Westport

[aknowledgeableperson]

Really, AKP? Are we going to do this again?

If you like to avoid the discussion ...

If you are serious about increasing density then why not increase density by making more living units in the same amount of space much like many propose by reducing lot sizes for SFHs (more houses per acre).
You don't have to go to pre WWII standard of a room with a common bath down the hall. Just go the size of the living units used for many seniors.

[FangKC]

I would say that the first step that the City needs to take is to limit the size of new house lots within the City limits--for the majority of development. There can still be a variety of lot sizes, but City policy should be that the larger your lot, the more it will cost you in taxes. I also wish the City could do more to get developers to build smaller houses, because the demographics have changed a lot and there are more one-and-two person households in KCMO than ever before.

When exceptions are made, there should be a City surtax for a house on a larger lot, that reimburses the City annually for the loss of all taxes from the potential houses that aren't built because you wanted a big lot.

For example, let's say the average house lot is 60 ft. wide by 100 ft. long. Let's call it a "standard lot." You buy three house lots and your lot size is now 180 ft. wide by 100 ft. long. You have to make up in a tax surcharge the equivalent of two lost households contributions in all taxes (averaged).

The second step the City needs to take is to put a stop to these streets that aren't connected in a grid, and are too far apart. We need to return to the traditional street grid, which was innovative because it's the most efficient way to group housing, and move traffic and pedestrians.

Creeks and gullies are no excuse to making a traditional street grid. The city evolved before having to contend with creeks and gullies.

[moderne]

The city did not evolve before having to deal with creeks and gulleys. One of the earlier nicknames of the Kansas City was gulleytown. The Romans introduced town planning on the grid system. It was so wildly successful it was copied around the Med. The planning included central markets and civic cores, shaded collonades for the main thouroughfares. With apartments no taller than 5 floors they managed to pack over a million people in only 16 square miles.

[pash]

.

[FangKC]

The city did not evolve before having to deal with creeks and gulleys. One of the earlier nicknames of the Kansas City was gulleytown. The Romans introduced town planning on the grid system. It was so wildly successful it was copied around the Med. The planning included central markets and civic cores, shaded collonades for the main thouroughfares. With apartments no taller than 5 floors they managed to pack over a million people in only 16 square miles.

My point was that the City south of the river was built using a traditional street grid, and gullies and creeks were dealt with in the planning. The City didn't leave side swaths of land around creeks and gullies, and only built on ridgelines.

[aknowledgeableperson]

My point was that the City south of the river was built using a traditional street grid, and gullies and creeks were dealt with in the planning. The City didn't leave side swaths of land around creeks and gullies, and only built on ridgelines.

Yeah, for the most part the gullies were filled in and the creeks tunneled. By the way what actually happened to the brook in Brookside.

Something else. From Business Insider:

In 2013, a project called My Micro NY won a design competition for the New York's first "micro apartments" sponsored by the Department of Housing Preservation and Development.

Intended to create affordable housing for singles in New York City, those promised prefabricated affordable units are finally being assembled in the Brooklyn Navy Yard and will be unveiled this spring in Manhattan's Kips Bay, according to The New York Times.

The city's first "micro" building will have 55 rental apartments, all ranging from 260- to 360-square-feet with big windows, ample storage space, and Juliet balconies.
...
Under current zoning laws enacted in 1987, all NYC apartments must be at least 400 square feet, but then-mayor Michael Bloomberg said in 2013 that the new micro-units would be an exception.

My Micro NY will also be the first multi-family building in Manhattan to use modular construction, with the modules prefabricated locally by Monadnock Development as well as the Lower East Side People’s Mutual Housing Association at the Brooklyn Navy Yard.

Modular construction is said to be safer and more efficient since the plumbing, electrical, and building development is done in a controlled, indoor environment.

The city is expecting a wait list for the apartments, which have already received "dozens of calls from interested parties of all ages," according to The Times. 22 of the 55 units will be reserved for low-income families.

One way to create density.

[FangKC]

Micro apartments will work well in NYC because people go out so much.

I hardly ever cooked in my apartment. I went out to eat, or got take-out. Otherwise, I cooked using a microwave. Younger people also go out a lot for the entire evening.

I really didn't spend much time in my apartment except to sleep.

[pash]

.

[flyingember]

My point was that the City south of the river was built using a traditional street grid, and gullies and creeks were dealt with in the planning. The City didn't leave side swaths of land around creeks and gullies, and only built on ridgelines.

yep, and we're paying for those decisions today. a natural waterway cleans water. compare that to the Blue River. It still has signs to not make contact after a storm because we don't have the creek system feeding into it. instead we have creeks put into pipes

here's a project in DC doing the exact opposite
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... n-science/

If we want a true waterfront on the MO river that people want to use we need to start with the source. and that means keeping those swaths of land around creeks

[aknowledgeableperson]

Fang, let's not play AKP's game. Micro apartments have nothing do with "creating density", and he knows it. That proposal is for a neighborhood that already houses 100,000 people per square mile. Other similar projects to cram people into small spaces have likewise been proposed only in places that are already very dense, because that's where space is at a premium.

Places that lack density lack it because there's nothing there.

Take a building with 40 studio units of 600 sq ft. Reduce the size of those units 450 sq ft you now have 53 units, 13 people, or more, living in the same space. Reduce the size to 400 sq ft you have 20 people, or more, living in the same space. Additional people eating out, living it up. Making SFH lots smaller, making apt buildings higher are promoted to increase density, putting more people into a place, "creating density". Making apartments smaller is the same.

