Yesterday they had the fence up and it looked like they were unloading some wood from a trailer, for some reason.KCtoBrooklyn wrote:Fencing is up around the market building on SW corner of Armour and Troost (blocking the sidewalk and bus stop). I'm guessing this is coming down soon.
I don't know why they would tear this down before the other two buildings (besides wanting to rush it through before it can be stopped).
Troost developments
-
- Strip mall
- Posts: 297
- Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2017 8:45 am
- Location: Midtown
Re: Troost developments
-
- Colonnade
- Posts: 748
- Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2015 11:31 am
Re: Troost developments
Maybe it’s a surprise renovation? A gift to the city?
- chaglang
- Bryant Building
- Posts: 4132
- Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:44 pm
Re: Troost developments
It’s to protect the MAX stop. The building could be gone by the end of the weekend.
- KCtoBrooklyn
- Alameda Tower
- Posts: 1262
- Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 4:01 pm
Re: Troost developments
The Armour and Troost project (as well as Armour and Cherry) are on the docket for the City Plan Commission tomorrow.
I have never been to a CPC meeting, but I'm considering checking this one out.
I have never been to a CPC meeting, but I'm considering checking this one out.
-
- Mark Twain Tower
- Posts: 8519
- Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:27 pm
- Location: milky way, orion arm
Re: Troost developments
Isn't that what MAC owns, planning retail development on all four corners?
- chaglang
- Bryant Building
- Posts: 4132
- Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:44 pm
Re: Troost developments
It’s delayed until 5/15. Meanwhile, if anyone here lives in Hyde Park, you may want to start demanding answers from the HPNA about what they’ve been scheming on. It sounds like they are searching for a way to come out in opposition to the entire project.
- alejandro46
- Alameda Tower
- Posts: 1358
- Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2018 11:24 pm
- Location: King in the North(Land)
- KCtoBrooklyn
- Alameda Tower
- Posts: 1262
- Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 4:01 pm
Re: Troost developments
The CPC docket with staff reports is available here:
https://data.kcmo.org/Development-Revie ... /yckm-q3pc
The staff report on the Armour and Troost development begins on page 103.
Here is probably the most important part of the report, discussing parking:
https://data.kcmo.org/Development-Revie ... /yckm-q3pc
The staff report on the Armour and Troost development begins on page 103.
Here is probably the most important part of the report, discussing parking:
Overall, it sounds like the city is supportive of this project, which is not a surprise considering that the city has already contributed money and resources in helping MAC obtain all of the necessary parcels. As long as the NIMBYs aren't successful in derailing this, it sounds like they will be able to work something out.With these reductions; the total number of spaces required is 414. A total of 189 are
proposed to be provided, which is a gap of 225. Other options to reduce the total parking
requirement may be available, as outlined in the paragraph below; however, these likely
will not close the gap completely. Staff is supportive of a gap between the number of
spaces required and provided, but is uncomfortable with the extent of the gap proposed.
Staff recommends that the Commission consider a ratio of 0.7 spaces per unit which would
result in an adjusted parking requirement of 279 spaces, or a gap of 54 spaces. This gap
could be reasonably accommodated by one of the other options provided below. Staff
recommends a condition requiring each project plan for each phase be accompanied by
one or more of the proposed alternatives below to fill the gap. Staff believes that this
location, with an east/west bus route on Armour, the MAX route on Troost lend support to
the reduced ratio. Furthermore, requiring more parking only creates an economic incentive
to retain existing surface lots in the area or demolish buildings to create new surface lots in
the area, which is contrary to relevant city policies.
Other options available include Shared Parking (88-420-16-I), Off-Site Parking (88-420-16-J) or
Car-Share Vehicles (88-420-16-P). These options provide the ability to arrange an
agreement in which two or more uses with different peak parking periods (hours of
operation) use the same off-street parking spaces to meet their off-street parking
requirements. The parking can be on a remote or separate lot from the lot on which the
principal use is located. Lastly, car-share vehicle(s) provide for the opportunity of a vehicle
available that can be used for residences within the development.
-
- Penntower
- Posts: 2437
- Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 3:02 pm
Re: Troost developments
At the Fourth District community meeting last night, someone from my neighborhood association (Volker) mentioned that residents of Hyde Park were upset at the increase in number of residents being reported for violating city codes. The residents feel that long-time residents are being targeted for baseless and frivolous code complaints. A large number of complaints were recently filed on the same day, and residents assume that the complaints are being filed by one of the developers wanting to run longtime residents out of the neighborhood.chaglang wrote:It’s delayed until 5/15. Meanwhile, if anyone here lives in Hyde Park, you may want to start demanding answers from the HPNA about what they’ve been scheming on. It sounds like they are searching for a way to come out in opposition to the entire project.
- chaglang
- Bryant Building
- Posts: 4132
- Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:44 pm
Re: Troost developments
That sounds nuts, except John Hoffman did that to Longfellow in 2011 or 2012, to increase the value of the houses he was building. After a long and very angry meeting, the city finally agreed to cancel the violations. That they would let a developer do that in the first place is mind-boggling, but they defended it for well over an hour at that meeting.
