P&L District: 14th & Main Site Proposal

Come here for discussion about the new downtown entertainment district.
User avatar
FangKC
City Hall
City Hall
Posts: 15268
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound

Re: P&L District: 14th & Main Site Proposal

Post by FangKC »

beautyfromashes wrote:
Fri Aug 02, 2019 3:32 pm
You said:
DColeKC wrote: Cordish will lease a parking spot if they can make money. No one has been interested and that’s directly from the lease manager who profits off of leasing!
There has absolutely been interest. These companies went on to be very successful with leases that were cheaper and didn’t have their landlord trying to grab profits. Fact! Are you really saying, like you seem to above, that there has been zero interest in the empty spots in the district? That that is why they are so many empty ones? Because, I could rent the rest of the district out in a week. I wouldn’t get your astronomical prices but it wouldn’t sit empty for a decade.
The problem with allowing the space to sit empty is that the City is subsidizing the bond payments on the P&L District. This is because the promised sales tax receipts have not been high enough to make the payments. So when spaces are allowed so sit empty for years, taxpayers have to make up the difference in bond payments. If rents are lowered, it gets businesses in the spaces to help increase sales taxes the District generates, so that taxpayer money will be available for many other pressing needs.

That is what pisses so many local residents off. They see City money being diverted for bond payments while there is no enough money for basic services. That is why you see groups putting initiatives on the ballot to cap incentives. This turns people off to incentive use, and creates opposition to using them in the future to do projects that certainly will pay themselves. It makes the populace unwilling to even consider those. Thus, stasis for other parts of downtown that still need redevelopment.

So it's all well and good for Cordish to have space sitting empty for years hoping for premium rents, because the City is making up the difference for the unproductive space.

User avatar
DColeKC
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1086
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: P&L District: 14th & Main Site Proposal

Post by DColeKC »

KCPowercat wrote:
Fri Aug 02, 2019 3:06 pm
Not very nice to call people liars fyi
I'm not calling him a liar, I'm saying if he has friends who told him they were asked to sign over part of the profits "for future business for the life of the contract", they are either lying or didn't understand the terms. I don't know any of you personally, therefore I know nothing of people's character. I do think it's funny that I'm the only one here who has read almost every PNL tenants lease, but I'm wrong?

Just trying to correct some wrongs with factual information here.

User avatar
DColeKC
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1086
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: P&L District: 14th & Main Site Proposal

Post by DColeKC »

FangKC wrote:
Fri Aug 02, 2019 4:42 pm
beautyfromashes wrote:
Fri Aug 02, 2019 3:32 pm
You said:
DColeKC wrote: Cordish will lease a parking spot if they can make money. No one has been interested and that’s directly from the lease manager who profits off of leasing!
There has absolutely been interest. These companies went on to be very successful with leases that were cheaper and didn’t have their landlord trying to grab profits. Fact! Are you really saying, like you seem to above, that there has been zero interest in the empty spots in the district? That that is why they are so many empty ones? Because, I could rent the rest of the district out in a week. I wouldn’t get your astronomical prices but it wouldn’t sit empty for a decade.
The problem with allowing the space to sit empty is that the City is subsidizing the bond payments on the P&L District. This is because the promised sales tax receipts have not been high enough to make the payments. So when spaces are allowed so sit empty for years, taxpayers have to make up the difference in bond payments. If rents are lowered, it gets businesses in the spaces to help increase sales taxes the District generates, so that taxpayer money will be available for many other pressing needs.

That is what pisses so many local residents off. They see City money being diverted for bond payments while there is no enough money for basic services. That is why you see groups putting initiatives on the ballot to cap incentives. This turns people off to incentive use, and creates opposition to using them in the future to do projects that certainly will pay themselves. It makes the populace unwilling to even consider those. Thus, stasis for other parts of downtown that still need redevelopment.

So it's all well and good for Cordish to have space sitting empty for years hoping for premium rents, because the City is making up the difference for the unproductive space.
The district is 98% leased. That additional lease income of the remaining 2% would be nice, but knowing that the spot is only going to be more valuable as 4 Light and Strata/Class-A Office space is built, why lock it up for a decade for less money per SF than similar other spaces? That's just not smart business.

