GRID wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 1:33 pm
Yeah, it makes no sense to force affordable housing on a class A residential tower, especially in a market like KC where there really is not an affordable housing shortage and new construction of high density residential (beyond 6 story stick buildings) is already extremely difficult to make the numbers work. Again, the city has to make a decision. It already subsidizes the shit out of suburban development which includes homes in very high price brackets. There are no forced section 8 housing in Briarcliff or Tiffany Springs or Shoal Creek. Just like everybody can't live in Briarcliff, everybody can't live in Three Light. But at the end of the day, incentives are needed to make it happen, just like they were with Briarcliff and Shoal Creek, however, the Three Light incentives will give you a much better long term return on the investment along with indirect spinoff economic development that suburban development can't compete with. It seems like the deal the city cut with the Midland Tower is a good deal for the city and Cordish.
Briarcliff might not be the best example.
There's apartments starting at $575/month in Briarcliff. They're super small and likely very hard to get at 37 units but they do exist.
There's also a bunch of 2BR/1BA homes in the neighborhood that sell at about half of a new build home.
KCPowercat wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 1:39 pm
I agree we need to take a critical eye to suburban development but there is a lack of affordable housing in the core.
And the city has its hands tied on suburban development because it's surrounded by suburbs that do whatever the fuck they want, give out any inctives they want and never get questioned about it. So if KCMO doesn't play the same game, they just don't get development at all. Which is the primary reason the northland has taken so long to take off. It's in the city limits of KC and with that comes more restrictions (minority contracts etc). And KC has higher priorities like maintaining existing infrastructure than building roads and sewers in the middle of nowhere to attract low density development. But now they are all in and the northland is growing.
Every city can use more affordable housing, but to try to mix affordable housing into a high end tower like 3 light is really not very feasible, nor does it make a lot of sense. That's why the midland tower solution seems to make sense in this situation. Of course the parking garage is the big issue, it's probably nearly half the cost of the entire development. The best thing to do there is allow the garages to be used during the day by office users and visitors to downtown which makes developing office towers more feasible too.
GRID wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 1:33 pm
Yeah, it makes no sense to force affordable housing on a class A residential tower, especially in a market like KC where there really is not an affordable housing shortage and new construction of high density residential (beyond 6 story stick buildings) is already extremely difficult to make the numbers work. Again, the city has to make a decision. It already subsidizes the shit out of suburban development which includes homes in very high price brackets. There are no forced section 8 housing in Briarcliff or Tiffany Springs or Shoal Creek. Just like everybody can't live in Briarcliff, everybody can't live in Three Light. But at the end of the day, incentives are needed to make it happen, just like they were with Briarcliff and Shoal Creek, however, the Three Light incentives will give you a much better long term return on the investment along with indirect spinoff economic development that suburban development can't compete with. It seems like the deal the city cut with the Midland Tower is a good deal for the city and Cordish.
Briarcliff might not be the best example.
There's apartments starting at $575/month in Briarcliff. They're super small and likely very hard to get at 37 units but they do exist.
There's also a bunch of 2BR/1BA homes in the neighborhood that sell at about half of a new build home.
Briarcliff West? Maybe so. But it has been subsidized by millions of dollars to prep the land on top of the normal millions it cost to support typical low density suburban development. My parallels to comparing it to 3 Light would be like putting duplexes up on the hills next to the mansions.
Don't take incentives and that complex doesn't have to do anything. Luxury should be able to make it on it's own in that case.
New build mid and high rise residential buildings just don't get built downtown without incentives. The city benefits off of those buildings being full with higher income residents in multiple ways. I'm all for older buildings being converted into affordable housing, which will also take tax incentives to get done because they're just not self-sufficient. We still have plenty of older buildings that can be converted into affordable housing, but notice how developers aren't eager to go down this path?
Atlas 303 is being built without incentives. Hey if the numbers don't work, then gotta play ball with the city who has a desire to increase affordable housing in all areas of the city. That's the choice.
Take out the parking garage and I bet all of a sudden it works a lot easier.
KCPowercat wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 1:39 pm
I agree we need to take a critical eye to suburban development but there is a lack of affordable housing in the core.
And the city has its hands tied on suburban development because it's surrounded by suburbs that do whatever the fuck they want, give out any inctives they want and never get questioned about it. So if KCMO doesn't play the same game, they just don't get development at all. Which is the primary reason the northland has taken so long to take off. It's in the city limits of KC and with that comes more restrictions (minority contracts etc). And KC has higher priorities like maintaining existing infrastructure than building roads and sewers in the middle of nowhere to attract low density development. But now they are all in and the northland is growing.
Every city can use more affordable housing, but to try to mix affordable housing into a high end tower like 3 light is really not very feasible, nor does it make a lot of sense. That's why the midland tower solution seems to make sense in this situation. Of course the parking garage is the big issue, it's probably nearly half the cost of the entire development. The best thing to do there is allow the garages to be used during the day by office users and visitors to downtown which makes developing office towers more feasible too.
We continue to wait on Cordish to move on the Midland tower. Maybe that's why they are getting 3L pressure?
