OFFICIAL: Law Building

diamond · Post by **diamond** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 8:09 pm

Buyer is out of NY. Sometimes it takes way too much to renovate a old building.

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 9:29 pm

diamond wrote:Buyer is out of NY. Sometimes it takes way too much to renovate a old building.

Come on, give us more...we knew that...or at least I thought I remembered hearing that.

Pork Chop · Post by **Pork Chop** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 7:35 am

A demolition permit has been issued for the historic Law Building at 12th Street and Grand Boulevard, a long-vacant structure just outside the South Loop redevelopment area.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascit ... 613631.htm

GRID · Post by **GRID** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 7:43 am

This just sucks. We are not going to have any density left downtown. Why would they buy it to just tear it down? I would rather have that thing there than a surface lot. I hope they have something planned to be built in its place and soon.

scooterj · Post by **scooterj** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:11 am

I can't imagine someone would buy this out of NY just to run a surface lot. I hope no one is that desparate to own surface lots, anyway.

phxcat · Post by **phxcat** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:53 am

That building is on the national register of historic places? I jusst don;t understand some people. So, who is going to throw themselves in front of the bulldozer?

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 9:10 am

well obviously they wanted Abbott to do it so it didn't cost them any money.

Here is an aerial of the block

Law Building upper left, Lil' Jakes bottom left, couple buildings just south of law building.

Here is something interesting as well, property ownership of block:

Blue is Abbott, soon to be annon. NYC developer
Red is MainwoodLLC which looks mostly like the parking lots
Grey is the TIF commission
Green is misc. ownership...4 different owners, all local addresses.

JBinKC · Post by **JBinKC** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 9:43 am

That better turn out to be something big. What is on that NE corner?

I hate seeing our history demolished. Here is yet another to add to the KC Now and Then...

Highlander · Post by **Highlander** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:50 am

I am ambivalent about the Law Building. Given it's current condition, it's doubtful that it could have ever been restored to its former elegance anyway. My bigger objection is that this thing has surface parking lot written all over it. If they wanted to build a new building with equal density on the site then fine...but a surface lot? Why else would demolition be proceeding without a development plan on ground surrounded by other surface lots. Sounds like the new owners just wanted to capitalize on being proximal to the new arena/Power and Light district. The last thing we need is the cannibalization of downtown buildings to replace the surface lots being devoured by the current developments.

Deleted User · Post by **Deleted User** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 11:28 am

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 11:32 am

nobody knows what is happening when the new developer takes control. Part of the sale was that Abbott demo the building.....the land is obviously more valuable w/o the building on it....hopefully something at least with this building's density will replace it.

Highlander · Post by **Highlander** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 12:08 pm

MichaelÂ® wrote:Surface parking??? Who OKed this action? An out of town developer buying up buildings to bulldoze into surface parking lots? Are you kidding me?

Who/what group in the city OK's this action? Does the Zoning & Redevelopment Committee I watch on channel 2 have any involvement with these types of transactions? This is a major concern of downtown.

I was just speculating ... for all I know the new owner has an out-of-town tenant in mind with plans for a 15 story office building? But, the whole thing does seem kind of suspicous.

FangKC · Post by **FangKC** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 12:09 pm

It's true that some real estate company could be capitalizing on the arena and entertainment district development. However, the use of a NY buyer could be a beard for some local concern.

It seems likely that whomever is involved might be assembling land to combine with the TIF-controlled buildings to the south. Because of the gerrymandering footprint of the Abbott-owned properties, I cannot imagine any large development occurring on that portion of the block without the TIF-controlled parcels. It also seems to me that any party planning development on that block would seek to assemble the entire block. They would want to have control over adjacent development, or prevent lack of development. Most property developers don't want to put up a sparkling new tower and have it sit next to a tacky wig shop.

If I were to speculate, I'd say someone is trying to assemble property on that block for one of the following: 1) a new headquarters building for Great Plains / Kansas City Power & Light; 2) a future convention hotel next to Sprint Center; or 3) assemble another block to be added to the Power & Light entertainment district for residential, retail, and entertainment uses.

I can't think of any other local company that is seeking to erect a new headquarters building other than KCP&L. A new convention hotel on that block is less likely at this point in the game. I can't imagine anyone could get backing for a new hotel until other downtown hotel vacancy rates drop significantly, and the President Hotel has opened and is successful or not. Besides, Larry Bridges would probably try and put the kabosh on that until the Marriott and Muehlebach Marriott vacancy rates are way, way down.

It's difficult to conclude anything at this point until we know who the NY-based owner will be. The reason I suggested someone local using a beard to make the purchase is because it would be easier to keep the transaction a secret until it's completed. If someone local was buying the Law Building, it would be much harder to keep people from finding out.

Any local party wouldn't want other local developers to find out because they might try to nab adjacent parcels.

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 12:13 pm

mainwood LLC is very friendly to the city hall if I remember right. Check out who owns most of the arena site.

Dr. Know · Post by **Dr. Know** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:43 pm

I'm sad to see the Law building go. I read not long ago that the appraisal did not support the financing - obviously there were some major problems with that building. But it could it have been any worse off than the President or the Vista? I'd like to hear what Abbott has to say about all this.

GRID · Post by **GRID** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:46 pm

Dr. Know wrote:I'd like to hear what Abbott has to say about all this.

Very good idea. It's starting to sound like the city might have something up its sleeve after all. Which probably in the long run is good thing.

Post by **chrizow** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:47 pm

dear god dont put a surface lot there. why the hell would anyone put a lot in there?

DOWNTOWN KC DOES NOT NEED MORE LOTS.

hell, make it hard to park downtown and put more and more res/commercial. make it like every other good city in america. going to "the city" isn't like going to home depot.

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 2:03 pm

I'm expecting good things from this block. For many reasons....location to the arena, lack of any real development currently on the block and who owns the land.

Post by **chrizow** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 2:11 pm

KCPowercat wrote:I'm expecting good things from this block. For many reasons....location to the arena, lack of any real development currently on the block and who owns the land.

yeah i dont know why a NY-based owner would buy the land just to put a parking lot on it.

trailerkid · Post by **trailerkid** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 2:53 pm

I support saving this building and converting to lofts however...

Demand for properties downtown will only increase as more people move there and more projects inch closer to reality. We will probably hear more and more about demolishing certain properties for new developments. It is part of the evolutionary cycle of a city in renaissance. It is not always bad, but not always good. We can voice our opinion all we want, but the days of watching a great property sit idle for years and years waiting to be renovated may be close to over. Land will mean more than the buildings themselves...