KCRag Forum

The last show was in their rehearsal studio and it was very difficult to see and appreciate the full production.

DaveKCMO wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 2:33 pm The last show was in their rehearsal studio and it was very difficult to see and appreciate the full production.

Agree. This could be a good thing for them and lead to a more permanent situation. They're talented enough to put on a few different themed shows each year.

I have heard chatter that companies are interviewing for construction of a large high rise crown center office project. I am assuming it’s the same project as previously mentioned here earlier this summer, and if so, it seems like a good sign that it might be progressing beyond “wishful thinking” rendering stage to nearing reality.

Cheffreygo wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 9:27 pm I have heard chatter that companies are interviewing for construction of a large high rise crown center office project. I am assuming it’s the same project as previously mentioned here earlier this summer, and if so, it seems like a good sign that it might be progressing beyond “wishful thinking” rendering stage to nearing reality.

New players have started to get interested in KC Highrise projects which IMHO is a great sign.

I know we all (mostly) like the idea of a new highrise as an attractive addition to the skyline...plus they're just cool feats of construction and engineering. However, is anyone else concerned that concentrating development in highrises is like to soak up available demand in just a few spots and leave us still holding vast parking wastelands with no development? Would it be better to restrict building height with the goal of promoting development of dense, walkable neighborhoods of medium height buildings. Just a thought, and I'm not really of one mind or the other on this issue. I just sometimes think about how many 6 story buildings we could have versus one 30 story and the attendant parking needs, etc.

smh wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 9:35 am I know we all (mostly) like the idea of a new highrise as an attractive addition to the skyline...plus they're just cool feats of construction and engineering. However, is anyone else concerned that concentrating development in highrises is like to soak up available demand in just a few spots and leave us still holding vast parking wastelands with no development? Would it be better to restrict building height with the goal of promoting development of dense, walkable neighborhoods of medium height buildings. Just a thought, and I'm not really of one mind or the other on this issue. I just sometimes think about how many 6 story buildings we could have versus one 30 story and the attendant parking needs, etc.

Under private property rights if we implement this kind of limit it still wouldn't make someone develop on a surface lot.

smh wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 9:35 am I know we all (mostly) like the idea of a new highrise as an attractive addition to the skyline...plus they're just cool feats of construction and engineering. However, is anyone else concerned that concentrating development in highrises is like to soak up available demand in just a few spots and leave us still holding vast parking wastelands with no development? Would it be better to restrict building height with the goal of promoting development of dense, walkable neighborhoods of medium height buildings. Just a thought, and I'm not really of one mind or the other on this issue. I just sometimes think about how many 6 story buildings we could have versus one 30 story and the attendant parking needs, etc.

I'm more supportive of height minimums than maximums. By spreading this out it requires more infrastructure to support and lower tax revenue per ac to the govt. Yes to dense, walkable neighborhoods as well, and definitely no to mega-blocks not accessible and that make the streetscape look like some concrete wasteland, but I think in the CBD high-rises are beneficial to the community.

alejandro46 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 1:27 pm

smh wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 9:35 am I know we all (mostly) like the idea of a new highrise as an attractive addition to the skyline...plus they're just cool feats of construction and engineering. However, is anyone else concerned that concentrating development in highrises is like to soak up available demand in just a few spots and leave us still holding vast parking wastelands with no development? Would it be better to restrict building height with the goal of promoting development of dense, walkable neighborhoods of medium height buildings. Just a thought, and I'm not really of one mind or the other on this issue. I just sometimes think about how many 6 story buildings we could have versus one 30 story and the attendant parking needs, etc.

I'm more supportive of height minimums than maximums. By spreading this out it requires more infrastructure to support and lower tax revenue per ac to the govt. Yes to dense, walkable neighborhoods as well, and definitely no to mega-blocks not accessible and that make the streetscape look like some concrete wasteland, but I think in the CBD high-rises are beneficial to the community.

Shorter buildings also makes it harder for developers to spread land costs over more units.

Shorter buildings can also be harder to implement parking into unless you bulldoze the entire block.

normalthings wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 2:09 pm

alejandro46 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 1:27 pm

smh wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 9:35 am I know we all (mostly) like the idea of a new highrise as an attractive addition to the skyline...plus they're just cool feats of construction and engineering. However, is anyone else concerned that concentrating development in highrises is like to soak up available demand in just a few spots and leave us still holding vast parking wastelands with no development? Would it be better to restrict building height with the goal of promoting development of dense, walkable neighborhoods of medium height buildings. Just a thought, and I'm not really of one mind or the other on this issue. I just sometimes think about how many 6 story buildings we could have versus one 30 story and the attendant parking needs, etc.

I'm more supportive of height minimums than maximums. By spreading this out it requires more infrastructure to support and lower tax revenue per ac to the govt. Yes to dense, walkable neighborhoods as well, and definitely no to mega-blocks not accessible and that make the streetscape look like some concrete wasteland, but I think in the CBD high-rises are beneficial to the community.

Shorter buildings also makes it harder for developers to spread land costs over more units.

Shorter buildings can also be harder to implement parking into unless you bulldoze the entire block.