GRID wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 1:33 pm
Yeah, it makes no sense to force affordable housing on a class A residential tower, especially in a market like KC where there really is not an affordable housing shortage and new construction of high density residential (beyond 6 story stick buildings) is already extremely difficult to make the numbers work. Again, the city has to make a decision. It already subsidizes the shit out of suburban development which includes homes in very high price brackets. There are no forced section 8 housing in Briarcliff or Tiffany Springs or Shoal Creek. Just like everybody can't live in Briarcliff, everybody can't live in Three Light. But at the end of the day, incentives are needed to make it happen, just like they were with Briarcliff and Shoal Creek, however, the Three Light incentives will give you a much better long term return on the investment along with indirect spinoff economic development that suburban development can't compete with. It seems like the deal the city cut with the Midland Tower is a good deal for the city and Cordish.
Briarcliff might not be the best example.
There's apartments starting at $575/month in Briarcliff. They're super small and likely very hard to get at 37 units but they do exist.
There's also a bunch of 2BR/1BA homes in the neighborhood that sell at about half of a new build home.
As for housing prices in that area, likely due to school district.
New build mid and high rise residential buildings just don't get built downtown without incentives. The city benefits off of those buildings being full with higher income residents in multiple ways. I'm all for older buildings being converted into affordable housing, which will also take tax incentives to get done because they're just not self-sufficient. We still have plenty of older buildings that can be converted into affordable housing, but notice how developers aren't eager to go down this path?
Atlas 303 is being built without incentives. Hey if the numbers don't work, then gotta play ball with the city who has a desire to increase affordable housing in all areas of the city. That's the choice.
Take out the parking garage and I bet all of a sudden it works a lot easier.
New build Vs rehab. Not comparable.
Atlas 303 is not a rehab. Remove the garage then, cut the costs that way, don't need incentives. Don't have to subject the "luxury" tenants with commoners and sharing amenities. Win/win if that's your goal.
KCPowercat wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 1:39 pm
I agree we need to take a critical eye to suburban development but there is a lack of affordable housing in the core.
And the city has its hands tied on suburban development because it's surrounded by suburbs that do whatever the fuck they want, give out any inctives they want and never get questioned about it. So if KCMO doesn't play the same game, they just don't get development at all. Which is the primary reason the northland has taken so long to take off. It's in the city limits of KC and with that comes more restrictions (minority contracts etc). And KC has higher priorities like maintaining existing infrastructure than building roads and sewers in the middle of nowhere to attract low density development. But now they are all in and the northland is growing.
Every city can use more affordable housing, but to try to mix affordable housing into a high end tower like 3 light is really not very feasible, nor does it make a lot of sense. That's why the midland tower solution seems to make sense in this situation. Of course the parking garage is the big issue, it's probably nearly half the cost of the entire development. The best thing to do there is allow the garages to be used during the day by office users and visitors to downtown which makes developing office towers more feasible too.
We continue to wait on Cordish to move on the Midland tower. Maybe that's why they are getting 3L pressure?
Midland Tower will start when 3L starts. They bring in construction executives to work full-time on these projects, doesn't make sense to start one project and not the other. They've already agreed to do the Midland tower and made concessions yet now a new councilwoman wants more.
GRID wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 1:33 pm
Yeah, it makes no sense to force affordable housing on a class A residential tower, especially in a market like KC where there really is not an affordable housing shortage and new construction of high density residential (beyond 6 story stick buildings) is already extremely difficult to make the numbers work. Again, the city has to make a decision. It already subsidizes the shit out of suburban development which includes homes in very high price brackets. There are no forced section 8 housing in Briarcliff or Tiffany Springs or Shoal Creek. Just like everybody can't live in Briarcliff, everybody can't live in Three Light. But at the end of the day, incentives are needed to make it happen, just like they were with Briarcliff and Shoal Creek, however, the Three Light incentives will give you a much better long term return on the investment along with indirect spinoff economic development that suburban development can't compete with. It seems like the deal the city cut with the Midland Tower is a good deal for the city and Cordish.
Briarcliff might not be the best example.
There's apartments starting at $575/month in Briarcliff. They're super small and likely very hard to get at 37 units but they do exist.
There's also a bunch of 2BR/1BA homes in the neighborhood that sell at about half of a new build home.
As for housing prices in that area, likely due to school district.
NKCHS has a 96% graduation rate and is 50% minority. It's a great example that race doesn't determine success. It's absolutely the schools.
There's people who have claimed NKC would be cheaper to live in if their elementary school changed.
There's apartments starting at $575/month in Briarcliff. They're super small and likely very hard to get at 37 units but they do exist.
There's also a bunch of 2BR/1BA homes in the neighborhood that sell at about half of a new build home.
As for housing prices in that area, likely due to school district.
NKCHS has a 96% graduation rate and is 50% minority. It's a great example that race doesn't determine success. It's absolutely the schools.
There's people who have claimed NKC would be cheaper to live in if their elementary school changed.
Sorry, not saying NKCHS is a bad school but when compared to others around KC and other suburbs, it’s not even in the top 10. Especially being so close to the Parkville school district which is a big contributor to why prices get so much higher a few miles down the way.
