Capping the Loop
-
- Mark Twain Tower
- Posts: 8519
- Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:27 pm
- Location: milky way, orion arm
Re: Capping the Loop
Whatever % Cordish contributes to the cap, they should have the right to allocate that % to private use. However they don't have to be a dick about it and allow for more public use than 'their share'.
- beautyfromashes
- One Park Place
- Posts: 7189
- Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:04 am
Re: Capping the Loop
Totally disagree with this. They get more in the money spent than just the park land, being parkfront increases the value of all of their property and makes those units facing the park, instead of a loud highway, infinitely easier to rent. That's probably worth the money spent by itself with no land designated to them. Of course, I know their spokesman on here will disagree and argue the POV for pages.
- normalthings
- Mark Twain Tower
- Posts: 8018
- Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:52 pm
Re: Capping the Loop
I’m not affiliated with Cordish but I too disagree that they stand to make tens of millions more by having a park.beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 1:07 amTotally disagree with this. They get more in the money spent than just the park land, being parkfront increases the value of all of their property and makes those units facing the park, instead of a loud highway, infinitely easier to rent. That's probably worth the money spent by itself with no land designated to them. Of course, I know their spokesman on here will disagree and argue the POV for pages.
Re: Capping the Loop
It’ll increase their value, for sure, but it’ll also increase the value of a lot of places. It takes me a few minutes to walk down main to here. I find it unlikely they’ll be able raise rents enough to offset whatever they are asked to contribute.
I’m actually sympathetic to cordish here. I don’t think it’s right to ask them to pay for it and get nothing. Why shouldn’t I contribute too then?
But I also want an open park. Perhaps there is a compromise where cordish residents would get free dog park access and cordish would get the ability to hold events there a few times a year, but there aren’t resident only segments of the park.
I’m actually sympathetic to cordish here. I don’t think it’s right to ask them to pay for it and get nothing. Why shouldn’t I contribute too then?
But I also want an open park. Perhaps there is a compromise where cordish residents would get free dog park access and cordish would get the ability to hold events there a few times a year, but there aren’t resident only segments of the park.
- beautyfromashes
- One Park Place
- Posts: 7189
- Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:04 am
Re: Capping the Loop
So, if Cordish pays 50% of the cost they should get to block off 50% of the park?! The point wasn’t that they should have to pay ALL of it, it was that they get value beyond just access to the percentage of land they control.normalthings wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 1:37 am I’m not affiliated with Cordish but I too disagree that they stand to make tens of millions more by having a park.
- normalthings
- Mark Twain Tower
- Posts: 8018
- Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:52 pm
Re: Capping the Loop
I disagree on this. I think you are over estimating the benefit.beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 10:53 amSo, if Cordish pays 50% of the cost they should get to block off 50% of the park?! The point wasn’t that they should have to pay ALL of it, it was that they get value beyond just access to the percentage of land they control.normalthings wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 1:37 am I’m not affiliated with Cordish but I too disagree that they stand to make tens of millions more by having a park.
being parkfront increases the value of all of their property and makes those units facing the park, instead of a loud highway, infinitely easier to rent. That's probably worth the money spent by itself with no land designated to them.
-
- Mark Twain Tower
- Posts: 9862
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am
Re: Capping the Loop
Let's say there's 800 apartments between 2-4 light in the end (I'm assuming four is mixed use)
That's 800 units to cover the cost.
Say a cap lets them raise rent by $100/month on average both as an amenity and reducing noise on the balconies.
That's $960,000 per year in additional rent that's pure profit.
There's no way they make tens of millions off a cap. But remember, it's not just about a net gain, it's also about reducing the risk of a loss. The cap can be what they see as needed to fill units quicker as they empty.
A ~5% empty rate can be in the realm of $1-3 million per year in lost revenue. When you have hundreds of units small changes in occupancy result in big changes in money coming in.
That's 800 units to cover the cost.
Say a cap lets them raise rent by $100/month on average both as an amenity and reducing noise on the balconies.
That's $960,000 per year in additional rent that's pure profit.
There's no way they make tens of millions off a cap. But remember, it's not just about a net gain, it's also about reducing the risk of a loss. The cap can be what they see as needed to fill units quicker as they empty.
