DColeKC wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 3:33 pm
Yes, 1000 square foot of interior, ground level retail space is far more valuable than 1000 square foot of space in a park in Kansas City. People who live in smaller downtown apartments want to get outside with their dogs, not into a concrete, windowless room with murals on the walls. Do you really expect people from Two Light and eventually Four Light to leave their building and enter another building in order to let their dogs run and take a piss?
Who said anything about ground-level retail space? I've said multiple times that it should go on top of the garage, or if covered, inside the garage. That means replacing parking spots or amenities that weren't important enough to include in Two Light, or not replace anything, really, because it could have been included in the design from the beginning. If it isn't valuable enough for that then it isn't valuable enough to put in the $200+ million park across the street.
DColeKC wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 3:33 pm
Do you really expect people from Two Light to leave their building
A. Why wouldn't they use the honky tube? B. Your plan is to force everyone to leave their buildings. And cross at least one street.
DColeKC wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 3:33 pm
You really think the city would turn away a developer willing to put 100 million into a project over the simple idea of cordish wanting the possibly make 1.7% of the project private space?
I don't doubt for a second that city hall is willing to say that in private conversations. What I'm saying is that as soon as that goes public, the Star's editorial board will freak out, KC citizens will freak out, which means city council will freak out, and any money the city is bringing to the table will be jeopardized. I mean, that should be pretty clear to anyone that's ever paid attention to the politics in this city.
And, BTW, that's not turning away the developer. I'm sure everyone in the city would be more than okay if Cordish was willing to bring the rest of the money to the table.