OFFICIAL: Port Authority Riverfront Project

Issues concerning Downtown as described by the Downtown Council. River to 31st Street, I-35 to Bruce R. Watkins.
User avatar
TheLastGentleman
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2932
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:27 pm

Re: OFFICIAL: Port Authority Riverfront Project

Post by TheLastGentleman »

“A river in the city of fountains” is a wonderful book about the history of KC’s waterways

Image
bspecht
Western Auto Lofts
Western Auto Lofts
Posts: 526
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 4:31 pm
Location: DC
Contact:

Re: OFFICIAL: Port Authority Riverfront Project

Post by bspecht »

FangKC wrote: Wed Oct 18, 2023 5:08 pm Developer drops 254-apartment plan at Berkley Riverfront; Port KC searches for a new builder

Lux Living will not move forward with a $55 million apartment development at Berkley Riverfront.

In May 2022, Lux failed to secure a desired 25-year property tax abatement for a seven-story complex with 254 units and 2,598 square feet of commercial space from the Port Authority of Kansas City. Opposition from numerous residents — who cited tenant complaints and municipal and legal concerns reported about Lux projects in its native St. Louis — resulted in a final vote falling through. Nevertheless, Lux went on that September to net final plan approval from the City Plan Commission to build the apartments on about 2.2 acres.
...
Joe Perry, the port's vice president of real estate, said developers had started inquiring about Lux's site even while it was still under contract. Now, an eventual substitute apartment project could have a similar scale to what Lux had contemplated, though Perry said he is not yet at liberty to say who might build it.

"We are actively replacing that contract right now," he said. "We have two or three developers waiting in the wings, and we've had multiple offers."
...

https://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/ ... amily.html
Picked up by NorthPoint, now 152 units & severe downgrade in design. https://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/ ... iving.html

Image
Image
User avatar
smh
Supporter
Posts: 4313
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 10:40 pm
Location: Central Loop

Re: OFFICIAL: Port Authority Riverfront Project

Post by smh »

The riverfront developments are so disappointing (Current excepted).
User avatar
Jblanco
Strip mall
Strip mall
Posts: 132
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2022 1:37 pm

Re: OFFICIAL: Port Authority Riverfront Project

Post by Jblanco »

They need to change the name of this Riverfront district to 'Lenexa By The Lake.'
User avatar
GRID
City Hall
City Hall
Posts: 17187
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 12:20 pm
Contact:

Re: OFFICIAL: Port Authority Riverfront Project

Post by GRID »

severe downgrade is a severe understatement JFC.
Jblanco wrote: Fri Jan 12, 2024 4:21 pm They need to change the name of this Riverfront district to 'Lenexa By The Lake.'
So far Lenexa is doing a far better job.

I mean seriously. I thought this was going to be the start of better development down there. It's only getting worse.

Well the rendering looked nice.
Image
KC_Ari
Strip mall
Strip mall
Posts: 231
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2022 11:54 pm
Location: River Market

Re: OFFICIAL: Port Authority Riverfront Project

Post by KC_Ari »

That just looks like an expansion of their current two buildings. Meh. I'll take it, but certainly not wowed by it.
dukuboy1
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1045
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2020 12:02 pm

Re: OFFICIAL: Port Authority Riverfront Project

Post by dukuboy1 »

I did not realize “high rent section 8” was a possible design style, let alone the only choice for all development in the Riverfront area *sigh*
missingkc
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1305
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2002 7:16 pm
Location: Charlotte, NC

Re: OFFICIAL: Port Authority Riverfront Project

Post by missingkc »

Why would the Authority agree to this? It makes it look like they just want to be done with the riverfront project and will accept any offer that will fill space.
TheUrbanRoo
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1320
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2022 8:39 pm

Re: OFFICIAL: Port Authority Riverfront Project

Post by TheUrbanRoo »

Yeah I don’t know why they wouldn’t just decline this unless they know they absolutely can’t get anyone else in the near future
User avatar
FangKC
City Hall
City Hall
Posts: 18236
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound

Re: OFFICIAL: Port Authority Riverfront Project

Post by FangKC »

They should sit on that parcel for now. Another opportunity will come along at some point. The site will become more valuable when the streetcar line is running by it and the soccer stadium is open.
langosta
Valencia Place
Valencia Place
Posts: 1649
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 4:02 am

Re: OFFICIAL: Port Authority Riverfront Project

Post by langosta »

missingkc wrote: Sat Jan 13, 2024 7:30 am Why would the Authority agree to this? It makes it look like they just want to be done with the riverfront project and will accept any offer that will fill space.
I hear from a credible source the previous developer struggled with easments/utilities on the site. Might explain why the new proposal has a reduced footprint
missingkc
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1305
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2002 7:16 pm
Location: Charlotte, NC

Re: OFFICIAL: Port Authority Riverfront Project

Post by missingkc »

Too bad. I thought it was a great use of the site. Some extra height in the new proposal would have been nice.
User avatar
FangKC
City Hall
City Hall
Posts: 18236
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound

Re: OFFICIAL: Port Authority Riverfront Project

Post by FangKC »

Not yet. I think they are just getting started.
langosta
Valencia Place
Valencia Place
Posts: 1649
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 4:02 am

Re: OFFICIAL: Port Authority Riverfront Project

Post by langosta »

FangKC wrote: Fri Jan 26, 2024 12:07 pm Not yet. I think they are just getting started.
It’s a long term remediation site with master developer assignment. Even some of your links are a few years old. Best of luck to them but no different than our EV project or the original Port KC master plan at this point.

Edit: not that I don’t want denser but there are plenty of river front remediation or completed to actually point to
bspecht
Western Auto Lofts
Western Auto Lofts
Posts: 526
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 4:31 pm
Location: DC
Contact:

Re: OFFICIAL: Port Authority Riverfront Project

Post by bspecht »

I mean commitments of Shell HQ and Topgolf (not that I'd strive for it) are a bit different.

Reminds me of Port Covington in Baltimore, which is moving along well towards a moderate density.
langosta
Valencia Place
Valencia Place
Posts: 1649
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 4:02 am

Re: OFFICIAL: Port Authority Riverfront Project

Post by langosta »

bspecht wrote: Fri Jan 26, 2024 12:48 pm I mean commitments of Shell HQ and Topgolf (not that I'd strive for it) are a bit different.

Reminds me of Port Covington in Baltimore, which is moving along well towards a moderate density.
Local shell office moving into a new building. Just as when JE Dunn anchored east village with their office.
User avatar
TheLastGentleman
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2932
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:27 pm

Re: OFFICIAL: Port Authority Riverfront Project

Post by TheLastGentleman »

langosta wrote: Fri Jan 26, 2024 1:49 pm
bspecht wrote: Fri Jan 26, 2024 12:48 pm I mean commitments of Shell HQ and Topgolf (not that I'd strive for it) are a bit different.

Reminds me of Port Covington in Baltimore, which is moving along well towards a moderate density.
Local shell office moving into a new building. Just as when JE Dunn anchored east village with their office.
Anchored? The JE Dunn building is the east village
WoodDraw
Hotel President
Hotel President
Posts: 3386
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 8:53 pm

Re: OFFICIAL: Port Authority Riverfront Project

Post by WoodDraw »

I've always wondered about that deal. My fuzzy memory was that je Dunn kinda expected development around it but it never happened.

When I'm over there I'm always like I should ask someone about that who would know and then I immediately forget on the way home.
Post Reply