The scheming I mentioned has more to do with parking (not enough) and height (too much). There's a bylaw that won't let the HPNA endorse a rezoning unless some number of neighbors nearby give consent. Which puts the endorsement in the hands of a few property owners on Harrison.
The scheming I mentioned has more to do with parking (not enough) and height (too much). There's a bylaw that won't let the HPNA endorse a rezoning unless some number of neighbors nearby give consent. Which puts the endorsement in the hands of a few property owners on Harrison.
-
- Oak Tower
- Posts: 5556
- Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 2:50 pm
- Location: Mount Hope
Re: Troost developments
The Rime Buddhist Center has purchased land at 1616 East 30th and is fundraising to build a Buddhist Temple at the site.
- chaglang
- Bryant Building
- Posts: 4132
- Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:44 pm
Re: Troost developments
Very cool.
- FangKC
- City Hall
- Posts: 18307
- Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
- Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound
Re: Troost developments
Wonder Shops and Flats set to bring Blip Roasters, Bike Walk KC, medical group to Troost
http://www.startlandnews.com/2018/05/wo ... ts-troost/
http://www.startlandnews.com/2018/05/wo ... ts-troost/
- FangKC
- City Hall
- Posts: 18307
- Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
- Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound
Re: Troost developments
Demolition has started on the Market Building at Armour and Troost.
- FangKC
- City Hall
- Posts: 18307
- Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
- Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound
Re: Troost developments
$80M project at blighted Troost intersection wins PIEA incentives
https://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/ ... tives.htmlIncentives for an $80 million mixed-use project that would include 450 apartments and 28,000 square feet of retail at the corner of Armour Boulevard and Troost Avenue were green-lighted Thursday by the Planned Industrial Expansion Authority.
MAC Properties, the developer of the project at a blighted Kansas City intersection, asked the board for three incentives:
a sales tax exemption on construction materials
an abatement of property taxes for 20 years
$3.5 million from the city's Business Interruption Fund
...
An additional building that would be solely residential located at Armour and Cherry Street also is included in the project and would have up to 110 units.
...
That 28,000 square feet of retail would include anywhere from 10 to 20 shops. He said part of the plan to encourage small business owners and entrepreneurs to lease the space will be the built-in infrastructure for small restaurants in some of the spaces. He said on average, converting a standard retail space into a restaurant can be cost-prohibitive and exceed $200,000. But having restaurant infrastructure built into the space would allow for lower startup costs. He said the spaces would be small, with the hope that the restaurants would become successful, move to larger spaces and allow new business to continue to begin there.
...
Members of two local neighborhood associations attended the hearing and requested more time to discuss parking and other issues. Currently, the project has a parking ratio of 0.4, meaning for every five apartments there would be two parking spaces. MAC Properties will charge for those spaces.
...
-
- Mark Twain Tower
- Posts: 9862
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am
Re: Troost developments
I would say the small restaurant spaces are the best part. It's probably the easiest industry to move upwards in without a high school education in a neighborhood in need of good quality jobs for more people period.
I would put this feature as something the city should aim for when talking about future projects.
I would put this feature as something the city should aim for when talking about future projects.
-
- Colonnade
- Posts: 748
- Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2015 11:31 am
Re: Troost developments
It’s pretty telling that the NIMBY neighborhood associations care more about parking than providing economic mobility for east of Troost residents. Fuck off HPNA.
Also MAC properties is such a game changer. I wish other developers approached development like they did.
Also MAC properties is such a game changer. I wish other developers approached development like they did.
-
- Alameda Tower
- Posts: 1310
- Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2002 7:16 pm
- Location: Charlotte, NC
Re: Troost developments
How nice if the NIMBYs, instead of crying about parking spaces, would demand better public transit.
- FangKC
- City Hall
- Posts: 18307
- Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
- Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound
Re: Troost developments
MAC Properties Plans $78M Project to Revive Troost/Armour Intersection
https://tinyurl.com/ydcorvow
https://cityscenekc.com/mac-properties- ... ersection/
The 520 E. Armour building site (at Cherry). It's across from the Newbern Apartments....
Cassel said the buildings planned at the intersection will range from one- to eight-stories, with only one tower planned there. The project at 520 E. Armour would include 110 apartments and be up to eight stories tall.
...
If all goes according to schedule, construction would being in April 2019 with full build-out expected in April 2023.
https://tinyurl.com/ydcorvow
https://cityscenekc.com/mac-properties- ... ersection/
- chaglang
- Bryant Building
- Posts: 4132
- Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:44 pm
Re: Troost developments
Having been in many neighborhood meetings on this, I can say that the parking concerns are not widely held. But they are held by a few (really, 4 or 5 people) who are very vocal and somewhat well connected at the city level. It's essentially an issue that HPNA leadership has raised and remained focused on, on its own.