive comments. I haven't had much to say lately because everyone is so determined to see it their way and not allow any other perspectives. It is funny to me that some of you have actually convinced yourself that Mark Funkhouser the SuperAuditer is single-handedly staving off a whole host of developers who desperately want to build new things. That couldn't be further from the truth. Developers have tried and not done very well for one reason - people aren't buying their product!! Things look different in other cities because high demand causes new projects to be sold out very quickly. How many new construction projects in downtown KC have sold out faster than expected...?
If you all want things to change, convince your suburban neighbors to buy a condo. That is the only real building block of momentum. And please stop the nonsense about Barnes vs. Funkhouser and those stupid references to Wichita and Des Moines. It's just a waste of energy and a diversion from real solutions.
There's demand for urban living, but it's only at a certain price. The reality is there's high demand for urban rentals of which there's just not enough of. There's plenty of new condos, but for most of them, rental rates don't keep up with what you need to charge to make it cash flow. I definitely think the city should be subsidizing new rental housing. They'll add thousands of downtown residents as quickly as they can be built.
Please show your source, JaxCo and KCMO still have more jobs than JoCo. KCMO has about 1/3 of the metro jobs. Downtown has more jobs than any one JoCo city, except OP, which is about the same. But downtown jobs are in a 2x3sq mile area.
JoCo will get a lot more apt development because it's the cheap wood frame crap built among surface lots and strip malls. Downtown would mostly be highrise development or urban sensitive, not cheap to do. Downtown rental occupancy is over 94% as good as any suburb.
KCFan wrote:
1 out of 2 new jobs in the 15 county metro and 1 out of every 2 new people go out to JoCo. The bottom line is the JoCo economy is providing steady growth and very large percentage of the metro's growth.
eliphar17 wrote:
It continues to amaze me that all the TIF and downtown progress discussions, with their mischaracterizations and illogical arguments, always sidestep the basic question from an economic perspective: is there demand for urban living? Economic incentives may help build lots of new shiny towers but they can't fill those towers with residents. People have to want to spend $200K at a minimum on a place that as a rule will offer much less living space than a house in the suburbs. The people of Kansas City just don't want to make that trade yet, as evidenced by the failed Broadway condo tower, the sputtering P&L tower, that twin tower project on Grand that never went anywhere, the Cordish tower(s), and the various other proposals for new highrise construction, not to mention the East Village, Founders at Union Hill, even the Plaza proposals that have to be downgraded... We could hand those developers big checks and make sure their towers get built, but it won't be real progress until people choose en masse to spend a lot of money on an urban residence.
I feel like I'm the only one who sees things this way, and it frustrates me that everyone else talks about Kay Barnes vs Mark Funkhouser and wastes their energy making divisive comments. I haven't had much to say lately because everyone is so determined to see it their way and not allow any other perspectives. It is funny to me that some of you have actually convinced yourself that Mark Funkhouser the SuperAuditer is single-handedly staving off a whole host of developers who desperately want to build new things. That couldn't be further from the truth. Developers have tried and not done very well for one reason - people aren't buying their product!! Things look different in other cities because high demand causes new projects to be sold out very quickly. How many new construction projects in downtown KC have sold out faster than expected...?
If you all want things to change, convince your suburban neighbors to buy a condo. That is the only real building block of momentum. And please stop the nonsense about Barnes vs. Funkhouser and those stupid references to Wichita and Des Moines. It's just a waste of energy and a diversion from real solutions.
to anyone who thinks KC is ever going to be more than Omaha+. That is Kansas City's destiny. What do you want, Chicago? Then move to Chicago.
