Renovations of apartment buildings along Armour Blvd.

[Gretz]

You'd still need 37,000 people to give $100. I'd be shocked if you could raise 5 grand on kickstarter. 3.7 million dollars is just not a reasonable sum to raise via crowd sourcing. Unless you get a deep-pocketed benefactor that is willing to take a big loss on the project for the sake of the neighborhood they will sit idle for a few more years and then get torn down.

[loftguy]

Guess the thought needs to be rounded out.

There is a certain amount of money that "needs" to be spent to bring these buildings back to glory and income production.

Is that number $3.7 million? I doubt it, but for the sake of explanation, let's say it is.

Then let's say that the income stream will only support an expenditure of $2,500,000 total. (This is a made up number! Don't get hung up on it as it doesn't matter. Just for example sake.)

So $3,700,000
-2,500,000

= $1,200,000 as the gap to fill.

My educated guess? The actual gap will be something far less than this example of $1,200,000. There are informed and independent resources in the community that can analyze the costs, determine real and reasonable estimates, and set this number that needs to be raised to "save" these buildings. If we can not then raise that amount by a combination of crowd-funding, foundation grants, selling popsicles.......whatever. If we can't assist in making sense of the numbers, then we need to talk about something else and allow their plan to proceed. Otherwise we're just blowing smoke up each others kazoo.

[loftguy]

And by the way, the team that took the initiative to block the demolition should be the one to organize the effort to assist in the renovations and figure out funding mechanisms. If not the anti-demo folks, some group of people or entity from the neighborhood needs to coordinate the next steps. You can not expect the defeated developer to find the solution that I'm espousing.

If you want something, work for it.

[Gretz]

Guess the thought needs to be rounded out.

There is a certain amount of money that "needs" to be spent to bring these buildings back to glory and income production.

Is that number $3.7 million? I doubt it, but for the sake of explanation, let's say it is.

Then let's say that the income stream will only support an expenditure of $2,500,000 total. (This is a made up number! Don't get hung up on it as it doesn't matter. Just for example sake.)

So $3,700,000
-2,500,000

= $1,200,000 as the gap to fill.

My educated guess? The actual gap will be something far less than this example of $1,200,000. There are informed and independent resources in the community that can analyze the costs, determine real and reasonable estimates, and set this number that needs to be raised to "save" these buildings. If we can not then raise that amount by a combination of crowd-funding, foundation grants, selling popsicles.......whatever. If we can't assist in making sense of the numbers, then we need to talk about something else and allow their plan to proceed. Otherwise we're just blowing smoke up each others kazoo.

Agree that the difference that needs to be made up might be much more reasonable, perhaps significantly under a million. It would be great if some benefactor in the neighborhood would step up and do the project at a loss, just seems like kind of a long-shot that someone is going to throw away money on it. My point is more that the power of crowd funding is being a little exaggerated here. For crowd-funding to work, it has to apply to something that a whole lot of people care about and it has to be appealing in a very particular way for word about it to organically spread to the thousands upon thousands of people that would be required to raise the kind of money that would make any kind of difference here. I don't think saving a couple of dilapidated buildings in midtown is really going to meet either of those criteria. You and I and a few people on this board and around the neighborhood might care about it, maybe even enough to throw in a few bucks, but I'd be surprised if the number of people that really care exceeds a hundred or two and I don't really see any crowd-funding effort going viral. I think you'd be lucky to raise a thousand or two bucks that way. Bake-sales and popsicles aren't going to cut it either. You really need some deep-pocketed entity, maybe a foundation like you mentioned, to care and shell out if you want to save the buildings. Completely agree that the neighborhood association really needs to deliver on some alternatives or get out of the way.

[chaglang]

And by the way, the team that took the initiative to block the demolition should be the one to organize the effort to assist in the renovations and figure out funding mechanisms. If not the anti-demo folks, some group of people or entity from the neighborhood needs to coordinate the next steps. You can not expect the defeated developer to find the solution that I'm espousing.

If you want something, work for it.

[flyingember]

And by the way, the team that took the initiative to block the demolition should be the one to organize the effort to assist in the renovations and figure out funding mechanisms. If not the anti-demo folks, some group of people or entity from the neighborhood needs to coordinate the next steps. You can not expect the defeated developer to find the solution that I'm espousing.

If you want something, work for it.

I'm not instantly for destruction, but if the only actually provably doable project alternative is a building sitting empty for another decade, why not? It's hard enough to find someone wanting to do urban projects as it is.

[Demosthenes]

And by the way, the team that took the initiative to block the demolition should be the one to organize the effort to assist in the renovations and figure out funding mechanisms. If not the anti-demo folks, some group of people or entity from the neighborhood needs to coordinate the next steps. You can not expect the defeated developer to find the solution that I'm espousing.

If you want something, work for it.

I'm not instantly for destruction, but if the only actually provably doable project alternative is a building sitting empty for another decade, why not? It's hard enough to find someone wanting to do urban projects as it is.

I agree. I really, really don't want to lose these buildings as I think they are beautiful, but it isn't like something terrible is planned to replace it. A parking lot or crappy suburban building I would be completely against, but in this case it is probably worth it.

Would be amazing if someone stepped in with money and a plan, but it would really suck to wait several more years before they are finally torn down anyway.

[Eon Blue]

Newbern gets PIEA incentives for rehab:

In another matter, the PIEA board approved a 15-year, 100 percent abatement to help Antheus Capital of New Jersey to renovate the Newbern, a twin nine-story building at 525 E. Armour Blvd. The pre-war apartment building is the latest in a series of buildings redeveloped by Antheus and its management arm, Mac Properties, along Armour.

