KCRag Forum

Article on the Cosby Hotel in today's Star.  The reason for the teardown is because the brick facade is failing due to winter damage and water.

It is ridiculous to me that the building should be demolished because of this. Can't they just put up a safety barrier and block the street lanes near the building until it is stabilized? Put up a support structure, and hire someone to come in and take down the damaged facade brick by brick until the dangerous section is gone. Then build it back up with recycled era bricks from another similar building.

This same thing happened with the west wall of the Empire Theater. The bricks were buckling and falling off.   Parts of the west brick facade had collapsed.   The City made Executive Hills hire someone to fix it.

It's like this City doesn't even try and save historic buildings.

http://www.kansascity.com/2010/07/08/20 ... 1-may.html

This also really calls into question the sincerity of the developer.  Why wasn't he maintaining this building during these rough seasons and repairing damage as it happened?

?We?re concerned about the facade or bricks coming off the building,? he said.

So replace the bricks! I don't understand why the entire freakin building has to come down.

So, besides just venting our rage here, what should be our next step? Or are we SOL?

Wow this sucks.  Another surface parking lot replaces a historic 1880's building that could have been saved.

dangerboy wrote: This also really calls into question the sincerity of the developer.  Why wasn't he maintaining this building during these rough seasons and repairing damage as it happened?

I think the damage has been accruing over many, many years.  I don't know if Lane Blueprint owned the building or not, but it certainly did not look like anything was done to maintain the exterior of the building while they occupied it.  Then Lane moved to an old building on Main (I think) just south of downtown and it also exhibited an extreme lack of maintenance or care on the exterior.

Instead of investing money in demolishing buildings, why does the City not invest in preserving them?

Small example.  KCMO sank 1 million into demolishing the parking garage at 11th and Grand and rehabbing that site.  For a fraction of that cost (10K?), the City could preserve this building...  But...

dangerboy wrote: This also really calls into question the sincerity of the developer.  Why wasn't he maintaining this building during these rough seasons and repairing damage as it happened?

I think the sincerity is even more questionable given the "aw schucks" tone he uses in his response to the newspaper.  If he had even a remote interest in doing the right thing, we wouldn't be hearing bullshit along the lines of "well the city is just doing its job to look out for safety . . . "  Note that there is no indication of who filed the complaint - dollars to donuts its someone related the future proud surface parking lot owner himself. 

For the $115,000 he's going to be billed for the demo, couldn't the owner have at the very least updated the exterior to keep it from being a hazard?  I applaud the owner for fixing up two other buildings, but to purchase property, let it sit vacant for years waiting for a tenant to come along seems like he went about it the wrong way.  Probably a reason I'm not a real estate agent, but it seems to me he could have fixed it up and rented the space until another buyer came along...better than sitting vacant for over a decade with no income.

kcjak wrote: For the $115,000 he's going to be billed for the demo, couldn't the owner have at the very least updated the exterior to keep it from being a hazard? 

Old buildings with no tennants and fixed up bricks don't generate any parking revenues. 

kcjak wrote: but to purchase property, let it sit vacant for years waiting for a tenant to come along seems like he went about it the wrong way.  Probably a reason I'm not a real estate agent, but it seems to me he could have fixed it up and rented the space until another buyer came along...better than sitting vacant for over a decade with no income.

I am sure that losing money for ten years was his intention when he purchased the property.  Yes, he could have spent more money after purchase to fix it up but that still would not have guaranteed a tenant.  If one has an unlimited source of funds one can do just about anything but just because he purchased the building doesn't mean he had access to funds to rehab it without a lease in hand. 

From an somewhat informed perspective;

kcjak's observation is spot on.  Don't know that demolition was the ultimate intent, but neglect has been long term and consistent with this property.  The owner seems to be a pretty complicated guy, so who knows?

kcjak wrote: For the $115,000 he's going to be billed for the demo, couldn't the owner have at the very least updated the exterior to keep it from being a hazard? 

Yes, it would have been a lot cheaper to do some tuck pointing.  But if the ultimate goal is a parking lot, then the $115,000 isn't an unreasonable investment for the long-term income from parking fees.

aknowledgeableperson wrote: I am sure that losing money for ten years was his intention when he purchased the property. 

"I didn't originally intend to" is not a reasonable excuse for destroying the fabric of our community. 

Please email the Historic Kansas City Foundation and ask them to step up and defend this building.

hkcf@historickansascity.org or http://historickansascity.org/

LenexatoKCMO wrote: "I didn't originally intend to" is not a reasonable excuse for destroying the fabric of our community. 

Amen.

LenexatoKCMO wrote: "I didn't originally intend to" is not a reasonable excuse for destroying the fabric of our community. 

A reasonable excuse - yes.  An acceptable one on the other hand - no.

aknowledgeableperson wrote: A reasonable excuse - yes.  An acceptable one on the other hand - no.

No, it's BS.  If he really intended to redevelop this building he would have been doing basic maintenance to keep it standing  until he had a tenant lined up to pay for the renovation.  And given that he was able to finish the Union Carbide and Larue buildings, he should have some income to able to afford upkeep.

aknowledgeableperson wrote: A reasonable excuse - yes.  An acceptable one on the other hand - no.

A lot of people don't set out to do bad things - that doesn't excuse it when they do. 

This is a shame.....GREAT BUILDING!  The facade can be repaired....it's Rick Powell's fault, he let the building deteriorate.  Most likely he'll turn it into parking for his condos next door.  HE GETS A BIG "F" FOR FAIL!