Katz on Main

[DaveKCMO]

The church expects — and wants — commission members to deny its request, said Doug Stone, a Lewis Rice LLC attorney representing the property owner.

"We don't want to demolish the building," he told the Kansas City Business Journal. "We're not doing this as an effort to get the building demolished tomorrow. But we thought it was clear from the council discussion last Thursday that there doesn't seem to be a will ... to support the redevelopment of this building. ... And so we took this action essentially to start a clock."

[Chris Stritzel]

Despite all that has happened, this seems like an "ultimatum". Developers submit purchase requests and all that with the stipulation to save the building before the clock runs out. It's a pretty risky move on the property owner's part but could lead to something being done here.

As for my idea for this, which as I said the other night would be somewhat different from what others want, it's this: save the Katz building and demolish the one later addition that isn't historic.

Renovate Katz into one of three things with the first option being a large retail space, second option is a bar/restaurant/live music stage business combination, and the third is just a live music venue with rooftop bar. The back parking lot would be dug out to include 1.5 levels of underground parking. The need for less parking comes about as a result of the streetcar expansion, so people can take that instead of driving and walk to other businesses in the immediate area, but some parking spaces would still be there for those who still prefer to drive. On top of this, a 4-5 floor apartment building in an older looking style.

I'd make an attempt to include units suitable for people making 85% AMI, but a majority would be market rate. However, I don't have the money to make this work or even get preliminary design work underway for it. If I did, I would seek Historic Tax Credits for the Katz building and develop the property in two phases with Katz being phase 1 and the apartment building being phase 2. Depending on how everything I went, there's a chance that I would seek a tax abatement for a period of not more than 5-7 years and no more than 50%, but it depends on other factors.

[earthling]

^Reasonable.

[Chris Stritzel]

With the momentum going on in KC and the momentum of streetcar, hopefully someone with deeper pockets than LuxLiving/lenders will buy and do the right thing w/out incentives. Or incentives are appropriately used with the building having more public function rather than nearly entirely private market rate use.

Just putting it out there for everyone: Lux has the money and they're planning a project in St. Louis with the intention of not seeking incentives. 150 unit building in the Central West End, but the justification for this, despite demolishing a roughly 38,000sf office building complex and digging a 20ft deep hole for parking, is that the rent in the neighborhood is high enough to justify the cost of a project without a tax abatement. The difference between that project, Optimist, and Katz is the rents they can fetch. They have the money, but from my understanding, the rents they could get without incentives wouldn't justify the cost of the new building and the preservation of the Katz.

[earthling]

^OTOH bigger ticket developers with deeper pockets/lenders can handle longer term ROIs. And again, incentives would be fine if it had broader public use than the nearly entire private use they proposed. LuxLiving didn't think through local politics, current social situations and then having the balls to ask for incentives for private use. Incentives would also be appropriate for private use if it's kickstarting a troubled area (like downtown before P&L/arena) or E Side projects but the streetcar is in itself the catalyst for this stretch, not this project.

[WoodDraw]

Interesting that you'd put 100% blame on TIF watchers with 0 blame to owner making threats to tear down. If TIF never exists and owner buys a locally valued building just to tear it down you'd think nothing of it? That's pretty bottom of barrel as it gets.

These dudes love welfare for rich people. Its really strange.

Please describe the tax impact on the people of kc both if this project was approved or if it remains as is. A short paragraph is fine.

[beautyfromashes]

Council should call the bluff: give a proposal for incentives they will support right now and announce that that incentive will drop 20% every year. Both sides can “start the clock”.

[alejandro46]

These dudes love welfare for rich people. Its really strange.

These dudes don't understand how TIF works, but thanks for your input. Since there is no "welfare" / TIF here, enjoy the surface parking lot coming at you 2024.

Oh ya sure with the street car running from downtown to the plaza surely the corner of Main will be a parking lot. Your bullshit tactics have been soundly rebuked the past several years. Look for another city to welch off of.

Circa 2014, but look how many are still parking lots now. A lot of them. I hope it doesn't happen, but there are examples of it or possible something being built either low density or demo all of Katz and replace with standard stick apartments.



Sure, maybe something will workout in a year, two, five, whatever. I'm not an expert, and I do hope somebody can come in and build on this property. I would ask, however, and I legitimately do not know the answer to this question, how many historical buildings with re-use have been successful without tax abatements?