The revenue projections the city had done were wrong, they admitted to this and also admitted that it was at no way Cordish's fault for those predictions. I completely understand the issue with the city subsidizing the project. I think everyone here knows that it's not all about what you see on paper. There' are dozens of intangibles sparked by the district project that don't get talked about when people are complaining about the tax shortfall.

User avatar
beautyfromashes
Oak Tower
Oak Tower
Posts: 5235
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:04 am

Re: P&L District: 14th & Main Site Proposal

Post by beautyfromashes »

I once had a prominent businessman call me into his office. I was on the verge of losing a deal mostly due to pride and ego. He said, “How has no one ever taught you that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush?” Better for Cordish to take half the rent for a decade than no rent at all.

There are probably too many Cordish bashing threads on this site already and I’m sure I’ve argued against their rent strategy every year for the last decade. I stand by my comments but am moving on. Good weekend, everyone!

User avatar
KCPowercat
Ambassador
Posts: 30732
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
Location: Quality Hill
Contact:

Re: P&L District: 14th & Main Site Proposal

Post by KCPowercat »

From memory....Main between 13th and 14th has at least 4 open spaces. 13th west of main has 2. Main 12th to 13 to had 5. PNC plaza s 5. 14th grand to walnut has 2.

How in the world is that 2%


I don't want to sound like a Cordish basher because I'm not at all and I support them with my dollars and my voice but there are frustrating things.

User avatar
TheLastGentleman
Valencia Place
Valencia Place
Posts: 1953
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:27 pm

Re: P&L District: 14th & Main Site Proposal

Post by TheLastGentleman »

Would it be possible to just replace that entire building with a highrise? It's small and not connected to anything, structural or otherwise. I'm envisioning a building about the height of the president hotel.

User avatar
FangKC
City Hall
City Hall
Posts: 15268
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound

Re: P&L District: 14th & Main Site Proposal

Post by FangKC »

DColeKC wrote:
Fri Aug 02, 2019 5:39 pm

The revenue projections the city had done were wrong, they admitted to this and also admitted that it was at no way Cordish's fault for those predictions. I completely understand the issue with the city subsidizing the project. I think everyone here knows that it's not all about what you see on paper. There' are dozens of intangibles sparked by the district project that don't get talked about when people are complaining about the tax shortfall.
I understand the point you are making better than you know. If you went back far enough on various threads where there was criticism about P&L, you will find me making the "intangibles" argument myself. That redeveloping the south loop was worth it because all tax revenues for greater downtown had increased more than the City's share of the shortfall. That the City not doing anything was riskier, because companies, and conventions, were leaving downtown, and KCMO, and something had to be done to stop that.

I was making the point about how many residents see this issue--not me. These are political perceptions the City has to deal with.

See these comments I made in 2011 about "intangibles." I made this argument over and over.

http://kcrag.com/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=1 ... 6L#p461094

User avatar
normalthings
Oak Tower
Oak Tower
Posts: 4540
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:52 pm

Re: P&L District: 14th & Main Site Proposal

Post by normalthings »

DColeKC wrote:
Fri Aug 02, 2019 5:39 pm
FangKC wrote:
Fri Aug 02, 2019 4:42 pm
beautyfromashes wrote:
Fri Aug 02, 2019 3:32 pm
You said:
There has absolutely been interest. These companies went on to be very successful with leases that were cheaper and didn’t have their landlord trying to grab profits. Fact! Are you really saying, like you seem to above, that there has been zero interest in the empty spots in the district? That that is why they are so many empty ones? Because, I could rent the rest of the district out in a week. I wouldn’t get your astronomical prices but it wouldn’t sit empty for a decade.
The problem with allowing the space to sit empty is that the City is subsidizing the bond payments on the P&L District. This is because the promised sales tax receipts have not been high enough to make the payments. So when spaces are allowed so sit empty for years, taxpayers have to make up the difference in bond payments. If rents are lowered, it gets businesses in the spaces to help increase sales taxes the District generates, so that taxpayer money will be available for many other pressing needs.