A ~5% empty rate can be in the realm of $1-3 million per year in lost revenue. When you have hundreds of units small changes in occupancy result in big changes in money coming in.
Re: Capping the Loop
I’m not their spokesman. If I were, I’d say a lot less or nothing at all on here.beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 1:07 amTotally disagree with this. They get more in the money spent than just the park land, being parkfront increases the value of all of their property and makes those units facing the park, instead of a loud highway, infinitely easier to rent. That's probably worth the money spent by itself with no land designated to them. Of course, I know their spokesman on here will disagree and argue the POV for pages.
No one argues that it won’t increase the value of their property but not enough to justify such a major investment. There’s several factors that make the money worth it. I don’t think they’ll raise rent just because there’s a park either.
Believe it or not, they know how important a nice downtown park would be for everyone living around the area. Even for those who will never spend a dollar that gets back to them. They’re going to be landlords and property owners for decades and decades in KC. What’s best for downtown is best for them. There’s more than a park they’re willing to invest in as well.
Re: Capping the Loop
The Medici of KC? Or the non-discriminatory JC Nichols Co? Or a Crown Center Redevelopment Corp that is better at urbanity?
Re: Capping the Loop
https://cityscenekc.com/south-loop-link ... nt-hinder/
The article says Baltimore will be replaced this weekend, but MoDOT just delayed that a week (probably due to rain).“We are working to advance the design of the project to a shovel-ready status, competitively positioning us for future infrastructure investment opportunities,” Dietrich said.
- normalthings
- Mark Twain Tower
- Posts: 8018
- Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:52 pm
Re: Capping the Loop
Decking the South Loop is considered a long-range proposal, perhaps within the next 10 years, but that timetable could be accelerated if the Biden Administration is successful in winning approval of its massive infrastructure bill now before Congress.
“We are working to advance the design of the project to a shovel-ready status, competitively positioning us for future infrastructure investment opportunities,” Dietrich said.
He said next steps include re-engaging local, state and federal officials; securing funds for engineering and environmental studies; determining ongoing maintenance and operating costs, and analyzing its economic development benefits.
- normalthings
- Mark Twain Tower
- Posts: 8018
- Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:52 pm
Re: Capping the Loop
Map of the combined projects. Jets are being put on this ahead of potential stimulus $$. Notice proposed buildings over the south loop itself
- KCPowercat
- Ambassador
- Posts: 33839
- Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
- Location: Quality Hill
- Contact:
Re: Capping the Loop
Great to see thenplan going to Oak. The 4 blocks felt incomplete.
Pretty cool.seeing it all together. Thanks!
Pretty cool.seeing it all together. Thanks!
Re: Capping the Loop
I like the north loop removal shown too!normalthings wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 11:18 pm
Map of the combined projects. Jets are being put on this ahead of potential stimulus $$. Notice proposed buildings over the south loop itself
Re: Capping the Loop
I thought we weren't allowed to build private property on top of MoDOT right of way?
Re: Capping the Loop
I'm getting a broken image icon. Can you provide a link?normalthings wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 11:18 pm
Map of the combined projects. Jets are being put on this ahead of potential stimulus $$. Notice proposed buildings over the south loop itself
Re: Capping the Loop
https://i.imgur.com/xm4mqVC.png
(FWIW, if you're on a VPN, that may be why it's not loading for you; my corporate VPN blocks imgur.)
(FWIW, if you're on a VPN, that may be why it's not loading for you; my corporate VPN blocks imgur.)
Re: Capping the Loop
A-ha! Yep, that must be why.
Er, I mean, why would I be visiting KCRag on my work computer, which I only use for work-related purposes?
Er, I mean, why would I be visiting KCRag on my work computer, which I only use for work-related purposes?
- normalthings
- Mark Twain Tower
- Posts: 8018
- Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:52 pm
Re: Capping the Loop
I thought so as well. If KCMO “owns” a tower that Cordish builds, it isn’t a private structure is it? Pretty common for the city and Port KC to own projects they are incentivizing.
This map is from a 2021 document.
- FangKC
- City Hall
- Posts: 18142
- Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
- Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound
Re: Capping the Loop
Perhaps that deck building is a parking garage.