UMKC: Oak Street West Development

[voltopt]

Oh no... is that..... [glow=green,5,300]GRASS[/glow]  ??!?!?!??!?!?   ;)

don't tell michael!!

[beccanator]

Not a native plant in sight..... Damn conventional greenspace!

[Big Red Storm]

Okay, I don't think this looks necessarily bad.  In fact I think it will be just fine.  I really wish they would have made the buildings taller though.  How does UMKC expect to have more of a college atmosphere when we only bring in 500 more residents in the highest profile place.  There needs to be more people.

Also, it says there are new restaurants and shops on 51st.  I'm hoping this is across the street from the ones already there (Muddy's, Pizza 51, Kin Lin, etc.).  Could they possibly be tearing these places down?  I would be super pissed if so!

Am I the only one who will miss Twin Oaks?  I really like the place. 

[Long]

Okay, I don't think this looks necessarily bad.  In fact I think it will be just fine.  I really wish they would have made the buildings taller though.  How does UMKC expect to have more of a college atmosphere when we only bring in 500 more residents in the highest profile place.  There needs to be more people.

Also, it says there are new restaurants and shops on 51st.  I'm hoping this is across the street from the ones already there (Muddy's, Pizza 51, Kin Lin, etc.).  Could they possibly be tearing these places down?  I would be super pissed if so!

Am I the only one who will miss Twin Oaks?  I really like the place.   8-[

On one of their site plan drawings it looks like that strip of retail is still there, but they're planning new stuff for the south side of the street.

I guess the lower-rise stuff is more inline with the scale of the campus.  As far as grass goes, I think maintaining grass on the west side, along Brookside Blvd and the trail, is a good thing.  I wouldn't mind seeing the Oak Street frontage, the residential and retail stay a little more "dense and urban."  Even though the campus as a whole is spread out and more park-like, a dense residential retail area would be a good touch.

[warwickland]

i think they could add a story or two. the buildings across oak are on a hill, afterall.

[ReutherMonkey]

Upon getting the email about what UMKC wants done in that space, i'm almost ashamed. I lived in twin oaks for 3 years, and it's good that they're demolishing it. It's a roach-infested, partially condemned, outdated structure. On the other hand, It had a helluva lot more space than merely 500 beds. UMKC says that they want to move away from the commuter campus, but in action they're unwilling to take that leap that's necessary to attract more people to live there. Of course, knowing UMKC and the prices they charge for the Oak Street dorms that they just built, these new "apartments" that are to replace Twin Oaks will be even more expensive - something that most definitely does NOT attract wide variety of students to the property. Maybe UMKC is trying to hone in on the ever-lucrative "parents paying for everything at any price" student market... I don't know.

I forget how many apartments are on each floor in Twin Oaks, but I know it's more than 26 apartments on floors 2-11. Now, a number of those apartments were not liveable I know, but that doesn't really play as far as what UMKC SHOULD be replacing Twin Oaks with. So, let's say 30 apartments on 9 floors (i'll exclude the 1st floor and basement apartments), that's 270 apartments in EACH building for 540 apartments total. I would believe that there are on average 2 beds per apartment at twin oaks, putting the theoretical number of total beds at 1080 for the complex. Now, I don't think that a building with less than 1/2 as many beds is a move towards a "residential" campus. I can accept a cut to maybe 750 beds, but giving every bedroom a private bathroom is just a waste of space.

I wasn't a fan of twin oaks, but as proposed, this is most definitely a step back.

[Long]

The write-up in the Star yesterday said the average rent in the new complex was $540 (+/-).  I wasn't clear whether that meant $540 per STUDENT or $540 per UNIT.  My share of the rent in college ranged from $160-$200, plus utilities (which were minimal, $50 tops), and I wasn't poor by any means but there certainly wasn't any extra money leftover at the end of the month. 

The two bedroom I lived in at Twin Oaks (which was comfortably big enough for three people) was around $550 total, divided by three people.

As far as UMKC not replacing every bed they're losing with Twin Oaks . . . I can't say whether that's right or wrong.  I would think they have studied what they need, and they have the ability to build more if demand is good.  I remember the Gerald the maintenance man at Twin Oaks telling me they had 615 units, ranging from studios to 2 or 3 bedrooms.  I can understand how the trend in student housing is lower-rise construction, it feels less institutional or dorm-like, which helps the kids feel more like they're living on their own. 

And one bathroom per bedroom?  I shared apartments with 2 and 3 people and we always had one bathroom.  Part of the college experience is getting athlete's foot from your roommates.

[Tosspot]

And one bathroom per bedroom?  I shared apartments with 2 and 3 people and we always had one bathroom.  Part of the college experience is getting athlete's foot from your roommates.

College life need not necessarily be disgusting.

But anyway, if they need to expand yet more in the future, there's plenty of grass and parking lots UMKC could fill in. Plus some nice houses nearby they could tear down.

[dangerboy]

At least this appears to have a solid street wall along Oak instead of the garden apartments that they originally talked about. But I do wonder if UMKC can really add as much on-campus housing as they talk about without going more vertical.  The school has a limited amount land for growth, and this latest project doesn't seem to make the best use of that land.