That is what pisses so many local residents off. They see City money being diverted for bond payments while there is no enough money for basic services. That is why you see groups putting initiatives on the ballot to cap incentives. This turns people off to incentive use, and creates opposition to using them in the future to do projects that certainly will pay themselves. It makes the populace unwilling to even consider those. Thus, stasis for other parts of downtown that still need redevelopment.

So it's all well and good for Cordish to have space sitting empty for years hoping for premium rents, because the City is making up the difference for the unproductive space.
The district is 98% leased. That additional lease income of the remaining 2% would be nice, but knowing that the spot is only going to be more valuable as 4 Light and Strata/Class-A Office space is built, why lock it up for a decade for less money per SF than similar other spaces? That's just not smart business.

The revenue projections the city had done were wrong, they admitted to this and also admitted that it was at no way Cordish's fault for those predictions. I completely understand the issue with the city subsidizing the project. I think everyone here knows that it's not all about what you see on paper. There' are dozens of intangibles sparked by the district project that don't get talked about when people are complaining about the tax shortfall.
If I was a full rent paying tenant, I wouldn’t be happy to see Cordish giving discounts to attract tenants to the almost full district.

Giving discounts to fill the few empty spots would have made sense during the first few years, especially during the downturn. However, giving those discounts now could have negative impacts in the future(ex. current tenants demanding lower rent,etc)

User avatar
normalthings
Oak Tower
Oak Tower
Posts: 4540
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:52 pm

Re: P&L District: 14th & Main Site Proposal

Post by normalthings »

TheLastGentleman wrote:
Fri Aug 02, 2019 10:32 pm
Would it be possible to just replace that entire building with a highrise? It's small and not connected to anything, structural or otherwise. I'm envisioning a building about the height of the president hotel.
The floor plates would be extremely small and narrow: 60F by 125F (maybe 7,500 SF). Bulldozing the brick structure gives you about 60F by 240Ft (14,500 SF) to work with.

One Light is roughly 70F by 172F (12,000SF). Width wise it feels like: 30F apartment-10F Hallway- 30F Apartment

earthling
One Park Place
One Park Place
Posts: 6514
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:27 pm

Re: P&L District: 14th & Main Site Proposal

Post by earthling »

normalthings wrote:
Sat Aug 03, 2019 8:12 am
Giving discounts to fill the few empty spots would have made sense during the first few years, especially during the downturn. However, giving those discounts now could have negative impacts in the future(ex. current tenants demanding lower rent,etc)
Would think that P&L has a different deal for every tenant, especially locals they specifically target, so there's probably a wide variance in leasing rates. Would be interesting to know what the avg is. The downtown avg has risen from around $14 in Q1/2017 to over $18 in Q1/2019. The Plaza jumped from about $20 to $30 same period according to CBRE.
KCPowercat wrote:
Fri Aug 02, 2019 5:49 pm
From memory....Main between 13th and 14th has at least 4 open spaces. 13th west of main has 2. Main 12th to 13 to had 5. PNC plaza s 5. 14th grand to walnut has 2.

How in the world is that 2%
Yeah it looks like much higher than 2% vacancy. Downtown retail vacancy hovers around 1-3% (lowest in metro) and P&L looks to be higher than that. But what's strange is that it's the spots closer to the highest foot traffic downtown.

The highest foot traffic downtown weekdays and outside events appears to be 12th/Main then 13th/Main (Cosentino's), City Market stop and 14th/Main P&L streetcar stop. W end of P&L is within the 4 most foot trafficked areas yet their vacancies are within a block or so of these. I'd bet it has more to do with the way Cordish is handling negotiations than lack of interest from retailers.

User avatar
DColeKC
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1086
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: P&L District: 14th & Main Site Proposal

Post by DColeKC »

KCPowercat wrote:
Fri Aug 02, 2019 5:49 pm
From memory....Main between 13th and 14th has at least 4 open spaces. 13th west of main has 2. Main 12th to 13 to had 5. PNC plaza s 5. 14th grand to walnut has 2.

