OFFICIAL: Port Authority Riverfront Project

[normalthings]

Ridiculous that riverfront property in places like Louisville and Omaha attract high rise residential, but KC ends up with schlock. The affordable housing development looks like a soviet-era block and now this and a squat hotel surrounded by parking and with no street/pedestrian activity? Is anyone with the Port Authority demanding (or even asking for) a better fit for the site?

The affordable housing development was disappointing architecturally but is passable considering the units will be affordable priced. There are no excuses for this project. Sure much of the land can’t be built on, but that shouldn’t stop them from being up and being in an urban manor.


Jason Grill had the guy from Port KC on who is over seeing the Riverfront development. His only experience was with large scale suburb developments.

[kboish]

Also, won't the "street facing" component of this parcel be the hotel abutting the Grand viaduct (or whatever that road is called right there)? So there is still opportunity for the interaction with the public street to look nice.

Unfortunately, from some site plans I've seen of the hotel*, it appears it will be your standard "rectangular, roadside hotel box with carport" with the carport on the south side and completely inactive ground floor on the north side...surrounded by parking on all sides of course...

The hotel project is what I'm worried will be true stain on the area. I really hope something much better is actually proposed.

*And again, the hotel is not our project but is by someone else.

This is beyond disappointing. I was expecting a high end hotel. What a wasted, once in a lifetime opportunity.

[kas1]

Why does the master plan for the riverfront have a giant development parcel that can't actually be properly built on? The city's efforts at planning and zoning leave a lot to be desired.

[normalthings]

Why does the master plan for the riverfront have a giant development parcel that can't actually be properly built on? The city's efforts at planning and zoning leave a lot to be desired.

Isn’t it the Port Authority behind it all? I’d assume many of the easements came long before the Area was cleaned up or before the current staff joined.

[JLowe2018]

As someone who works for the NorthPoint, expect me to be an advocate for them and our desire to better our community.

Our project has yet to receive its final approvals for PortKC tax incentives and has not yet received any of its approvals from City Hall, so there is plenty of time to raise your concerns. If you feel the layout, design, or architectural quality we are putting forward do not meet the required or desired development standards of Kansas City, then please reach out to the officials who represent you (City Planning staff, PortKC board members, Planning Commission members, the Mayor and City Council) whose approval we still need to gain. We pride ourselves on Kansas City and providing exceptional living experiences for our tenants. We want to be and build beyond just the "standards," so in all fairness to the community, if you feel we are not measuring up to that, there are people who you can direct those concerns to.

[JLowe2018]

^Additionally, all of the views, opinions, and statements expressed by me on this site are my own and I do not speak for or represent NorthPoint as a formal representative in any capacity. I simply work for them in Business Analytics. This my personal account giving my personal accounts on things.

[earthling]

Standards are relative and there are various kinds of community standards in KC, a city that has everything from urban to exurban to rural within city limits. What is being proposed is maybe perfect by suburban/exurban standards but a fail for downtowns. The suburban encroachment in the city core is bad enough but worse when you have an opportunity to expand downtown urbanity and blow it with what might be 'perfect' for suburbia.

Local developers need to understand this and yet some seem to be oblivious. Port Authority apparently too.

[earthling]

Something like this perhaps but ideally each building different...

[normalthings]

As someone who works for the NorthPoint, expect me to be an advocate for them and our desire to better our community.

Our project has yet to receive its final approvals for PortKC tax incentives and has not yet received any of its approvals from City Hall, so there is plenty of time to raise your concerns. If you feel the layout, design, or architectural quality we are putting forward do not meet the required or desired development standards of Kansas City, then please reach out to the officials who represent you (City Planning staff, PortKC board members, Planning Commission members, the Mayor and City Council) whose approval we still need to gain. We pride ourselves on Kansas City and providing exceptional living experiences for our tenants. We want to be and build beyond just the "standards," so in all fairness to the community if you feel we are not measuring up to that, there are people who you can direct those concerns to.

The parking lots seem excessive but the easements are a valid excuse. What isn't excusable is a lack of density, mixed uses, etc. I don't think that it's unreasonable to demand a height/density greater than what was already built (Union). Look to CityClub for an example of a current project that exhibits good urban design while still being stick framed.

A more familiar example would be the Northpoint's Power and Light North Addition. This building would be 10 times better than the current proposal.

