KCRag Forum

KCPowercat wrote:So I misunderstood your post....I thought you were saying the mixed use development isn't happening....but what I hear now is it is going to happen they just need to take lane down now to fix problems in the interim?

yeah, apologies for the confusion. i'm told lane will probably come down before the development is ready to start.

Maybe they should publish those plans to make us feel better first?

that was my very direct advice to them.

Keep in mind that a lot of buildings have come down for development plans that never happened. Be skeptical.

The Save the Lane Facebook page is reporting that the owners of the building have requested demolition-related permits.

http://kivaweb.kcmo.org/kivanet/2/land/ ... pin=122652

FangKC wrote:The Save the Lane Facebook page is reporting that the owners of the building have requested demolition-related permits.

http://kivaweb.kcmo.org/kivanet/2/land/ ... pin=122652

Hypothetical

What project would be acceptable to get in exchange for tearing it down?

If it's a good project, come out with the plans prior to demolition.

grovester wrote:If it's a good project, come out with the plans prior to demolition.

that's what i told them.

flyingember wrote:

FangKC wrote:The Save the Lane Facebook page is reporting that the owners of the building have requested demolition-related permits.

http://kivaweb.kcmo.org/kivanet/2/land/ ... pin=122652

Hypothetical

What project would be acceptable to get in exchange for tearing it down?

I have a low bar: not a (wood) stick-frame building and not yet another NSPJ design

Dave, have you seen the plans? Would the urbanists of KC be happy with it?

flyingember wrote:

FangKC wrote:The Save the Lane Facebook page is reporting that the owners of the building have requested demolition-related permits.

http://kivaweb.kcmo.org/kivanet/2/land/ ... pin=122652

Hypothetical

What project would be acceptable to get in exchange for tearing it down?

One that gets rid of all the surface parking next to it, hopefully.

they have given me no details, other than "residential" and it would cover the entire space.

I have no doubt it will happen but a shame the couldn't work it into the plan like hotel Midwest

i just don't want it to be surface lot for five years. given what i've observed, that's the most likely outcome.

Not to go off on too much of a tangent but when exactly is City Club apartments supposed to break ground? I thought financing was lined up and they were looking at a fall groundbreaking.

JBmidtown wrote:Not to go off on too much of a tangent but when exactly is City Club apartments supposed to break ground? I thought financing was lined up and they were looking at a fall groundbreaking.

I've been following the permits on KIVA for this property and everything went quiet in the middle of August. A lot of their permits were getting denied on their building plan review and most of the issues seemed contingent on an alley being vacated. Hopefully they just have to have N/S alley in the middle of the block vacated for things to continue. You'd think with the city getting so good at vacating streets that this would be a breeze.

KCDowntown

It would be a shame for a building this old to be demolished, even if it isn't an architectural marvel. Seems like at least the facade could be preserved

Where's Mary Jo Draper and her development moratorium crew now?

Critical_Mass wrote:
I have a low bar: not a (wood) stick-frame building and not yet another NSPJ design

Dave, have you seen the plans? Would the urbanists of KC be happy with it?

The height of the building is going to dictate whether it's wood frame. But what does it matter if it's stick frame? If it's residential and under 6 stories, there's a good chance that's what makes financial sense. If there's a commercial component to the building, then that's going to dictate a non-lumber frame for that area. It's a non-issue. They just need to hurry up and build the damn thing.

I wish the City would stop granting demolition permits on buildings that old UNTIL the developer has an architectural rending, and proven, approved financing to build their "proposed" project. This information should be provided to both the City, and the media, before a demolition is approved. Then, there should also be a penalty applied if the building is demolished, and nothing happens for five years. Call it a "heritage loss tax." The proceeds from these penalties would go into a preservation fund that would help do facade improvements, or structural stabilization, on historic structures.

There should be some shaming process involved if the developer demolishes a building, and then doesn't replace it for years. It should be a website, and a printed feature in the newspaper, called Developer Hall of Shame. They forever remain on this website for past misdeeds--even if they do other development projects elsewhere. It would be like having a criminal record.

There would be exceptions for dangerous buildings of course. However, they could still end up on this Hall of Shame list if the city had cited them over several years for basic lack of building maintenance (roof) that contributed to the building falling into the dangerous category.

If property owners are sitting on property for speculation purposes, but allowing it to fall into disrepair and dangerous condition, there should be some penalty other than fines. Public shaming seems appropriate. Especially if they are getting offers for their property, but holding out for a big payday that may never come.

FangKC wrote:I wish the City would stop granting demolition permits on buildings that old UNTIL the developer has an architectural rending, and proven, approved financing to build their "proposed" project.

I don't disagree with you on principle, but practically speaking there's no way the city could enforce this. Private property rights allow a property owner to do anything they want with their property, including tearing down and doing nothing.

There's no requirement a tear down result in a new project.

All that's required is the owner maintain the property to the standards of their chosen use.

Land being more valuable in denser areas, this is why I have floated ideas about having a land special assessment in KC that is based on surrounding density. If your property is within a block of three multi-million dollar 14-story properties your new parking lot would be taxed based on the overall density of the surrounding area. Your direct property value tax will go down but the special assessment won't and your parking lot will need to charge a ton to afford it and wouldn't be a good use. It would discourage teardowns of buildings except in areas with nothing around and encourage people to convert lots to bigger uses as density increases around them. Moving outward in this idea, a bunch of single family homes would increase the taxes of an empty lot in a suburban area so tearing down a dangerous building wouldn't dramatically decrease taxes.

DaveKCMO wrote:i just don't want it to be surface lot for five years. given what i've observed, that's the most likely outcome.

Ugh. It looks like you are right.

https://cityscenekc.com/historic-crossr ... ment-site/

The owner eventually wants to build something there, but it will probably be at least 5 years, and it will be parking for now. He says that they "could" put a 15 story tower there, which means they almost certainly are actually planning something much less ambitious.

just when you think that this city is becoming a real city, things like this happen. You don't tear this down without a plan to replace it.