Three Light

[DColeKC]

I notice that unlike Two Light, they are planning balconies on the entire south facade of Three Light.
I thought the reason balconies were not included on the lower half of Two Light's south facade was due to some regulation with the highway noise.
Could it be that a highway cap announcement is expected soon?

If Cordish has its way, the cap project would start at minimum within 3 years. I think the biggest push back will be from the public who won’t like the idea that some of the cap, possibly most of it would be controlled by Cordish and the rest open to the public. It depends on who tosses in the most dollars for the project.

As for the balconies, I think Cordish realized that people really want a balcony even if there’s highway noise to deal with. Considering they can charge $200 more in rent per month, more balconies it is.

[KCPowercat]

if Cordish wants to pay for it all, feel free to control it as long as public access is maintained through current streets (e.g. Walnut).

If public money is used, it's public.

[normalthings]

if Cordish wants to pay for it all, feel free to control it as long as public access is maintained through current streets (e.g. Walnut).

If public money is used, it's public.

Is Cordish allowed to control/own a cap park over MODOT ROW?

[beautyfromashes]

if Cordish wants to pay for it all, feel free to control it as long as public access is maintained through current streets (e.g. Walnut).

If public money is used, it's public.

I can’t imagine it would be closed off to the public in any real capacity. My guess is the city actually wants it to be private so Cordish can remove the homeless. But, maybe I’m cynical.

[moderne]

Why balconies just every other floor on most of the south side and north side? Looks like balconies every floor on Main St side.

[DColeKC]

if Cordish wants to pay for it all, feel free to control it as long as public access is maintained through current streets (e.g. Walnut).

If public money is used, it's public.

If Cordish puts in 50% and the other 50% is public dollars, half of it should and will be controlled by Cordish and used for residents, the other for public use. Otherwise, what's the incentive for Cordish to pay for half or the majority of the project? Of course public access via sidewalks and what not will be maintained, but private parks, dog runs etc would be for residents only. The project won't happen without private dollars.

[DColeKC]

And.. to be clear, I'm not suggesting that Cordish would stipulate a match between amount invested and amount controlled. However, they will demand some private space to be utilized for residents only. I personally believe that whoever contributes should have the most say over how it's utilized. If Loews and Cordish pay for most of it, they certainly will want to make sure it's properly maintained, secured and useful to their residents and guests. If it just becomes one big city park, I don't see the benefit. If people on here are against a 20ft section of landscaping next to the new W&R building, surely they'd be a bit nervous about a large city controlled park connecting Crossroads and PNL.

[TheLastGentleman]

I'm not a big fan of the idea of a street level green space that looks like public space being even partially restricted to non-residents. This would be one of, if not the most high profile green space in the city, and gating off parts of it would be in bad taste.

As an alternative, I imagine something like the rooftop park on the Cosentino's garage, where they can host events there, but is otherwise open to the public.

Is there precedent of Cordish or Loews owning large restricted green spaces in other developments?

[DColeKC]

I'm not a big fan of the idea of a street level green space that looks like public space being even partially restricted to non-residents. This would be one of, if not the most high profile green space in the city, and gating off parts of it would be in bad taste.

As an alternative, I imagine something like the rooftop park on the Cosentino's garage, where they can host events there, but is otherwise open to the public.

Is there precedent of Cordish or Loews owning large restricted green spaces in other developments?

No, this would be a first. If the city wants to completely finance the 140 million, by all means it should all be public space. I just don't see the incentive for a developer to invest 40-80 million dollars for all public use? Especially when you consider at that point they have to trust the city to keep it maintained and most importantly, secure. We already have a decent homeless issue downtown, no developer is going to contribute money to possibly make that worse.

I also don't see them taking vast areas of it and making it gated off or anything like that. If they put money into it, they'll possibly want control over it's maintenance and security. If it's all for public use, surely the city will have to compensate the private developers for those costs.

I'd guess they'd maybe have some private areas, like the dog park, recreational areas, gathering spots or smaller sport situation, like a basketball court for example. Those are things downtown residents would pay for to have private access to. It's a complicated situation, but if done correctly there will be private and public benefits to make everyone happy.

[earthling]

Definitely shouldn't have any full time private aspect unless Cordish buys/owns the space/land or the part they do.

[TheLastGentleman]

I just don't see the incentive for a developer to invest 40-80 million dollars for all public use?

Their properties currently facing a freeway trench would suddenly be facing a nice park. I'd think that'd be incentive enough, but maybe not

[DColeKC]

I just don't see the incentive for a developer to invest 40-80 million dollars for all public use?

Their properties currently facing a freeway trench would suddenly be facing a nice park. I'd think that'd be incentive enough, but maybe not

True in regards to overall property value, but does that translate to higher rents on the "park" side? I'm not sure. I would guess if they toss in money, they would own a portion of the land. Will be interesting to see this develop because Cordish does want this completed.

[KCPowercat]

if Cordish wants to pay for it all, feel free to control it as long as public access is maintained through current streets (e.g. Walnut).

If public money is used, it's public.

If Cordish puts in 50% and the other 50% is public dollars, half of it should and will be controlled by Cordish and used for residents, the other for public use. Otherwise, what's the incentive for Cordish to pay for half or the majority of the project? Of course public access via sidewalks and what not will be maintained, but private parks, dog runs etc would be for residents only. The project won't happen without private dollars.