It also mentions news shops on 51st Street, so does that mean replacing the buildng on the south side of the street?

[Long]

They have that whole swath of surface parking and that tacky parking garage across Oak to the east of Twin Oaks that would be nice to see developed.

[AndrewN]

The write-up in the Star yesterday said the average rent in the new complex was $540 (+/-).  I wasn't clear whether that meant $540 per STUDENT or $540 per UNIT.  My share of the rent in college ranged from $160-$200, plus utilities (which were minimal, $50 tops), and I wasn't poor by any means but there certainly wasn't any extra money leftover at the end of the month. 

The two bedroom I lived in at Twin Oaks (which was comfortably big enough for three people) was around $550 total, divided by three people.

As far as UMKC not replacing every bed they're losing with Twin Oaks . . . I can't say whether that's right or wrong.  I would think they have studied what they need, and they have the ability to build more if demand is good.  I remember the Gerald the maintenance man at Twin Oaks telling me they had 615 units, ranging from studios to 2 or 3 bedrooms.  I can understand how the trend in student housing is lower-rise construction, it feels less institutional or dorm-like, which helps the kids feel more like they're living on their own. 

And one bathroom per bedroom?  I shared apartments with 2 and 3 people and we always had one bathroom.  Part of the college experience is getting athlete's foot from your roommates.

THe project will be by the bedspace not unit.  The $540 per student price is inline with other institution across the US.  They could not build it for $540 a unit and break even.

Some facts about Twin Oaks:

It had 603 apartments of those in 1998 when UMKC took over the property  400 apartments were usuable. By 2004, 532 were usuable.  That was achieved through numerous repairs and renovatiosn to some units.  The rest were deemed impossible to renovate unless there was a significant bonding and renovation that took place.  At it's height as housing for UMKC it had 702 students and 80 outside residents. 

The average floor had 29 apartments.  Some had been combined over the years.  The 1st floors had about 12 apartments each. 

[ReutherMonkey]

even at that lowest number of 400 useable apartments, (averaging even a low 1.5 persons per apartment) this is still a significant drop for UMKC. 702 students at an unfilled twin oaks vs a max of 500 beds in a full new "apartment-style" building? Who's bright idea was that? I'm not saying in any case that Twin Oaks was a dream or they should have kept it. I'm happy it's being torn down. But once again, UMKC never surprises by planning 2 years into the future instead of 20.

[AndrewN]

Is anyone tracking this project?  I would like to see pictures of the demolition.     

[beccanator]

^As far as demolition goes, the only currently visible changes ar that the lower windows have all been covered with plywood, a chain-link fence has been drawn around the entire property, and the windows are being removed from the top down. I imagine would hope that they are trying to salvage at least some of the building materials.

[markf]

At one of the community meetings I practically begged UMKC to let a bunch of us go in and salvage what we could to donate to ReStore.  They would have none of it.  They cited liability and that type of thing. 

I think I read somewhere that they discovered asbestos in there, so that's going to slow things down on the demolition.

[AndrewN]

Trust me, there is not much worth salvaging in those buildings.  The stainless steel countertops and metal cabinetry are very worn, dented and have often times been modify to a point where the most you could get from them is the weight of the scrap metal.  The marble in the lobbies was put up using asbestos mastic which lends itself to liability issues if it were remove without the proper safety measures.  I know the buildings inside and out.  Anything worth salvaging was removed long before UMKC took them over.

I don't think they discovered any new asbestos--you can expect most buildings that were built in 1950 to have asbestos in them.  It would not be a safety issue to any residents as long as there wasn't any friable asbestos.  The abatement of the existing asbestos would slow down a demolition. 

[KC ROO]

There was asbestos found and that is the reason for the delay thus far, however they have begun demolition of the parking garage below grade. According to the School architect demolition should begin over the break, and the building debris will be used as fill for the sight.

[Long]

College life need not necessarily be disgusting.

But anyway, if they need to expand yet more in the future, there's plenty of grass and parking lots UMKC could fill in. Plus some nice houses nearby they could tear down.

I exaggerate a bit, but my point is, all my life I have never lived in a house or apartment with more than one bathroom.  Anywhere from 1 to 3 people, with one bathroom.  I live in a one bathroom house now with one other person and somehow we both make it to work on time in the morning.  A bathroom might not seem like a high cost item, but it's this sort of mentality that people "need" certain things that all add up to result in higher costs both to students and taxpayers.

[Long]

even at that lowest number of 400 useable apartments, (averaging even a low 1.5 persons per apartment) this is still a significant drop for UMKC. 702 students at an unfilled twin oaks vs a max of 500 beds in a full new "apartment-style" building? Who's bright idea was that? I'm not saying in any case that Twin Oaks was a dream or they should have kept it. I'm happy it's being torn down. But once again, UMKC never surprises by planning 2 years into the future instead of 20.

Exactly.  There's no reason this development could not be masterplanned for substantially more units by moving to higher densities.  I'm not talking towers, but even adding a couple more floors to each building adds the potential for that many more units without substantially altering the scale and feeling of the development. 

[DaveKCMO]

...and the building debris will be used as fill for the sight.

is this unusual?