KCRag Forum

kenrbnj wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 8:53 am

normalthings wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2020 7:24 pm

horizons82 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2020 6:19 pm I'm suspicious that this is anything more than a vaporware rendering for the seller; not a plug & play development plan. A glance at the zoning map still shows this as still manufacturing. A zoning change isn't a big hurdle for any buyer but does indicate a lack of seriousness on the part of the current landowner.

Any residential-only project in the area is going to be subject to parking requirements (about 1 block too far from streetcar area). That's the biggest issue.

As proposed it is doable for Arnold. Doesn’t make much sense for anyone else besides RM West or Market Station to pick up.

In theory, one could make a piece of property with a derelict property more valuable by acquiring permits, then packaging the shooting-match for a "Flip".

Very aggravating. Cities throughout the country should "bind" zoning/variances/incentives to a given project with a given developer.

Can you explain more on why you don't think that it should be allowed? From my POV, it allows "poor" and unconnected people a path into real estate. I know multiple people who do this who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford to be in development. Some of our bigger downtown projects in the works Alle and Tracks 215 are following this model. The Loews hotel ended up doing the same too.

normalthings wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 10:24 am

kenrbnj wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 8:53 am

normalthings wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2020 7:24 pm
As proposed it is doable for Arnold. Doesn’t make much sense for anyone else besides RM West or Market Station to pick up.

In theory, one could make a piece of property with a derelict property more valuable by acquiring permits, then packaging the shooting-match for a "Flip".

Very aggravating. Cities throughout the country should "bind" zoning/variances/incentives to a given project with a given developer.

Can you explain more on why you don't think that it should be allowed? From my POV, it allows "poor" and unconnected people a path into real estate. I know multiple people who do this who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford to be in development. Some of our bigger downtown projects in the works Alle and Tracks 215 are following this model. The Loews hotel ended up doing the same too.

Yes, positively I can state two explicit reasons:

Reason #1: Many such properties tie-up the city's planning/zoning commission with a purely speculative development lacking the intrinsic capital to realize the development. Such developments subsequently fails to see light-of-day.

Reason #2: The subject properties tend to be placed into a penalty box: The property is encumbered by the flipping process; the property rots.

Unconnected people do have other options to gain a foothold: Start modestly. Work through a JV. Buy and incrementally upgrade a property. Establish a name in an "up and coming" district.

However gaining a foothold at the expense of the city and residents at-large is a bad option.

kenrbnj wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 11:34 am

normalthings wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 10:24 am

kenrbnj wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 8:53 am

In theory, one could make a piece of property with a derelict property more valuable by acquiring permits, then packaging the shooting-match for a "Flip".

Very aggravating. Cities throughout the country should "bind" zoning/variances/incentives to a given project with a given developer.

Can you explain more on why you don't think that it should be allowed? From my POV, it allows "poor" and unconnected people a path into real estate. I know multiple people who do this who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford to be in development. Some of our bigger downtown projects in the works Alle and Tracks 215 are following this model. The Loews hotel ended up doing the same too.

Yes, positively I can state two explicit reasons:

Reason #1: Many such properties tie-up the city's planning/zoning commission with a purely speculative development lacking the intrinsic capital to realize the development. Such developments subsequently fails to see light-of-day.

Reason #2: The subject properties tend to be placed into a penalty box: The property is encumbered by the flipping process; the property rots.

Unconnected people do have other options to gain a foothold: Start modestly. Work through a JV. Buy and incrementally upgrade a property. Establish a name in an "up and coming" district.

However gaining a foothold at the expense of the city and residents at-large is a bad option.

That makes sense and I can see it being a big issue in stronger markets. However, that seems like a non-issue here in KC. Many of our actual developers take years to get stuff going anyways. This model isn't really far off in timeline or pros/cons from what Copaken Brooks and others are already doing. In fact, it appears our propose then sell developers are actually fasters than traditional developers here. Tracks 215, for example, was on the fast track with an outside developer pre-corona.

Development plans reviews, etc are paid for by the proposer anyways.

