Troost developments
Re: Troost developments
Jesus. Those pictures should make HKC and most core neighborhood associations ashamed of themselves. Just print them on placards that say “This is What Historic KC Looked Like” and sit silently in the back of every meeting they push their parking agenda at.
Re: Troost developments
Writing the staff planner is the way to go.
Re: Troost developments
The redevelopment at Armour and Troost needs to be a game changer. The proposal by Antheus Capital managed by MAC Properties fits the bill. The partnership has proven, in its investment and management of rental properties along Armour Boulevard, to be a contributor to the long-term revitalization and success of mid-town Kansas City. I am excited by this proposal.
-
- Mark Twain Tower
- Posts: 9862
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am
Re: Troost developments
They don’t want historic KC. They want 1970 KC. Because by the time the current people in charge had time to sit back and reflect, so much had already been torn down.chingon wrote:Jesus. Those pictures should make HKC and most core neighborhood associations ashamed of themselves. Just print them on placards that say “This is What Historic KC Looked Like” and sit silently in the back of every meeting they push their parking agenda at.
Most the people posting here have a sense that if we take an 1890s way of thinking on mixed use supporting neighborhood resources, limited setbacks and reduced single use zoning, multi mode streets, mixed housing styles and making use of existing green landscapes like true parkways and parks with more than fields of grass we can create a lot of value for residents.
In that sense it doesn’t matter if a new building looks like the old building. But that in supporting a new building there’s a much better chance of saving the old buildings nearby by creating interest in the area. And interest comes with dollars.
Re: Troost developments
Nicely said. I’m going to borrow this.flyingember wrote:Most the people posting here have a sense that if we take an 1890s way of thinking on mixed use supporting neighborhood resources, limited setbacks and reduced single use zoning, multi mode streets, mixed housing styles and making use of existing green landscapes like true parkways and parks with more than fields of grass we can create a lot of value for residents.
In that sense it doesn’t matter if a new building looks like the old building. But that in supporting a new building there’s a much better chance of saving the old buildings nearby by creating interest in the area. And interest comes with dollars.
Re: Troost developments
Yeah. this is a very good point. New buildings (especially on vacant lots) help save other old buildings.chaglang wrote:Nicely said. I’m going to borrow this.flyingember wrote:Most the people posting here have a sense that if we take an 1890s way of thinking on mixed use supporting neighborhood resources, limited setbacks and reduced single use zoning, multi mode streets, mixed housing styles and making use of existing green landscapes like true parkways and parks with more than fields of grass we can create a lot of value for residents.
In that sense it doesn’t matter if a new building looks like the old building. But that in supporting a new building there’s a much better chance of saving the old buildings nearby by creating interest in the area. And interest comes with dollars.
-
- Mark Twain Tower
- Posts: 9862
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am
Re: Troost developments
And here's a key thing about that point. It doesn't need to be what we do *everywhere* for it to work.
Having a row of single family homes on Charlotte, Holmes, etc and then have mixed use dense, tall, buildings on 39th or Armour or Truman is exactly how the city was built out.
The city needs a task force of planning staff + an incentive account + urban developers ready to take on project + new residents ready to move in + grants for existing building improvements + retailers ready to occupy a building + the police ready to support the community
This team could come together, cut red tape, identify clusters of projects that will add value and improve neighborhoods and spend 2-4 years per area doing this repairing structures and building new. Then move onto the next cluster of projects. Imagine a 40-year plan where this team makes 10 big impacts. Bring confidence back to neighborhoods and prime the pump for further improvements.
Having a row of single family homes on Charlotte, Holmes, etc and then have mixed use dense, tall, buildings on 39th or Armour or Truman is exactly how the city was built out.
The city needs a task force of planning staff + an incentive account + urban developers ready to take on project + new residents ready to move in + grants for existing building improvements + retailers ready to occupy a building + the police ready to support the community
This team could come together, cut red tape, identify clusters of projects that will add value and improve neighborhoods and spend 2-4 years per area doing this repairing structures and building new. Then move onto the next cluster of projects. Imagine a 40-year plan where this team makes 10 big impacts. Bring confidence back to neighborhoods and prime the pump for further improvements.
Re: Troost developments
Hey, not to abruptly change the conversation but Parcel Viewer is showing the Marquette Building is now owned by PIEA, not Oliver Abnos.
- KCtoBrooklyn
- Alameda Tower
- Posts: 1261
- Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 4:01 pm
Re: Troost developments
Wow, that's great!
Any idea what might be happening with it? MAC still interested? It seems like they have moved on, for the time being.
Any idea what might be happening with it? MAC still interested? It seems like they have moved on, for the time being.
- FangKC
- City Hall
- Posts: 18215
- Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
- Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound
Re: Troost developments
What building is that?chaglang wrote:Hey, not to abruptly change the conversation but Parcel Viewer is showing the Marquette Building is now owned by PIEA, not Oliver Abnos.
Re: Troost developments
It's the building on the SW corner of Armour and Forest.
My fear is that something was entered incorrectly at the county level and the info is just being pulled into Parcel Viewer.
My fear is that something was entered incorrectly at the county level and the info is just being pulled into Parcel Viewer.
Re: Troost developments
Yep, the county is wrong. Carry on.chaglang wrote:It's the building on the SW corner of Armour and Forest.
My fear is that something was entered incorrectly at the county level and the info is just being pulled into Parcel Viewer.
- FangKC
- City Hall
- Posts: 18215
- Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
- Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound
Re: Troost developments
Oh, I've always called that building the Boulevard Manor Hotel. I didn't realize it was also callled The Marquette.chaglang wrote:It's the building on the SW corner of Armour and Forest.
My fear is that something was entered incorrectly at the county level and the info is just being pulled into Parcel Viewer.
Re: Troost developments
NIMBY (but unironically)flyingember wrote:+ the police ready to support the community
Re: Troost developments
Demolition and water shut-off permits pulled for the buildings on the NE, NW, SW corners at Armour.
Re: Troost developments
Pulled?
Re: Troost developments
JBmidtown wrote:Pulled?
Received.
Re: Troost developments
Traffic control went up there last weekend.
Yeah, you can pull (receive) a permit to build a building, but if the inspector doesn't like what you're doing he can pull (revoke) your permit. It makes no sense.
Yeah, you can pull (receive) a permit to build a building, but if the inspector doesn't like what you're doing he can pull (revoke) your permit. It makes no sense.
- KCtoBrooklyn
- Alameda Tower
- Posts: 1261
- Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 4:01 pm
Re: Troost developments
I really hope the market building doesn't get torn down before the plans are finalized and approved. I would hate to see it demoed and then this plan falls apart.
I also think that if a compromise with the neighborhood is necessary, keeping the market building might be one of the best options. Perhaps they are tearing it down to remove that possibility.
I also think that if a compromise with the neighborhood is necessary, keeping the market building might be one of the best options. Perhaps they are tearing it down to remove that possibility.
- FangKC
- City Hall
- Posts: 18215
- Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
- Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound
Re: Troost developments
The City should have set up a condition on the Market Building that it could only be demolished after all plans were finalized and approved, as well as financing approved.