[AlbertHammond]

(The City needs to stop allowing) these streets that aren't connected in a grid, and are too far apart. We need to return to the traditional street grid, which was innovative because it's the most efficient way to group housing, and move traffic and pedestrians.

Creeks and gullies are no excuse to making a traditional street grid. The city evolved before having to contend with creeks and gullies.

I am not disagreeing with this thought. The grid is important and a rigid grid is a fine template, but grids do not have to be rigid to work well, they just have to be scaled well with consistent connectivity. The grid can curve and adjust to the topography to allow for better lot grading and opportunities to use these swales/gullies/creeks to provide better ecosystem connectivity and a trail system that can support different types of transportation/recreation corridors. Transportation options are good. I would want the grid to cross these streamway corridors with regularity to increase access to the trail and connectivity across it, but perhaps a road network that adjusts for topography will allow more riparian area preservation (versus reconstruction or putting in a pipe).

One of my favorite “Main Streets” is Galena, Ill. The main street cranks several times along the historic section and it is quite lovely. I would also argue that the curved grid mastered by JC Nichols is about as good as it gets for residential neighborhoods.

[flyingember]

Take a building with 40 studio units of 600 sq ft. Reduce the size of those units 450 sq ft you now have 53 units, 13 people, or more, living in the same space. Reduce the size to 400 sq ft you have 20 people, or more, living in the same space. Additional people eating out, living it up. Making SFH lots smaller, making apt buildings higher are promoted to increase density, putting more people into a place, "creating density". Making apartments smaller is the same.

when you add units you have to add everything, not just livable space. like you suddenly need more hallways. that alone shows that it's not a 1:1 scale from large to small. So your 40x600 likely becomes 49x450

you also just increased the total cost without an increase in leasable space. kitchen appliances, bathroom, amount of utility work, number of walls getting soundproofing, the number of "front" doors, etc. You can talk about density all you want but if the project won't produce a return then they just won't do it. if they make $1.50/sq ft with either plan but their costs go up by 1.5x because they increased the number of units to build small ones there's going to be a floor on the number of units that will be built with a project

density is laudable but you have major issues with your logic if you think it's that easy

[chrizow]

cancun fiesta moving into huddle house location.

http://www.pitch.com/FastPitch/archives ... e-location

[earthling]

Will miss the S Mexico street counter feel of the current location but glad to see them move into Huddle House over another chain. Street carnitas tacos on Broadway!

[aknowledgeableperson]

Take a building with 40 studio units of 600 sq ft. Reduce the size of those units 450 sq ft you now have 53 units, 13 people, or more, living in the same space. Reduce the size to 400 sq ft you have 20 people, or more, living in the same space. Additional people eating out, living it up. Making SFH lots smaller, making apt buildings higher are promoted to increase density, putting more people into a place, "creating density". Making apartments smaller is the same.

when you add units you have to add everything, not just livable space. like you suddenly need more hallways. that alone shows that it's not a 1:1 scale from large to small. So your 40x600 likely becomes 49x450

you also just increased the total cost without an increase in leasable space. kitchen appliances, bathroom, amount of utility work, number of walls getting soundproofing, the number of "front" doors, etc. You can talk about density all you want but if the project won't produce a return then they just won't do it. if they make $1.50/sq ft with either plan but their costs go up by 1.5x because they increased the number of units to build small ones there's going to be a floor on the number of units that will be built with a project

density is laudable but you have major issues with your logic if you think it's that easy

Your argument doesn't fly that easily. If designed from the beginning you won't necessarily need more hallways. And rent charged and sq ft do not go hand-in-hand (reducing space by 25% won't reduce rent by 25%).

As I said high rise senior housing does it so it can be done. And done to make financial sense.

[longviewmo]

So... Westport. A good location for AKP's super dense project?

[pash]

.

[aknowledgeableperson]

So... Westport. A good location for AKP's super dense project?

Hey, Fang brought up the density topic first.

[flyingember]

Your argument doesn't fly that easily. If designed from the beginning you won't necessarily need more hallways. And rent charged and sq ft do not go hand-in-hand (reducing space by 25% won't reduce rent by 25%).

As I said high rise senior housing does it so it can be done. And done to make financial sense.

that you're ignoring that I didn't say rental rates would go down shows you don't understand what I wrote
I'm not saying it's not physically doable, I'm saying developers won't make smaller units where they could if the finances don't make sense for them. if they can't afford to build dense they won't.

with equal space and a larger vs smaller unit project
the first project will get built because there's less cost to do so which means more profit. they all have kitchen, entrance area, laundry hookup, water heater, air conditioner/heater, etc, doubling the number of units means spending more to put them in.

and the larger the building the quicker things scale up. look at One Light and the size of the central shaft, it's roughly 15-20% the floor space. if the built half as many larger units they could have cut that down in size. if they built smaller they might have needed another fire stair and elevator. so they have a realistic floor on average unit size.

you can not simply scale the units with a size drop. it's not logical.

[KCMax]

http://www.kansascity.com/news/business ... 29965.html

A long dark space in the heart of Westport is being readied for a new restaurant tenant. Louisiana Prime New Orleans Chophouse began working on the 3,500-square-foot former Japanese steakhouse at 556 Westport Road in early 2013. But it never completed construction and the space — between the new AC Hotels by Marriott Kansas City Westport and Freebirds World Burrito — has sat empty.

But new owners took over the Westport Landing shopping center in mid-2014 and are now renovating the space and looking for another restaurant tenant.

They also are in final negotiations for a national restaurant chain that wants to take over a 3,000-square-foot building at 4040 Mill St. for their first area location. The building had been home to a Boston Market before Verizon opened in the space.

SAVE OUR WESTPORT