I agree with most of this, and its really just a thought exercise, but it seems like shorter cities are often livelier (obviously not the rule). But I think often of Portland which has a height cap, albeit something like 350 feet.

smh wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 2:21 pm

normalthings wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 2:09 pm

alejandro46 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 1:27 pm

I'm more supportive of height minimums than maximums. By spreading this out it requires more infrastructure to support and lower tax revenue per ac to the govt. Yes to dense, walkable neighborhoods as well, and definitely no to mega-blocks not accessible and that make the streetscape look like some concrete wasteland, but I think in the CBD high-rises are beneficial to the community.

Shorter buildings also makes it harder for developers to spread land costs over more units.

Shorter buildings can also be harder to implement parking into unless you bulldoze the entire block.

I agree with most of this, and its really just a thought exercise, but it seems like shorter cities are often livelier (obviously not the rule). But I think often of Portland which has a height cap, albeit something like 350 feet.

In my experience shorter cities make it work because they have great transit that reduces or removes the parking problem. On the flip side, short but dense cities like DC and Europe tend to suffer from high housing prices that result in their legal inability to build up.

Conventional wisdom is to let market forces -- not arbitrary aesthetic mandate -- govern what becomes built.

"Synthetic Scarcity" and other gimmicks tend to introduce unintended consequences. Surface parking lots can be addressed with other carrots and sticks: For example, tax the land at a higher rate than the improvement. Thus, the surface parking lot will be squeezed into considering structured parking or -- <gasp!> an office building.

Another consideration: Bring outside developers into the mix. Consider Copaken-Brooks has amassed a large stock of land, most recently the BOE building. They "sit on it", blocking outside developers from participation in redevelopment. How does this hurt? Because Copaken EXTORTS the city for TIF incentives and other gimmicks; suggesting "blight". Sure, guys. It's blighted since you own many of the unimproved properties.

That said, Crown Center would be well served to add a new development. The last one was 2555 Grand in 2001. It's time.

kenrbnj wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 3:31 pm Consider Copaken-Brooks has amassed a large stock of land, most recently the BOE building. They "sit on it", blocking outside developers from participation in redevelopment. How does this hurt? Because Copaken EXTORTS the city for TIF incentives and other gimmicks; suggesting "blight". Sure, guys. It's blighted since you own many of the unimproved properties.

This is way too true. Landlords or building owners will fail at upkeep and recruiting new tenants, and then wait for years until gasp, it's blighted now better get some TIF to perform development they should be paying for. I'm looking at you Intercontinental Hotel and a few other shopping centers throughout the city. I'm definitely supportive of good TIF; but not to encourage rent-seeking and it instead should be used for (1) increased density especially along transit, (2) historical renovation or (3) affordable housing.

alejandro46 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 3:45 pm This is way too true. Landlords or building owners will fail at upkeep and recruiting new tenants, and then wait for years until gasp, it's blighted now better get some TIF to perform development they should be paying for. I'm looking at you Intercontinental Hotel and a few other shopping centers throughout the city. I'm definitely supportive of good TIF; but not to encourage rent-seeking and it instead should be used for (1) increased density especially along transit, (2) historical renovation or (3) affordable housing.

Which is why there should be a time limit on how often a building can get TIF, perhaps double the time of the original TIF, or a set number of years, 50 years?

kenrbnj wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 3:31 pm That said, Crown Center would be well served to add a new development. The last one was 2555 Grand in 2001. It's time.

Jesus, It's been almost 20 years since a large building has been built in Crown Center. I know development is slow paced at Crown Center, but that's crazy since it's been one of the better office markets for KC.

The most recent focus was to market the 2400-2480 buildings that Hallmark vacated over the past few years as well as the lots being developed by Gallerie and Artistry. Maybe CCED isn't able to juggle more balls than that at one time.

kcjak wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:34 am The most recent focus was to market the 2400-2480 buildings that Hallmark vacated over the past few years as well as the lots being developed by Gallerie and Artistry. Maybe CCED isn't able to juggle more balls than that at one time.

A few years ago I looked into opportunities at CCRD. Through that, I learned the real estate department of Hallmark/CCRD only has 2 employees. That's not enough to juggle a single ball at one time. They are set up to manage what's left under their control and to sell off the reamining land to other developers - not to develop anything themselves.

moderne wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:19 am Overheard at Hall's: something about Quixotic moving into the old American Heartland Theater?

The show is now up and running. Definitely worth checking out. https://sensatiakc.com/

2345 Grand Renovation Renderings









https://www.helixkc.com/project/2345-gr ... evelopment

Cheffreygo wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 9:27 pm I have heard chatter that companies are interviewing for construction of a large high rise crown center office project. I am assuming it’s the same project as previously mentioned here earlier this summer, and if so, it seems like a good sign that it might be progressing beyond “wishful thinking” rendering stage to nearing reality.

Any updates?

Crown Center seems to get busier and busier every year. The incremental updates such as removing the 1st floor display case and adding Unforked, Spin, and Einstein’s has helped to modernize some areas.

However it still feels very dated when you reach deeper into the shopping area, visit a restroom, or use the stairs. Establishments like Fritzs feel dated and in need of a paint job and deep cleaning.