Atlas 303 is being built without incentives. Hey if the numbers don't work, then gotta play ball with the city who has a desire to increase affordable housing in all areas of the city. That's the choice.
Take out the parking garage and I bet all of a sudden it works a lot easier.
New build Vs rehab. Not comparable.
Atlas 303 is not a rehab. Remove the garage then, cut the costs that way, don't need incentives. Don't have to subject the "luxury" tenants with commoners and sharing amenities. Win/win if that's your goal.
Atlas 303 is an older building, not a new build. Call it what you want. Point remains the same.
And of course you try to make it about rich vs poor which is pathetic. That’s not the point.
And yeah, don’t provide any parking for 300 tenants. That sounds like a winning strategy to leasing. You’ve missed your calling.
Atlas 303 is not a rehab. Remove the garage then, cut the costs that way, don't need incentives. Don't have to subject the "luxury" tenants with commoners and sharing amenities. Win/win if that's your goal.
Atlas 303 is an older building, not a new build. Call it what you want. Point remains the same.
And of course you try to make it about rich vs poor which is pathetic. That’s not the point.
And yeah, don’t provide any parking for 300 tenants. That sounds like a winning strategy to leasing. You’ve missed your calling.
There is plenty of parking downtown to share. I'm trying to come up with solutions here. If you want to avoid incentives and the "requirements" that can hang off of those incentives, then got to look for other solutions. Otherwise, use the incentives to fund affordable housing too. win/win.
I didn't say anything about people paying less shouldn't get the same amenities, you did.
DColeKC wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 3:42 pm
Sorry, not saying NKCHS is a bad school but when compared to others around KC and other suburbs, it’s not even in the top 10. Especially being so close to the Parkville school district which is a big contributor to why prices get so much higher a few miles down the way.
You're forgetting trickle up economics. People make money from having an old asset that can't be replaced at the same price point.
The number of people wanting affordable isn't going down. So we end up with price wars on increasing scare assets, homes under $150k.
The average selling price of homes in NKC is apparently around $160k today. (source: a local realtor in the community) They should be selling for closer to $100k
This removes homes from that key barrier as an entry level home. It pushes upwards on the market and everything rises.
Atlas 303 is not a rehab. Remove the garage then, cut the costs that way, don't need incentives. Don't have to subject the "luxury" tenants with commoners and sharing amenities. Win/win if that's your goal.
Atlas 303 is an older building, not a new build. Call it what you want. Point remains the same.
And of course you try to make it about rich vs poor which is pathetic. That’s not the point.
And yeah, don’t provide any parking for 300 tenants. That sounds like a winning strategy to leasing. You’ve missed your calling.
There is plenty of parking downtown to share. I'm trying to come up with solutions here. If you want to avoid incentives and the "requirements" that can hang off of those incentives, then got to look for other solutions. Otherwise, use the incentives to fund affordable housing too. win/win.
I didn't say anything about people paying less shouldn't get the same amenities, you did.
“Luxury tenants Vs commoners” is insulting. I don’t know where you live but hypothetically let’s say it’s a nice middle class suburb with a reasonable HOA fee to utilize the trails, pool etc. if you paid $450,000 for your place and right next door, someone paid $125,000 and doesn’t have to pay the HOA fee. So you think it’s fair they’d get to live in the same neighborhood and utilize the same community areas? Like mentioned above, lets apply affordable housing across the board. Why does the city council think low income people want to live downtown and not in the burbs?
Don’t get me wrong, I know some pretentious ass people who do think because they live in a certain building they’re fancy. It’s why we are house shopping actually. Most of those people are very liberal until it personally involves their lives. (Not to get political)
The notion that someone paying market rate is going to park on a surface lot blocks away that’s open to the public is weak.
If it were possible for these developers to build without incentives and all the headache that comes along with that, they would.
Yes i think that's fair. I pay a shit ton downtown in property taxes and I know it (assesents, sorry Dave) goes to make everybody's downtown better. I'm good with that.
Again I'm just trying to find solution if a developer doesn't want the demands from the city. Play ball if you want them on board to fund it. Cordish has made our neighborhood better but we aren't solely reliant on them to survive. Would hate to lose them but let's see if someone else can make the numbers work and meet the city demands.
KCPowercat wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 9:11 pm
Yes i think that's fair. I pay a shit ton downtown in property taxes and I know it (assesents, sorry Dave) goes to make everybody's downtown better. I'm good with that.
Again I'm just trying to find solution if a developer doesn't want the demands from the city. Play ball if you want them on board to fund it. Cordish has made our neighborhood better but we aren't solely reliant on them to survive. Would hate to lose them but let's see if someone else can make the numbers work and meet the city demands.
I think that’s a fair argument if affordable housing was part of the deal from the beginning. Suddenly making new demands after all the initial risk was taken and downtown is no longer a shit stain seems like poking the beer. Of course it’s city council members trying to get votes and make a name for themselves. There may not be a ton of affordable housing directly in the PNL district but there is affordable housing downtown. Why doesn’t the city seek out developers to rehab old buildings into affordable housing?