Also an update on the Ambassador:

Mac Property also has begun redevelopment of the historic Ambassador, a nine-story building at 3560 Broadway, and that project is being done without tax incentives. The Ambassador is expected to be completed in spring 2015. Mac also recently bought the Richelieu, a smaller 15-unit apartment building at 405-407 E. Armour Blvd.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2014/03/20/49 ... rylink=cpy

[earthling]

Sounds like the Bainbridge at Armour/Campbell is changing from maybe Section 8 to something else if I heard right. Any details?

[KCtoBrooklyn]

Sounds like the Bainbridge at Armour/Campbell is changing from maybe Section 8 to something else if I heard right. Any details?

It sounds like you might be talking about the attempt to designate the Bainbridge as "socially blighted" which could be used to force changes. This has been discussed in this thread. As far as I know, there still has not been a hearing date set after the continuance was issued.

There are two smaller apartments buildings that are directly north of the Bainbridge that are going to be put on the market soon. These are both low rent and fairly trashy buildings (but I don't think they are section 8 ). It will be interesting to see what happens with these buildings - if they are bought by someone who will rehab them and charge higher rents, or if they will remain low-rent. I think the result of the Bainbridge blight study and any potential ensuing changes could have a big impact on these two buildings.

[brewcrew1000]

According to this, there is a group signing petitions to argue against the social blight designation of the Bainbridge and others
http://midtownkcpost.com/petition-drive ... signation/

[chaglang]

That petition is a bit of a mess. It claims that the blight study incorrectly found evidence of physical blight. The study explicitly says that no physical blight was found. It claims that the HPNA has engineered this study in secret. Also, not true. There were scores of public meetings held on the topic. This study was not sprung on anyone.

It also claims that crime is trending down since 2009. This was technically true before the 2013 crime stats came out, which showed an increase. However, it's important to note that the 70% decrease in crime that the petition touts came after increases of 350% and 600% in 2008 and 2009. Property crime is surprisingly low at the Bainbridge, meaning that those increases are driven by incidences of violent crime. There are over 900 calls for emergency services there. Heat maps of crime in the study area (31-39, State Line-Prospect) show that, while Eagle Point has owned the Bainbridge, violent crime has concentrated on an area around the complex, even as crime in surrounding areas dropped considerably.

Also, contrary to claims made in the media, no one will be made homeless. Yes, people will be relocated. But the Bainbridge is a vestige of a project-based, high-concentration approach to low income housing that HUD no longer supports. In other words, HUD would never allow the Bainbridge to happen now. If the blight study is adopted, residents would move to apartment buildings with mixed income. MAC, who is a potential buyer, has been successful at with this.

[earthling]

There are full time guards outside building and cops visit about daily. Something is not right in the building. Good friends own a house a few houses down on Campbell and want something done, the building itself is a great space yet is a catastrophe to the hood.

[FangKC]

After reading Walter Cronkite's A Reporter's Life, I learned that Walter lived in the Bainbridge Apartments while he was an editor and reporter for the United Press. When he lived there, other occupants included players from the New York Yankees farm team, the Kansas City Blues, including Phil Rizzuto and Gerald Priddy.



http://www.rosinpreservation.com/projec ... boulevard/

Google street view

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.063315, ... DXLuqQ!2e0

[earthling]

^fascinating. armour is moving forward with this building as one major exception. it deserves to have responsible tenants no matter their economic status. mix it up, don't designated it as section 8.

[chaglang]

Wow, I didn't know about the history. It's a very nice looking building, so it's not hard to imagine it being very upscale at one point in time.

[aknowledgeableperson]

Having Cronkite at that point in his career and minor league ballplayers wouldn't make the place that upscale. Don't forget at that time many major leaguers had jobs in the offseason to make ends meet, especially those with families. Would imagine minor leaguers getting paid much less.

[FangKC]

Mar 27, 2014, 2:45pm CDT Updated: Mar 27, 2014, 3:45pm CDT

Developers lauded for restoring Armour apartments' splendor

The developer of 11 rehabilitated Midtown apartment towers will receive a Development of Distinction Award during a ceremony on April 29 sponsored by the Urban Land Institute's Kansas City chapter.

The previously derelict buildings, located on or near Armour Boulevard between Troost Avenue and Broadway, were redeveloped between 2010 and 2013 by the Chicago-based Silliman Group and a companion firm, Antheus Capital.

http://tinyurl.com/pgp3yz4

[KCMax]

Showdown on Armour Boulevard over ‘social liability’ of Bainbridge Apartments

Nobody claims the Bainbridge Apartments at 900 E. Armour Blvd. are a crime-free oasis in midtown Kansas City.

Not Eagle Point Cos. of Maine, the firm that owns and manages the low-income housing development, and certainly not its middle-class neighbors in historic Hyde Park or other nearby pre-World War II apartment buildings recently restored on Armour.

Though Eagle Point maintains it has done a good job managing and reducing crime at the Bainbridge since buying and renovating the seven-story building in 2007, neighbors describe it as ground zero for the social ills troubling their area.

And in a showdown between the neighborhood, city officials, Eagle Point and the federal government, a city blight study has concluded that the Bainbridge is a “social liability.”

If the city isn’t satisfied by Eagle Point’s response, the Kansas City Council could approve a move to ultimately condemn the property and seek new management.

[FangKC]

Apparently, Mac Properties demolished the porches of the buildings on Armour Boulevard, and removed the brick entryways without a permit.

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set ... 987&type=1

Google street view

http://tinyurl.com/pez5pud