KCRag Forum

Posted: **Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:27 am**

A big part of the problem is that the Historic Kansas City Foundation has yet to recover from the loss of Jane Flynn, who apparently did the work of 10 people. They don't seem to have the capacity to monitor at-risk buildings nor respond swiftly and forcefully when an emergency like the Cosby arises.

Right now there really isn't a good watchdog for the city's historic buildings.

Posted: **Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:48 am**

Except the kcrag forum, apparently... heh.

Posted: **Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:50 am**

mean wrote: Except the kcrag forum, apparently... heh.

But it's a pretty selective watchdog. We haven't done a good job watching out for buildings in Midtown or the East Side, or Old Northeast that haven't been as lucky as the Cosby.

Posted: **Tue Jul 27, 2010 12:53 pm**

Again, I will suggest that Historic Kansas City Foundation isn't effective partly because it doesn't encourage its' membership to be active, but passive observers.

When I contacted them about joining, I was told that members weren't allowed to attend monthly board meetings. Just the board. Members were only allowed to attend one general meeting annually. How can any group be activist when that is their policy?

Basically, as a member, you get a quarterly newsletter.

When was the last time one ever saw the membership of the Historic Kansas City Foundation do a public protest?

How can a group garner public sympathy and action if the group is unwilling to be vocal and visible?

http://historickansascity.org/index.php ... &Itemid=70

Yes, Jane Flynn was great and appreciated. However, such a group should never have to depend on one person like that.

Posted: **Tue Jul 27, 2010 12:58 pm**

Sounds like the foundation may have been co-opted!

Posted: **Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:50 am**

I noticed that all of the windows have been removed from the building. I hope this is a prelude to imminent replacement, does anyone know? (I have this disturbing vision of the owner leaving the structure open to the elements for a few months then once again acting as if he's a passive and surprised bystander as the building condition deteriorates a bit further and we rehash this whole crisis yet again).

Posted: **Mon Aug 02, 2010 10:43 am**

Reminds me of the Hawthorne Plaza Apartment building at 39th and Main. It has so many open windows.

Posted: **Mon Aug 02, 2010 11:24 am**

HalcyonKC wrote: I noticed that all of the windows have been removed from the building. I hope this is a prelude to imminent replacement, does anyone know? (I have this disturbing vision of the owner leaving the structure open to the elements for a few months then once again acting as if he's a passive and surprised bystander as the building condition deteriorates a bit further and we rehash this whole crisis yet again).

the windows were removed as soon as the original demo permit was issued (and that demo has since been postponed). i assume the window glass will have to be replaced at some point if the building is to be stabilized.

Posted: **Mon Aug 02, 2010 12:00 pm**

Or they will board them up.

Posted: **Sat Aug 28, 2010 7:32 am**

YIKES!

http://www.kansascity.com/2010/08/27/21 ... lding.html

Owner Rick Powell said Friday that he had hired Industrial Wrecking, a demolition company, and expected work to begin in a ?week or so.?

Posted: **Sat Aug 28, 2010 8:12 am**

What a dick! There are always options. What can be done?

Posted: **Sat Aug 28, 2010 8:13 am**

This completely unmasks any pretense whatsoever about the owner wanting to save the building. He wants the lot for parking and that's it. Asshole.

Posted: **Sat Aug 28, 2010 8:59 am**

When I am mayor I am putting an additional huge tax on unused buildings and surface parking lots. Make these owners use their land.

Posted: **Sat Aug 28, 2010 10:04 am**

So, what are the options? Can the council do anything? Could the city not issue a demo permit? Can this guy be shamed publically? Does he have clients or partners that would rather not be associated with this sort of thing? How much money does he need to go away?

Posted: **Sat Aug 28, 2010 10:07 am**

grovester wrote: So, what are the options? Can the council do anything? Could the city not issue a demo permit? Can this guy be shamed publically? Does he have clients or partners that would rather not be associated with this sort of thing? How much money does he need to go away?

Perhaps someone should point out to him that with Key Bank leaving and AMC considering a Plaza location, the demand for parking downtown could be dropping significantly in the coming months.

Posted: **Sat Aug 28, 2010 10:07 am**

I fear our only recourse is to tickle him until he agrees to not demo.

Posted: **Sat Aug 28, 2010 10:09 am**

I believe public humiliation may be the best and only option. However, it will likely only happen after the fact, which is too late and amounts only to revenge, making it kinda worthless, but fun, nonetheless.

I, of course, will deny knowing anything.

Posted: **Sat Aug 28, 2010 10:18 am**

taxi wrote: I believe public humiliation may be the best and only option. However, it will likely only happen after the fact, which is too late and amounts only to revenge, making it kinda worthless, but fun, nonetheless.

I, of course, will deny knowing anything.

Unfortunately, unless it is a cherished and well-known building like the P&L building or Union Station, the public at large is going to see the demolition as progress and the owner as a hero. Public humiliation is not going to be a factor.

Posted: **Sat Aug 28, 2010 11:55 am**

Highlander wrote: Unfortunately, unless it is a cherished and well-known building like the P&L building or Union Station the Balcony Building, the public at large is going to see the demolition as progress and the owner as a hero. Public humiliation is not going to be a factor.

Posted: **Sat Aug 28, 2010 12:02 pm**

Rick Powell states that no solid proposal has emerged to acquire the building. Granted, he only allowed one month to pass since the previous go-round on this and is clearly chomping at the bit to tear it down. But setting that aside and just looking at the numbers, I don't see why saving this building (from him, for now) isn't eminently doable?

The Jackson County property tax roll values the Cosby at $300,000. Additionally I see that there is roughly a $10,000 yearly property tax liability on the parcel.

Anyway, $300K is the same value as a reasonably nice loft or house. Is it naive of me to plunk this number into an amortization calculator and come up with a monthly payment to save the building? 6%, 30 years on 300K comes up to about $1800 per month. Plop $900 per month on top of that and $2700 per month would at least get the building out of Powell's hands. Then, our new theoretical owner-entity would worry about stabilization costs while looking for a permanent buyer.

To spread the costs around and pull funds in, a designated 503b charity could be set up to handle this--or just set up a designated account at an existing 503b. The goal wouldn't be to own the building forever, just to stabilize the structure and bridge ownership to someone who will accept "historic" designation and be a responsible steward going forward, however long it takes to find such a buyer.

So, what am I missing?

KCRag Forum

900 Baltimore Ave.

Re: 900 Baltimore Ave.

Re: 900 Baltimore Ave.

Re: 900 Baltimore Ave.

Re: 900 Baltimore Ave.

Re: 900 Baltimore Ave.

Re: 900 Baltimore Ave.

Re: 900 Baltimore Ave.

Re: 900 Baltimore Ave.

Re: 900 Baltimore Ave.

Re: 900 Baltimore Ave.

Re: 900 Baltimore Ave.

Re: 900 Baltimore Ave.

Re: 900 Baltimore Ave.

Re: 900 Baltimore Ave.

Re: 900 Baltimore Ave.

Re: 900 Baltimore Ave.

Re: 900 Baltimore Ave.

Re: 900 Baltimore Ave.

Re: 900 Baltimore Ave.

Re: 900 Baltimore Ave.