Three Light

Come here for discussion about the new downtown entertainment district.
flyingember
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 8920
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: Three Light

Post by flyingember »

414 Light Street in Baltimore

The garage is the entire block. The building sits on top of 1/3 of the garage on one corner and faced the whole garage with glass and then flowed units on one corner.
It's a nice look.

It's not that different from Two and Three Light. My guess is the garage being a fraction the size makes doing the same thing impossible.

User avatar
DColeKC
Colonnade
Colonnade
Posts: 945
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Three Light

Post by DColeKC »

Building in Baltimore looks nice. I’m biased but I think they’ve done a nice job on the parking garage exteriors for Two Light, One Cardinal Way and the planned 3L. Unless you’re familiar or really paying attention, I don’t even think most people know they’re looking at a parking garage when coming north approaching the PNL district.

Would have been expensive and a non revenue generating idea, but too bad they didn’t put underground parking in all three blocks from Baltimore to Grand to serve as future underground residential parking. Too much money to have them sit empty for a decade or more.

User avatar
KCPowercat
Ambassador
Posts: 30589
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
Location: Quality Hill
Contact:

Re: Three Light

Post by KCPowercat »

You can literally see cars in 2L from every angle. Patting Cordish on the back for that design is 1/2 of our problem.

User avatar
DColeKC
Colonnade
Colonnade
Posts: 945
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Three Light

Post by DColeKC »

KCPowercat wrote:
Tue Jan 19, 2021 7:30 pm
You can literally see cars in 2L from every angle. Patting Cordish on the back for that design is 1/2 of our problem.
You missed the part where I said my comment is biased? Listen, I live in the building and have paid Cordish over $200,000 in rent. I’m just saying as someone who’s personally paid to be in these buildings, none of the residents complain about the exterior of the parking garage. Which is why I always bring up what residents do and don’t complain about.

It’s a parking garage that requires ventilation, to do that you’re going to see cars if you’re looking for cars. I’d say nationally, they’re above standard for residential parking garage exterior coverings.

User avatar
TheLastGentleman
Valencia Place
Valencia Place
Posts: 1905
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:27 pm

Re: Three Light

Post by TheLastGentleman »

Wow

User avatar
DColeKC
Colonnade
Colonnade
Posts: 945
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Three Light

Post by DColeKC »

TheLastGentleman wrote:
Tue Jan 19, 2021 7:52 pm
Wow
Why am I not surprised you took the time to type out a one word response?

Point is we all understand that there’s a financial responsibility when building right? Is it worth an extra 2,3 or 4 million dollars to make a parking garage look like livable space by those passing by?

As someone who’s had far too many conversations with other residents, there’s plenty of complaints but the exterior design of the building ain’t it.

This doesn’t mean stop being critical of their designs and it doesn’t mean I won’t keep telling the right players about valid critics. If you think I’m not going to offer up my own opinion as a downtown resident who’s lived in both buildings, you’re obviously not paying attention.

User avatar
GRID
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 14703
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 12:20 pm
Contact:

Re: Three Light

Post by GRID »

DColeKC, not trying to pick a fight with you, I'm sure it's a great place to live. I just think they took the easy route on the designs.

Here is a new residential tower in Tyson Corner. Retail on first floor, the next five floors are parking and the rest apartments. If you are going to have above ground parking, something like this is ideal. I think one problem with two light and probably Three light once they downsize it again are the garages are so large proportionate to the building that sits on top of them. Same deal with the new W&R building. I know the renderings show the garage blending in, but it will be interesting if they can pull it off. I'm just imagining this deck over 670 walled in with massive garages.
Image

User avatar
KCPowercat
Ambassador
Posts: 30589
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
Location: Quality Hill
Contact:

Re: Three Light

Post by KCPowercat »

I'd be very okay with platform garages if KC developers would build them like that.

User avatar
DColeKC
Colonnade
Colonnade
Posts: 945
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Three Light

Post by DColeKC »

GRID wrote:
Tue Jan 19, 2021 9:17 pm
DColeKC, not trying to pick a fight with you, I'm sure it's a great place to live. I just think they took the easy route on the designs.

Here is a new residential tower in Tyson Corner. Retail on first floor, the next five floors are parking and the rest apartments. If you are going to have above ground parking, something like this is ideal. I think one problem with two light and probably Three light once they downsize it again are the garages are so large proportionate to the building that sits on top of them. Same deal with the new W&R building. I know the renderings show the garage blending in, but it will be interesting if they can pull it off. I'm just imagining this deck over 670 walled in with massive garages.
Image
That looks great. I wonder how they handle the exhaust ventilation? I feel like open air ventilation vs a air handling system is not only a big installation cost but a big operating expense too.

User avatar
normalthings
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 4241
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:52 pm

Re: Three Light

Post by normalthings »

GRID wrote:
Tue Jan 19, 2021 2:19 pm
This new tower in Baltimore does a better job of incorporating the garage. The tower actually touches the ground rather than only having the building on top the garage.

Image
Confluence worked on this project.

User avatar
FangKC
City Hall
City Hall
Posts: 15083
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound

Re: Three Light

Post by FangKC »

flyingember wrote:
Tue Jan 19, 2021 3:08 pm
414 Light Street in Baltimore

The garage is the entire block. The building sits on top of 1/3 of the garage on one corner and faced the whole garage with glass and then flowed units on one corner.
It's a nice look.