Don't get me wrong here, I am not a huge advocate for just handing out incentives for whatever, especially along a multi-million dollar streetcar line. However, TIF Watch has made this project such a focal point in their imaginary war against developent (and our Mayor who's apparently in the pocket of big, out of town developers, so they would have you believe). I'm a realist here, and I part of my profession is handling disputes and disagreements. The developer has a ROI they want, the city council has a certain level of incentives they would or wouldn't accept as well as what the consultant's opinion was. It wasn't a risk the developer wanted to take, and so now looking from the outside we are back at square one with no developer, no proposal, and another vacant lot continuing to produce zero tax revenue.

[flyingember]

As far as your question about buildings for reuse without tax abatements I'm not sure. I just find it extremely hard to believe that particular spot will be a parking lot with the street car going to the plaza which is what not even half a mile from that location and just a few blocks from Westport that part of town wont be a hot commodity for property.

the streetcar opened five years ago.

I didn't try to do a solid count, but the total number of parking lots replaced with buildings near the streetcar downtown isn't very much above 10 or 15 out of hundreds.

It's very possible it will be a parking lot in 20 years.

[Riverite]

Isn’t a lot of the issue down to people not selling the lots. You can’t build on something if it’s owned by someone who just wants a parking lot

[flyingember]

Isn’t a lot of the issue down to people not selling the lots. You can’t build on something if it’s owned by someone who just wants a parking lot

My guess is the single biggest holdup is landlords who won't sell their parking until their tenants stop demanding it.

It's not uncommon to see someone own a lot and building on opposite sides of the street

[dukuboy1]

Good point on the owner of the land doing whatever they want with it. How many of those lots were building that were tore down at some point to either make way for parking in the 60's & 70's or had to be torn down because the buildings were in disrepair & fixing them was waay more expensive then leveling them. The real question is what are these property owners looking at that they are adverse to developing them? I assume they are all paying taxes, albeit very low taxes. The revenue from the parking fees is good, and I assume it is a nice profitable business with minimal overhead. But I would also think just selling your land at a premium would also be worth it. I'm guessing they could sell and earn 10yrs of profits instantly if not more.

I'd be curious to see who holds the land & try to understand why they are not wanting to develop it. I'm sure some parcels are not desirable, and of course their always has to be a development idea/deal to be had. But if people have been approached and shot down ideas I'd be curious as to why. Obvious answer, greed, but also maybe developers really trying to low ball people which is as bad as greed, maybe worse because you are trying to be unfair to benefits yourself at the behest of others.

[moderne]

Demo permit applied for according to Collison.

[taxi]

That Katz building would be a perfect spot for a hip, urban church.

[normalthings]

It appears that Council decided to take another look at the 15 year incentive package

[Anthony_Hugo98]

It appears that Council decided to take another look at the 15 year incentive package

Color me shocked

[flyingember]

As far as your question about buildings for reuse without tax abatements I'm not sure. I just find it extremely hard to believe that particular spot will be a parking lot with the street car going to the plaza which is what not even half a mile from that location and just a few blocks from Westport that part of town wont be a hot commodity for property.

the streetcar opened five years ago.

I didn't try to do a solid count, but the total number of parking lots replaced with buildings near the streetcar downtown isn't very much above 10 or 15 out of hundreds.

It's very possible it will be a parking lot in 20 years.

I'll bet you a 12 pack of diet mr pibb this wont be the case Mr flygember

You’re thinking about value and positive development. Imagine the developer is petty and has money and would rather let things drag on for years.

The demolition permit is easily a petulant “if I can’t do it, no one can” response.

Look at Clay Chastain, spurned over and over and returning until the city just ignored that he couldn’t run for mayor and put him on the ballot without a fight.

Hopefully it doesn’t end that way, but deals have fallen apart for far less stupid reasons and there’s some parking lots downtown celebrating their centennial

[Chris Stritzel]

It appears that Council decided to take another look at the 15 year incentive package

Color me shocked

I wonder if anyone's mind will change. And it makes me wonder if Lux will still be involved. I guess we'll find out soon enough

[CorneliusFB]

The midtown business and residential community have united against this decision in a way I haven’t seen. Bunch has been catching hell from his constituents.

[Anthony_Hugo98]

The midtown business and residential community have united against this decision in a way I haven’t seen. Bunch has been catching hell from his constituents.

The residential community has seemed united AGAINST it in The adjacent area. At least the general Hyde Park neighborhood area has. What makes it seem like the majority want the project? I haven’t seen much