[DaveKCMO]

Hot take: A cheap parking lot is a better interim use than a pricey parking garage that requires even more subsidy.

[earthling]

However you can do something like row houses with parking in the rear, with intent for that lot to be used something else in future like if garage ever happens, with perhaps a taller building on top. A single building surrounding by lots is the worst of all options. Hide the lots, don't profile them.

[DaveKCMO]

However you can do something like row houses with parking in the rear, with intent for that lot to be used something else in future like if garage ever happens, with perhaps a taller building on top. A single building surrounding by lots is the worst of all options. Hide the lots, don't profile them.

Also true!

[WoodDraw]

The free parking kind of scares me too, especially for surrounding businesses. My experience is that those aren't given up easily.

My worry here is that the hotel will be a cookie cutter, interstate hotel. This complex already will be surrounded by surface lots. It seems like a suburban development.

[GRID]

I really hope it's not too late to change the direction the riverfront is going. This is a highly visible area of KC and one of the first parts of "downtown" you see when coming in from the north. If this area is developed to look like I-70 and Little Blue Parkway (actually, that intersection has larger buildings), that will be such a missed opportunity, especially with the potential streetcar running through there. Don't make the front door of downtown look like a suburban sprawl exit. There are so many example all across the country and even recent projects right there in KC that could be implemented on the riverfront. There are several suburban developments in KC alone that are much better than what is coming together on the riverfront so far. This is a huge blank canvas all under the same control that will have a streetcar running through it. Jesus, make it amazing, not like you sold off chunks of it to the lowest bidders.

Build at least six floors, hide as much parking as possible, make it walkable and urban. Again, I don't see how this type of development is going to justify spending money to run the streetcar through there. Sorry to be negative, but come on KC planners and developers, you can do better than this. With the streetcar and some of the best access to park space and recreation in the metro, this area should command some of the highest rents in KC and some of the highest quality urban lifestyle developments.

[flyingember]

This is a highly visible area of KC and one of the first parts of "downtown" you see when coming in from the north.

It's so not highly visible. Far from it.

Only the Bond Bridge has an actual view of this western area. You need to be staring at the right spot at the right time as a passenger as the cables appear by about a second apart. Once you're past the cables the apartments hide the west end.

It's the east end to focus on aesthetics

[earthling]

If streetcar goes through, the entire area will be highly visible. This suburban crap needs to be nipped in bud before it continues. These developers need to hire planners who understand urban design and pedestrian scale experience.

[TheLastGentleman]

We can rest easy knowing that none of this appears to be built to last more than a few decades.

[FangKC]

This is turning into the Columbus Park Lofts project. An opportunity to build all new with a clean slate. Failure to create an urban neighborhood, but instead getting a suburban apartment complex.

There is a massive shortage of housing in the USA right now. Developers should be building at twice the density levels down there.

[earthling]

If Port Authority doesn't backtrack and hire an urban planner (who actually lives a pedestrian lifestyle) to fix this, the streetcar plans should be completely dropped and use those funds for the Plaza expansion if it doesn't get its Fed funding or for something like 18th/Vine to SW Blvd.

KC Streetcar Authority needs to send the message to do this right or we're not extending there.

[flyingember]

If Port Authority doesn't backtrack and hire an urban planner (who actually lives a pedestrian lifestyle) to fix this, the streetcar plans should be completely dropped and use those funds for the Plaza expansion if it doesn't get its Fed funding or for something like 18th/Vine to SW Blvd.

KC Streetcar Authority needs to send the message to do this right or we're not extending there.

This comes off as very ignorant.

Basically you want to cancel the streetcar expansion needed to enable what you want because they aren't building dense enough before the greater density is enabled by having the streetcar funded.

At this point why would any developer rely on the streetcar? Should residents walk up the viaduct which doesn't have a sidewalk?

The riverfront isn't inside the TDD so there's no income ever available from the development without the Port Authority voluntarily funding a different project. Let's reiterate it's a voluntary funding source for the expansion.

Also, remember that every new building project fronting the route since 2012 has built a parking garage except for One. We are decades away from being able to force "do it right"


Here's the anticipated funding sources:

It is anticipated the local share associated with the extension would come from revenue capture related to new and existing Riverfront development, state/federal programs, multi-modal grants, and other existing funding streams.

http://kcstreetcar.org/wp-content/uploa ... _final.pdf