KCRag Forum

Aren't they the counter movement to a pretty substantial development machine?

A reasonable incentives/TIF compromise is for broader public benefit requirements on the ground floor of buildings that ask for significant incentives/TIF... public market, library, public rec center and even city functions such as KCPD or CID foot patrol center, vehicle registration - lots of public services could be placed at base of any new significant building. Canadian cities do this and contributes to community activity. It may not appease all anti-TIFrs but probably enough to sway council. And it would give much more life to these buildings rather than potentially becoming isolated islands. More life than just a retail spot as well.

Would not hold my breath that anything will ever be built between this building and 27th. The family that owns Fidelity has an edifice complex and also wants the northward view that the slight jog in Main provides. If they own all the parcel it will remain an empty lawn to protect their view shed.
Interesting the Pei Cobb and Freid are architects and will have three KC buildings all lined up. Cobb(r.i.p.) said when he designed the other Crown Center building that he was more interested in framing the Liberty Memorial than making a statement building. Probably will have some stone/masonry cladding as do the other 2 Cobb buildings and most of Crown Center. The present Fidelity building is slathered in marble.

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 2:12 pm Aren't they the counter movement to a pretty substantial development machine?

The little development collaboration that there is is losing and starting to lose by a large margin.

I don't think the anti tif people would agree with that at all. I don't think I do either.

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 3:06 pm I don't think the anti tif people would agree with that at all. I don't think I do either.

TIF will be phased out in the next 5-10 years and we’ll be talking about rent controls. There is no way that 5 or 10 developers can fight against a growing anti-TIF population including public school boards and activist groups that protest in front of the mayors office and disrupt council meetings. They’ll give in to demands.

beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 3:38 pm

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 3:06 pm I don't think the anti tif people would agree with that at all. I don't think I do either.

TIF will be phased out in the next 5-10 years and we’ll be talking about rent controls. There is no way that 5 or 10 developers can fight against a growing anti-TIF population including public school boards and activist groups that protest in front of the mayors office and disrupt council meetings. They’ll give in to demands.

Incentives for residential have been phased out functionally. Hotel probably too and it appears that office has quickly become the next target.

Development interest in NKC (among the suburbs in general) is picking up steam and its no surprise why that is.

earthling wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 2:44 pm A reasonable incentives/TIF compromise is for broader public benefit requirements on the ground floor of buildings that ask for significant incentives/TIF... public market, library, public rec center and even city functions such as KCPD or CID foot patrol center, vehicle registration - lots of public services could be placed at base of any new significant building. Canadian cities do this and contributes to community activity. It may not appease all anti-TIFrs but probably enough to sway council. And it would give much more life to these buildings rather than potentially becoming isolated islands. More life than just a retail spot as well.

I think a lot of residents would be happy giving up having a library, rec. center, public plazas, retail spaces in TIFed buildings if the developers would just contribute more to school districts, and funding to existing libraries, etc.

I can't speak for all of them though. Some people are just determined not to be pleased.

beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 3:38 pm

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 3:06 pm I don't think the anti tif people would agree with that at all. I don't think I do either.

TIF will be phased out in the next 5-10 years and we’ll be talking about rent controls. There is no way that 5 or 10 developers can fight against a growing anti-TIF population including public school boards and activist groups that protest in front of the mayors office and disrupt council meetings. They’ll give in to demands.

There has always been a problem with education about how TIF funding works. The vast majority of residents who protest TIF don't appear to understand how it works, or that many TIF projects do benefit the City more financially than if the project didn't happen. They often decry the developers getting rich, when many projects only make a modest profit required to get bank financing. They also seem to forget that developers work to make money just as they do in their jobs. Do they not expect to be paid for their work?

I don't know what to do to please them. The very same people I see complaining about TIF are also complaining about lack of retail and jobs near their homes. I hear parents complaining about their kids leaving the Metro to take jobs elsewhere, but they don't make any connection to how their own anti-development sentiments discourage businesses locating in KCMO, or the greater metro. The ones who live in the suburbs--who want KCMO to suffer--don't seem to understand that KCMO is the face of the Metro. KCMO is what investors and business owners see when they make decisions about placing jobs here.

FangKC wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 5:57 pm

earthling wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 2:44 pm A reasonable incentives/TIF compromise is for broader public benefit requirements on the ground floor of buildings that ask for significant incentives/TIF... public market, library, public rec center and even city functions such as KCPD or CID foot patrol center, vehicle registration - lots of public services could be placed at base of any new significant building. Canadian cities do this and contributes to community activity. It may not appease all anti-TIFrs but probably enough to sway council. And it would give much more life to these buildings rather than potentially becoming isolated islands. More life than just a retail spot as well.

I think a lot of residents would be happy giving up having a library, rec. center, public plazas, retail spaces in TIFed buildings if the developers would just contribute more to school districts, and funding to existing libraries, etc.

I can't speak for all of them though. Some people are just determined not to be pleased.

As mentioned, it's about convincing council members in the end, not anti-TIFrs. It would be a compromise that also builds up better public services within the streetscape.

FWIW, this looks a bit more like the sketchup I drew after the first design. So at least they seem to have heard feedback.

earthling wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 2:44 pm A reasonable incentives/TIF compromise is for broader public benefit requirements on the ground floor of buildings that ask for significant incentives/TIF... public market, library, public rec center and even city functions such as KCPD or CID foot patrol center, vehicle registration - lots of public services could be placed at base of any new significant building. Canadian cities do this and contributes to community activity. It may not appease all anti-TIFrs but probably enough to sway council. And it would give much more life to these buildings rather than potentially becoming isolated islands. More life than just a retail spot as well.

^^This^^ is the answer

Incentives on council comm agenda

The other two office buildings on the south side of CC are connected to rest of the complex by enclosed walkways. This could have been connected also if it were to be built on the vacant land just south of Shook Hardy. It would take an enormously long hamster tube to connect this building on its island between Grand and Main.

moderne wrote: ↑Thu Nov 11, 2021 2:25 pm The other two office buildings on the south side of CC are connected to rest of the complex by enclosed walkways. This could have been connected also if it were to be built on the vacant land just south of Shook Hardy. It would take an enormously long hamster tube to connect this building on its island between Grand and Main.

Crown Center does not want to sell that land (yet).

They have hopes of building something owned by CC Redevelopment?

Crown Center has no rush to sell or develop. IIRC, they first bought land in that area 100 years ago. Truly a multi-generational outlook. They selling things off 1 at a time an in a very particular order.

Not every building in the neighborhood needs to be connected with a hamster tube.

Commerce Bank STL co-HQ is moving into new digs in Clayton. $250 million project with 550k sqft office&retail renting for ~$45 per sqft. Almost 100% leased at the same rent rate Fidelity is hoping to charge at their new building near Crown Center. This Crown Center Project is "expensive" by KC standards but is nothing special compared to our peer cities. Really just shows how weak the downtown KC office market has been historically.

KC needs to take a look at what's going on even in St. Louis and push for/incentivize similar.

https://uscd.com/portfolio-items/forsyth-pointe/

We're supposed to have something like that with Strata atleast. I guess we just have to keep waiting on Waddell Reed building to get anything else moving.