KCRag Forum

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2019 6:30 pm I like it. Some improvements to 5th and Walnut should go with this that somehow let the streetcar go after it stops at the station vs. having to inch forward 3 feet and stop again.

langosta wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 9:14 pm

normalthings wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 6:54 pm An ordinance was introduced by Councilman Bunch for:

Construction of these improvements at the City Market would open and improve Walnut from 3rd to 5th Streets, to:

• Increase two-way access and parking for weekday shoppers,

• Restore circulation and connectivity for the River Market neighborhood,

• Eliminate current traffic problems,

• Give greater exposure to the eastern market building’s tenants,

• Provide a better space for Market events.

The Market Square would continue to be closed to automobile and truck traffic on weekends.
The total project amount is $2,427,058. Funding for debt service for bonds sold will be paid from annual rents received by the City from the Port Authority for riverfront property.

http://cityclerk.kcmo.org/LiveWeb/Docum ... cpvNDBbXaZ

Are there any plans to renovate the year-round retail buildings/stalls and the dilapidated and pigeon filled overhangs?

The CBC/EPC plan calls for a six-story development that includes 161 apartments, 30,000 square feet of office space and a 3 1/2-level, parking garage with 220 spaces.

kcjak wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2019 11:33 am Arnold, the group doing the green development down the street proposed something larger - 212 apartments (40% affordable), 75K office space and 612 parking spaces with 90+ available for the public during the day. Seems like a much better, green option with more unit, more parking, more office - would like to know why they weren't selected as preferred developer.

JLowe2018 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2019 12:30 pm

kcjak wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2019 11:33 am Arnold, the group doing the green development down the street proposed something larger - 212 apartments (40% affordable), 75K office space and 612 parking spaces with 90+ available for the public during the day. Seems like a much better, green option with more unit, more parking, more office - would like to know why they weren't selected as preferred developer.

My thoughts exactly...in the article it sounded like a much better project. If anyone with an inside scoop knows why, could you please explain?

kcjak wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2019 11:33 am Arnold, the group doing the green development down the street proposed something larger - 212 apartments (40% affordable), 75K office space and 612 parking spaces with 90+ available for the public during the day. Seems like a much better, green option with more unit, more parking, more office - would like to know why they weren't selected as preferred developer.

flyingember wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2019 2:23 pm

kcjak wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2019 11:33 am Arnold, the group doing the green development down the street proposed something larger - 212 apartments (40% affordable), 75K office space and 612 parking spaces with 90+ available for the public during the day. Seems like a much better, green option with more unit, more parking, more office - would like to know why they weren't selected as preferred developer.

Tons of reasons are possible

They may not be able to get a loan for more money to do another project and wanted more incentives. They may not have enough staff to do the work right so they had to charge more to hire workers. They might not like the project terms so they wanted a special deal.

kas1 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2019 3:38 pm I'd be skeptical of anything from Arnold. The only reason 2nd and Delaware actually happened is because a contractor lowballed a bid, built almost half of the project, then tried to renege on the promised price because it wasn't anywhere in the ballpark of reality. Yet for some reason the developer continues to insist that it's viable to build massive concrete bunkers in a market where everyone else is struggling to turn a profit with wood-frame buildings. It's all pretty bizarre to me.