How in the world is that 2%


I don't want to sound like a Cordish basher because I'm not at all and I support them with my dollars and my voice but there are frustrating things.
You have to think in total available square footage. Now, with a few recent move outs, that number could be closer to 3% or 4%.

I’ve been lurking in the background on this forum for well over a decade. So I’ve seen all the Cordish bashing on here and do understand some of the reasons behind it. I didn’t sign up while employed by them because I didn’t want to risk it. However, they were very good to me and I have nothing but respect for them. I’m now an executive Vice President of operations for a different company and often miss the family owned Cordish and how small they kept the business. All that said, I’ll probably come across defensive at times in respect to Cordish.

WoodDraw
Valencia Place
Valencia Place
Posts: 1889
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 8:53 pm

Re: P&L District: 14th & Main Site Proposal

Post by WoodDraw »

I'm sure everyone enjoys your perspective. I know I do. And if you've been lurking long enough, you know the atmosphere here :)

I don't think most people dislike Cordish. Just that any criticism of them tends to get corporate speak pushback on why it really makes sense and they're right. Whereas most people here are more what should be done vs. what cordish thinks is best for me. Don't take it personally :)

User avatar
FangKC
City Hall
City Hall
Posts: 15268
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound

Re: P&L District: 14th & Main Site Proposal

Post by FangKC »

Change your mindset from criticism of Cordish to offering Cordish local feedback.

User avatar
KCPowercat
Ambassador
Posts: 30732
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
Location: Quality Hill
Contact:

Re: P&L District: 14th & Main Site Proposal

Post by KCPowercat »

FangKC wrote:
Sat Aug 03, 2019 2:52 pm
Change your mindset from criticism of Cordish to offering Cordish local feedback.
exactly. We are the ones actually down here every day. This goes beyond Cordish but I've never understood the defensiveness

User avatar
DColeKC
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1086
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: P&L District: 14th & Main Site Proposal

Post by DColeKC »

KCPowercat wrote:
Sun Aug 04, 2019 1:37 am
FangKC wrote:
Sat Aug 03, 2019 2:52 pm
Change your mindset from criticism of Cordish to offering Cordish local feedback.
exactly. We are the ones actually down here every day. This goes beyond Cordish but I've never understood the defensiveness
I explained the defensiveness. I put a large chunk of my life and effort into the district, including getting it opened and operational. If you go through this forum you’ll easily see that when Cordish is mentioned, the vast majority of the time it’s in a negative way. I’ve rarely read anyone complimenting Cordish or giving them any credit for the downtown revitalization.

Then, we have the general public, some who want to hate on the district because of the tax incentives and cities blunder over tax revenue projections.

Then, you have the entire Westport area who literally have signs up thanking people for not visiting PNL.

I literally spent almost a decade of my life in the district all day, everyday and still am a lot being a DT resident.

It all just wears on a person who took pride in the district and still does. Big difference between constructive criticism and negativity.

WoodDraw
Valencia Place
Valencia Place
Posts: 1889
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 8:53 pm

Re: P&L District: 14th & Main Site Proposal

Post by WoodDraw »

Meh, I don't think any of that is true. I think most people here have no problem with Cordish. And I suspect most people here would be on the Cordish side of the recent affordable housing/use agreement argument.

I think what people get pissy about is when we criticize one individual decision that they've made, the response always falls back to "don't you know we revitalized downtown when no one was here".

I think we are beyond that now. We can talk design and leasing without the constant return to what was there before.

User avatar
KCPowercat
Ambassador
Posts: 30732
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
Location: Quality Hill
Contact:

Re: P&L District: 14th & Main Site Proposal

Post by KCPowercat »

DColeKC wrote:
Sun Aug 04, 2019 5:44 am
KCPowercat wrote:
Sun Aug 04, 2019 1:37 am
FangKC wrote:
Sat Aug 03, 2019 2:52 pm
Change your mindset from criticism of Cordish to offering Cordish local feedback.
exactly. We are the ones actually down here every day. This goes beyond Cordish but I've never understood the defensiveness
I explained the defensiveness. I put a large chunk of my life and effort into the district, including getting it opened and operational. If you go through this forum you’ll easily see that when Cordish is mentioned, the vast majority of the time it’s in a negative way. I’ve rarely read anyone complimenting Cordish or giving them any credit for the downtown revitalization.