I think that's worth a conversation. There was some inkling that Walnut would be closed. That's a non-starter

[beautyfromashes]

If Cordish wants to control the park and limit access to just their residents, tell them to fuck off. They don’t own the land and the cost would automatically be offset by increased demand for the half of their buildings facing a nice park instead of a highway. How could a development company be so shortsighted? First they were against a streetcar line next to their development (I still don’t understand the rationale of that one!) and now they want to policify a park?

[DColeKC]

If Cordish wants to control the park and limit access to just their residents, tell them to fuck off. They don’t own the land and the cost would automatically be offset by increased demand for the half of their buildings facing a nice park instead of a highway. How could a development company be so shortsighted? First they were against a streetcar line next to their development (I still don’t understand the rationale of that one!) and now they want to policify a park?

They need no help leasing apartments being 98% leased without a park. I'm not sure where you get the information that they were "against" the streetcar. In the original development agreement Cordish had the right to opt out of the streetcar funding but DECIDED TO opt in. They have always been supportive of the streetcar. The PNL district was estimated to contribute 10% of the streetcar project by opting in. (I'm sure Dave has more exact numbers, this was before it was built.)

Once again, even if Cordish were to finance the entire park project, I'm not saying they would want to restrict it all to residents only. However you'd have to understand they would at the very least expect to have a private dog park and a few smaller areas for residents. If there's public backlash like, "FUCK OFF", the project will never happen. Also, i'm not sure what the limitations are being over a highway, but I'm sure it's possible they could purchase the land with some special permissions at the state/local level.

As for them being "shortsighted", I don't think you know what you're talking about.

[beautyfromashes]

98% means nothing. Most every developer gets fully leased quickly. Maintaining and Increasing Rent is what this is about. A 10-15% increase in rental prices on just the south facing units would pay for their portion of the construction very quickly. It’s the entitlement that really gets me. The thought that this city has given Cordish $Ms yet they are constantly try to dig for more. Good companies give back to their communities, but the Cordish name (and it’s perceived value) takes a hit with every dollar it scraps tge city for.

[DColeKC]

98% means nothing. Most every developer gets fully leased quickly. Maintaining and Increasing Rent is what this is about. A 10-15% increase in rental prices on just the south facing units would pay for their portion of the construction very quickly. It’s the entitlement that really gets me. The thought that this city has given Cordish $Ms yet they are constantly try to dig for more. Good companies give back to their communities, but the Cordish name (and it’s perceived value) takes a hit with every dollar it scraps tge city for.

lol. How about employing almost 1000 people downtown? I'd say that's a form of giving back... or the millions they've given in charity? What about the almost billion dollars they have invested in downtown? What about the fact they're not like the plaza owners which changes every few years, yet the plaza is loved by all in KC. They're here to stay in KC. They haven't went after the city for any additional money that wasn't agreed upon before Cordish started dumping money into the project. I'm not sure the market locally can justify a 10-15% increase in rental rates and you're wrong about "most every developer gets leased quickly". At least not in markets outside of NYC, LA etc. Please show me an example of a developer just tossing millions into a project for funsies?

This is also me speculating, Cordish hasn't said shit about what they would actually expect for investing millions.

I see you had no response about your false streetcar accusation. Shows how much you know about Cordish, or your predetermined dislike of them and tax incentives.

[normalthings]

If Cordish wants to control the park and limit access to just their residents, tell them to fuck off. They don’t own the land and the cost would automatically be offset by increased demand for the half of their buildings facing a nice park instead of a highway. How could a development company be so shortsighted? First they were against a streetcar line next to their development (I still don’t understand the rationale of that one!) and now they want to policify a park?

If they paid for it, why shouldn't they be able to host "members only" events from time to time. I don't even think it necessarily would be that restrictive. Controlling the park, that they paid for, can just mean unlimited access for their public festivals and events. I can see Cordish wanting to have the power to host their public events like Big 12, BBQ Festival, etc at the park whenever they want.

IMHO. The views from 2 Light don't really feel hindered by the highway much or at all. In fact, I find watching the cars and trucks going by to be mesmerizing. I am sure you could get a small bump in property values/rents but I don't think it will be much.

[beautyfromashes]

I see you had no response about your false streetcar accusation. Shows how much you know about Cordish, or your predetermined dislike of them and tax incentives.

I get it. You LOVE Cordish. You’ve said it before in many different ways and forum accounts. I was a big fan of Cordish too. Look at comments when P&L first was announced. But, they made a gamble of the city that has paid off very well for them and are now looking to whip the horse for every last mile. Call the park Cordish Park for all I care, but cutting off a piece for the elites is bad form.

[normalthings]

98% means nothing. Most every developer gets fully leased quickly. Maintaining and Increasing Rent is what this is about.

I don't really get this. Cordish is able to maintain and increase rents already without a park.

A 10-15% increase in rental prices on just the south facing units would pay for their portion of the construction very quickly. It’s the entitlement that really gets me. The thought that this city has given Cordish $Ms yet they are constantly try to dig for more. Good companies give back to their communities, but the Cordish name (and it’s perceived value) takes a hit with every dollar it scraps tge city for.

If I am understanding it correctly, Cordish would pay for all/some of the park in exchange for some amount of control. IMHO that makes sense. This park will be an asset used by almost everyone in the area and will benefit plenty of developments not owned by the firm.