It's not that different from Two and Three Light. My guess is the garage being a fraction the size makes doing the same thing impossible.
It doesn't take up the entire block.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Balti ... 1893?hl=en

flyingember
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 8920
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: Three Light

Post by flyingember »

Regardless, it's bigger

The footprint is 175x240
2 Light is 108x250

The building portion replaces very little of the footprint on the garage levels, it looks like two units making up 25% of a floor continue down

So we subtract 25% of 1/3 of the footprint to get he garage space per level, give or take

ignoring the first floors,
That garage is 38250 sq ft per level in a 41750 footprint
Two Light's is 27,000 sq ft

So the Two Light garage needs to be about 50% larger for this kind of plan to work

User avatar
DColeKC
Colonnade
Colonnade
Posts: 945
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Three Light

Post by DColeKC »

We have yet another city councilwoman trying to push legislation that any developer who receives TIF should have 20% affordable units. As cheap as $600/month for someone making under 25k/year.

I hope this doesn’t slow the already stalled start date of 3L.

I understand this idea in large cities where real estate is so expensive. For the longest time, it felt like all there was downtown was income restricted housing. It was awkward for those people who made slightly too much to qualify for income restricted properties but not enough for something decent downtown.

I’ve always struggled to understand why a “luxury” apartment complex should be forced to reserve units for affordable housing in most markets. Does the person who spends $600/month get the same amenities as the person spending $2500/month?

Isn’t part of life working towards goals. You want more, you work hard to get what you want? I grew up poor and spent many years struggling. I’ve lived in section 8 housing, income restricted housing and over the years finally could afford to live in a brand new high rise. I certainly want people to have a better life and more access than I did, but I don’t think 22 year old me, making barely enough to survive deserved to live in a luxury building or even a nice high rise downtown. Cart before the horse type logic there.

What am I missing?

User avatar
KCPowercat
Ambassador
Posts: 30589
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
Location: Quality Hill
Contact:

Re: Three Light

Post by KCPowercat »

DColeKC wrote:
Fri Jan 22, 2021 9:12 am

I’ve always struggled to understand why a “luxury” apartment complex should be forced to reserve units for affordable housing in most markets. Does the person who spends $600/month get the same amenities as the person spending $2500/month?
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.

User avatar
normalthings
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 4241
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:52 pm

Re: Three Light

Post by normalthings »

KCPowercat wrote:
Fri Jan 22, 2021 11:30 am
DColeKC wrote:
Fri Jan 22, 2021 9:12 am

I’ve always struggled to understand why a “luxury” apartment complex should be forced to reserve units for affordable housing in most markets. Does the person who spends $600/month get the same amenities as the person spending $2500/month?
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.
Luxury is really a marketing term for “new construction.” We need to incentivize and streamline the construction process at all levels and price points.

User avatar
GRID
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 14703
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 12:20 pm
Contact:

Re: Three Light

Post by GRID »

95% of new housing in KCMO and most American cities are single family suburban homes which are far more subsidized than downtown towers are even after incentives and yet we let those go up unchecked without question and for some reason "affordable housing" is not even part of the equation. If you are going to ask developers to provide a certain amount of affordable housing in return for their development being subsidized, at least be fair about it and do it across the city in all types of developments. And places like Overland Park need to stop getting a free pass while they also give tax breaks to tons of luxury apartment developments. Affordable housing is not only not an issue in places like OP, I doubt anybody in those areas wants it. For some reason all affordable housing is the responsibility of the center cities.

This is a good, but very basic and entry level video on how much sprawl type housing really cost vs urban. It even has some b-roll footage of Johnson County, KS and the intro is the kc streetcar which I found interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IsMeKl-Sv0

User avatar
DColeKC
Colonnade
Colonnade
Posts: 945
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Three Light

Post by DColeKC »

KCPowercat wrote:
Fri Jan 22, 2021 11:30 am
DColeKC wrote:
Fri Jan 22, 2021 9:12 am

I’ve always struggled to understand why a “luxury” apartment complex should be forced to reserve units for affordable housing in most markets. Does the person who spends $600/month get the same amenities as the person spending $2500/month?
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?

User avatar
GRID
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 14703
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 12:20 pm
Contact:

Re: Three Light

Post by GRID »

DColeKC wrote:
Fri Jan 22, 2021 1:18 pm
KCPowercat wrote:
Fri Jan 22, 2021 11:30 am
DColeKC wrote:
Fri Jan 22, 2021 9:12 am

I’ve always struggled to understand why a “luxury” apartment complex should be forced to reserve units for affordable housing in most markets. Does the person who spends $600/month get the same amenities as the person spending $2500/month?
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?
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.

User avatar
KCPowercat
Ambassador
Posts: 30589
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
Location: Quality Hill
Contact:

Re: Three Light

Post by KCPowercat »

I agree we need to take a critical eye to suburban development but there is a lack of affordable housing in the core.

User avatar
KCPowercat
Ambassador
Posts: 30589
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
Location: Quality Hill
Contact:

Re: Three Light

Post by KCPowercat »

DColeKC wrote:
Fri Jan 22, 2021 1:18 pm
KCPowercat wrote:
Fri Jan 22, 2021 11:30 am
DColeKC wrote:
Fri Jan 22, 2021 9:12 am

I’ve always struggled to understand why a “luxury” apartment complex should be forced to reserve units for affordable housing in most markets. Does the person who spends $600/month get the same amenities as the person spending $2500/month?
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.

Post Reply