That makes sense and I can see it being a big issue in stronger markets. However, that seems like a non-issue here in KC. Many of our actual developers take years to get stuff going anyways. This model isn't really far off in timeline or pros/cons from what Copaken Brooks and others are already doing. In fact, it appears our propose then sell developers are actually fasters than traditional developers here. Tracks 215, for example, was on the fast track with an outside developer pre-corona.

Development plans reviews, etc are paid for by the proposer anyways.



As much as I love the KC area -- and the downtown in-particular; the biggest gripe is the duration for a development.

A true "on-spec" building is a rare bird in the CBD. The market is decidedly conservative to the point of fault*. The ultra-conservative posture within the city drove any spec development into the far-reaching suburbs, perpetuating the metropolitan sprawl. Had KC's population been in Europe, for example; the land-mass assigned to the city would be reduced by over a half; I firmly believe.

The days when Todd Ehney and his Executive Hills Redevelopment Corporation were going strong; building One Kansas City and Executive Hills North left a persistent, sour taste in the development market subsequent to their bust.

The most onerous examples is Opus: They made their on-spec investment at 151st street. 20+ miles south of the CBD on a decidedly rural tract. Who does that crap?

Anyhow. There are signs of loosening. 13th and Wynd and Strata suggest there is hope. My confidence at 14th and Grand seeing light-of-day is low.

* When I lived there, I was in startup engineering/technology companies. The chief complaint by corporate leadership was reluctance to lend to start-ups/small businesses -- due to an overly conservative lending posture. My hunch is such lending standards have loosened only somewhat.


Anyhow. End of rant.

Ashland groundbreaking expected this month

Anyone know what’s going on with the old river market cyclery building it sold back in 2016 when the bike store closed right?

Riverite wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2020 12:10 pm Anyone know what’s going on with the old river market cyclery building it sold back in 2016 when the bike store closed right?

Is this the same owner?

Third & Grand Properties LLC
120 S Central Ave
Clayton, MO 63105

DaveKCMO wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2020 12:16 pm

Riverite wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2020 12:10 pm Anyone know what’s going on with the old river market cyclery building it sold back in 2016 when the bike store closed right?

Is this the same owner?

Third & Grand Properties LLC
120 S Central Ave
Clayton, MO 63105

I think so yeah. I saw it closed and found this old star article about someone buying it after the owner retired, but it didn’t mention who bought it. I also couldn’t find anything about it here except in passing.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.kansas ... 73257.html

I believe the new owner is somehow related to the folks who own the Chinatown Food Market.

taxi wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2020 3:52 pm I believe the new owner is somehow related to the folks who own the Chinatown Food Market.

I wonder if they plan to do anything with it.

5th & Main development is moving forward. Final draft of the agreement is out for council review.

^Remind me what's proposed here. Is it residential over public garage?

Not specified in that agreement that i could see. Required to build 450 space garage with 168 of the space dedicated to public parking.

normalthings wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2020 1:47 pm 5th & Main development is moving forward. Final draft of the agreement is out for council review.

I've forgotten, is this the lot west of Minsky's or across 5th Street from Minsky's?

scooterj wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2020 2:15 pm

normalthings wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2020 1:47 pm 5th & Main development is moving forward. Final draft of the agreement is out for council review.

I've forgotten, is this the lot west of Minsky's or across 5th Street from Minsky's?

West of minsky’s

normalthings wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2020 1:47 pm 5th & Main development is moving forward. Final draft of the agreement is out for council review.

Before committee this week. Agreement includes stipulations for public parking, affordable housing, a public RFP process, an no city incentives allowed.

Dave's post in crossroads reminded me, the KC Taco Co parklet is massive, well done, and I don't see them wanting to give it up anytime soon.

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 12:22 pm Dave's post in crossroads reminded me, the KC Taco Co parklet is massive, well done, and I don't see them wanting to give it up anytime soon.

The city would be foolish to let this program expire on 12/31/20.

Make them permanent so they get fancier! I love the idea.

But where will I park?