Then, we have the general public, some who want to hate on the district because of the tax incentives and cities blunder over tax revenue projections.

Then, you have the entire Westport area who literally have signs up thanking people for not visiting PNL.

I literally spent almost a decade of my life in the district all day, everyday and still am a lot being a DT resident.

It all just wears on a person who took pride in the district and still does. Big difference between constructive criticism and negativity.
I understand that to some extent and that's why I am many times on Cordish side in any discussion.

But save me the "large chunk of my life" angle. It's a job. People are critical of my employer and I don't go run around defending every single comment.

A majoruty of my life is lliving working and playing downtown so you better believe the biggest single development iin my neighborhood s going to be focused on for what I think they can do better. I've invested too much of my time money and life to be quiet.

earthling
One Park Place
One Park Place
Posts: 6514
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:27 pm

Re: P&L District: 14th & Main Site Proposal

Post by earthling »

P&L is also essentially a public/private partnership. If it were 100% private there'd more likely be a different angle to discussing P&L issues/challenges, like Plaza discussions. Cordish reps seem to imply public opinion gets in the way rather than collaborating.

If a site on Plaza didn't lease for 10+ years, unless TIF involved the conversation would be very different than a site that is operated by a private company that was partly built by public funds. Something is very suspect about the spaces that have *never* been leased since opening over 12 years, especially given these spaces are near among highest foot traffic in city now. Smells like exploiting the City aid to me as FangKC spelled out.

User avatar
normalthings
Oak Tower
Oak Tower
Posts: 4540
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:52 pm

Re: P&L District: 14th & Main Site Proposal

Post by normalthings »

TheLastGentleman wrote:
Fri Aug 02, 2019 10:32 pm
Would it be possible to just replace that entire building with a highrise? It's small and not connected to anything, structural or otherwise. I'm envisioning a building about the height of the president hotel.
This 22 floor condo building being build in Lincoln Nebraska on a similar site. (narrow retail backed by garage)

Image

User avatar
DColeKC
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1086
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: P&L District: 14th & Main Site Proposal

Post by DColeKC »

KCPowercat wrote:
Sun Aug 04, 2019 9:05 am
DColeKC wrote:
Sun Aug 04, 2019 5:44 am
KCPowercat wrote:
Sun Aug 04, 2019 1:37 am


exactly. We are the ones actually down here every day. This goes beyond Cordish but I've never understood the defensiveness
I explained the defensiveness. I put a large chunk of my life and effort into the district, including getting it opened and operational. If you go through this forum you’ll easily see that when Cordish is mentioned, the vast majority of the time it’s in a negative way. I’ve rarely read anyone complimenting Cordish or giving them any credit for the downtown revitalization.

Then, we have the general public, some who want to hate on the district because of the tax incentives and cities blunder over tax revenue projections.

Then, you have the entire Westport area who literally have signs up thanking people for not visiting PNL.

I literally spent almost a decade of my life in the district all day, everyday and still am a lot being a DT resident.

It all just wears on a person who took pride in the district and still does. Big difference between constructive criticism and negativity.
I understand that to some extent and that's why I am many times on Cordish side in any discussion.

But save me the "large chunk of my life" angle. It's a job. People are critical of my employer and I don't go run around defending every single comment.

A majoruty of my life is lliving working and playing downtown so you better believe the biggest single development iin my neighborhood s going to be focused on for what I think they can do better. I've invested too much of my time money and life to be quiet.
Maybe I take more pride in my work than you? I’ve also lived downtown for 13 years and who said you had to be quiet? I’m just explaining where I’m coming from and how I view things on here. Not sure how you can tell me to save the “large chunk of my life” angle and turn around to say you’re entitled to your opinion because you’ve invested too much TIME, money and life”.

Post Reply