Surely Cordish can help out, but this would benefit everyone, not just Cordish though it would sit at the front door of their (our) investment.
Cordish has already agreed to make a very large contribution, but would need help from the city. In return for the investment, I believe cordish would want private control of some of the space, but not a majority by any means. I know as a downtown resident, I would love this green space because while there is some green space located close to PNL, I don't think it's nearly enough.
There are several benefits for Cordish investing. The space for residents and dog parks would be great, but the instant improvement to residential comfort by lowering the traffic noise would be big.
DColeKC wrote: ↑Mon Aug 19, 2019 5:35 pm
Cordish has already agreed to make a very large contribution...
And no one knows what that contribution is, or whether it's in writing. My guess is that it's less than a third of the total $135 million cost and is only a verbal commitment because otherwise it would be a public document.
DColeKC wrote: ↑Mon Aug 19, 2019 5:35 pm
Cordish has already agreed to make a very large contribution...
And no one knows what that contribution is, or whether it's in writing. My guess is that it's less than a third of the total $135 million cost and is only a verbal commitment because otherwise it would be a public document.
Last I was told, it was a verbal commitment and more than a 1/3rd. The more they kick in, the more control over the parks use they're going to want, so I think it's in the cities interest to go 50/50 at minimum.
beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Mon Aug 19, 2019 6:50 pm
Any control by Cordish should have an expiration, perhaps 25 years? I’d hate for this to be an indefinite situation.
I’m not sure they would be able to put a expiration date on a major investor of a project like this, but than again, I wouldn’t be surprised.
A positive is by having Cordish involved, it’s in their best interest to keep the park maintained since it would be somewhat of an amenity to residents. One thing I do is that it will be taken care of by Cordish at a higher standard than if left up to the city.
Does Waddell & Reed HQ change the interest in an I-670 cap?
...
In an interview with the Kansas City Business Journal earlier this month, The Cordish Cos. executive Nick Benjamin advocated for the cap, becoming the most recent developer to give credence to the idea. He said that it made more sense now, given the combination of three elements coming to fruition: the completion of the Loews Hotel, the soon-to-come groundbreaking of Three Light and the proposed $140 million new Waddell & Reed headquarters.
"So as you walk down Truman, you have Two Light, Three Light, Four Light and then the Waddell & Reed site and the convention hotel across from that," he said. "In a really exciting scenario, you build a park over Interstate 670, and you create this amazing boulevard around Truman Road."
Benjamin's comments echo those of Jonathan Tisch, chairman and CEO of Loews Hotels & Co., which is developing the convention center hotel just across the highway from Cordish's apartment towers and the Kansas City Power & Light District. Tisch said earlier this year that putting a deck over the highway system that runs through the area to connect Downtown with nearby neighborhoods will be a crucial next step in its transformation.
...
It looks great, with one major caveat. Why are they so fixated on eliminating walnut over the highway? I don’t get it. You could do plenty of treatments that wouldn’t result in complete removal but still maximize programming/layout. Otherwise I love it.
I don't get the impulse in Kansas City to block through-streets in the downtown loop. I can think of three proposals now that would do that: East Village baseball stadium blocking Charlotte and Holmes; Copaken superblock combining 12th and Grand with Board of Education site--blocking McGee; and now shutting down Walnut across Truman Road.
FangKC wrote: ↑Wed Dec 18, 2019 6:46 pm
I don't get the impulse in Kansas City to block through-streets in the downtown loop. I can think of three proposals now that would do that: East Village baseball stadium blocking Charlotte and Holmes; Copaken superblock combining 12th and Grand with Board of Education site--blocking McGee; and now shutting down Walnut across Truman Road.
At least they are keeping it open to pedestrians. If you were to close a street, do you think that it would be better to close Main? Just like the fountain in downtown Houston, it would make the transit street less of a car thoroughfare which could reduce traffic and decrease travel times.
Main feels like the main car sewer through downtown. IMHO we should shift that to Grand and make Main transit and pedestrian focused.
FangKC wrote: ↑Wed Dec 18, 2019 6:46 pm
I don't get the impulse in Kansas City to block through-streets in the downtown loop. I can think of three proposals now that would do that: East Village baseball stadium blocking Charlotte and Holmes; Copaken superblock combining 12th and Grand with Board of Education site--blocking McGee; and now shutting down Walnut across Truman Road.
At least they are keeping it open to pedestrians. If you were to close a street, do you think that it would be better to close Main? Just like the fountain in downtown Houston, it would make the transit street less of a car thoroughfare which could reduce traffic and decrease travel times.
Main feels like the main car sewer through downtown. IMHO we should shift that to Grand and make Main transit and pedestrian focused.
This I can get down with. As much as a want a loop I can't support closing walnut at this point I'm open to hearing why it can work.
