Downtown Loop

Transportation topics in KC
shinatoo
Ambassador
Posts: 7392
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 3:20 pm

Re: Downtown Loop

Post by shinatoo »

None of the traffic issues are going to matter in 10-20 years. By then the majority of cars will be self driving. And our current infrastructure, even with population increases, will be waaaay overbuilt.
User avatar
FangKC
City Hall
City Hall
Posts: 18141
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound

Re: Downtown Loop

Post by FangKC »

Yes, a single developer can be a disaster if they hold on the a lot of parcels for a long time waiting to develop on their schedule. Stan Durwood (AMC Theaters) did this with the South Loop and his two failed projects. And Tower Properties (Commerce Bank) has held the North Loop blocks for decades. Remember that the previous Kemper generations proposed extensive redevelopment plans that only resulted in demolition of a lot of old building stock, and nothing got built.

Hallmark/Crown Center also demolished several older buildings around Grand and 27th Street, and nothing has been built on those parcels. Had they just left them, they would probably have been able to renovate them as lofts or retail spaces later on, and built new infill buildings around them later. As we speak, those cleared parcels still have no replacement buildings on them. Those original buildings probably would have been renovated like the Greenleaf Cadillac dealership has been. Two of those demolished buildings were 8-stories tall, and took up half the block.

The biggest problem with these large landholders is that real estate and redevelopment was not their primary business. Stan Durwood, the Kemper banks, and Hallmark ended up holding a lot of cleared land, but real estate was not their primary focus. They are less inclined to develop their land. It would have probably been better in the long run if they had just sold off their parcels a lot sooner when they didn't execute their redevelopment. Part of downtown's problem in the past have been these large landholders who won't sell their parcels to people who did want to develop. We don't know how many times some business was looking to build downtown, but they just couldn't get the a parcel to build on.

It also isn't just landowners being unwilling to sell at a reasonable price. I can think of one instance when a developer who wanted to renovate an older historic building of significant size, and certain local banks with a big presence wouldn't even entertain giving them any financing, and actively worked against them getting financing from other banks locally and outside of town, and even worked against them getting incentives from the City. The project ended up getting done only because the developer got financing from outside Kansas City. One of the most active parties running interference on redeveloping this historic structure touts himself as a preservationist. However, we almost lost this historic building because of his meddling.

There are some parties--major landholders, who like to portray themselves as being civic-minded, and prominent KC leaders, who have actually been fairly active in putting up roadblocks to development downtown. We have no idea how many businesses they have run-off because of this practice. I would wager to say that some businesses have left downtown simply to get beyond their reach. This has been a long-standing problem in downtown Kansas City for decades, and it's rarely discussed. One could probably surmise this is why downtown has become less the financial center of the Metro--even when it makes sense that it should have continued to be.

The only decent example I can think of off-hand is DST, which did develop a lot of their real estate with new buildings, and they also renovated several older ones. Hallmark sort of did in the beginning with Crown Center, but then they stopped--or at least slowed dramatically, and didn't fully finish what they started.

The City probably is at fault as well in that they created these TIF redevelopment zones, and allowed them to exist for too long a period without some sort of demand the development occur within a reasonable time-frame or the landholder would lose the redevelopment designation.

In hindsight, there is also no mechanism in place that mandates a viable replacement plan before demolition is granted in the redevelopment zones. What this means is that if a property owner proposes tearing down a building, that could viably be renovated instead, that property owner must be able to demonstrate that a new building will be constructed in its' place--that they have a design and financing to do it. In past decades, this was probably not realistic, but based on what we have learned during the urban renewal experience in past decades, there should probably be a conversation about some City policy going forward that mandates this. One could also do a either/or mandate. If you don't come forth with a new building replacement plan, then the redevelopment incentives revert to the existing structures. But no demolition permit will be granted before we know what's happening for certain. If you can't proceed with the new building replacement, then the incentives apply to the existing structure, and you have to renovate those within so many years or the redevelopment district is cancelled.

Some will argue that the City should not tell property owners what to do with their buildings, but one must remember that some of this was done in the past through the City's own land clearance and redevelopment authority, where the City took control of the parcels through condemnation and eminent domain, and then transferred the property to the new property owner and "potential" redeveloper. So the City had some control and could have mandated that if we help you secure these parcels, and you don't put forth a new building replacement, you have to renovate the existing buildings. We aren't going to clear the land and let you sit on it for decades.

In some respects--looking back--in those instances where the City used the land clearance and redevelopment agency to gain control of parcels, it probably would have been better if the City had retained ownership of the buildings and parcels instead of turning them over to the new developer right away. That way, if the redevelopment plan never happened, the new party didn't own the parcels and couldn't sit on them for years as a speculative measure. The City then could have resold, or turned over, the buildings to a new developer who would have either renovated the existing buildings, or actually built a new building.

The other purpose in doing this is that in the appropriate situations, the City could have sought, and secured, placement on the historic register before turning over the buildings. This would have helped secure more of the City's historic architectural legacy, and also got in place the historic tax credits to help renovate the building. I think the City did do this with the Mainstreet (Empire) Theater before turning it over to Cordish.

I can think of a couple of situations where this should have happened. The Law Building being one. Had this policy existed, it probably might still exist, and have been renovated by now instead of having a vacant lot there today. Going further back, the Lathrop Building on the SE corner of 10th and Grand might have been another example.

That whole business with the Law Building was very shady.
Last edited by FangKC on Sat Feb 27, 2016 5:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
flyingember
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9862
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: Downtown Loop

Post by flyingember »

shinatoo wrote:None of the traffic issues are going to matter in 10-20 years. By then the majority of cars will be self driving. And our current infrastructure, even with population increases, will be waaaay overbuilt.
Planning on self driving cars in 10-20 years is beyond stupid.

All electric cars date to 2008. We're 8 years in on that tech and they're not even close to having major uptake.
The hybrid electric car is 19 years old. It's also not remotely a universal technology.
Rear view cameras for cars came out in the US in 2000. It's not going universal until 2018.

Some self driving exists but only on ~20 models of cars. There have been 210 models of cars in the past 15 years. So 10% offer the tech today as an option.

The average age of a car on the road is 11 years. So rear view cameras had to become mandatory around 2000 to be standard on the average car in 2016.

If 10% of cars sold contain the tech and the update takes as long as hybrid vehicles we might get to 10% update in a decade.

Don't plan on designing a city around automated traffic until 2050-2060 at the soonest.
User avatar
FangKC
City Hall
City Hall
Posts: 18141
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound

Re: Downtown Loop

Post by FangKC »

The area of former auto dealership buildings in the area around 27th and Main.

The buildings with red lines around them are those that probably could have been saved and renovated. They were on parcels that have yet to be redeveloped today.

Image

Image

Image

Below is the Dodge Brothers auto dealership that was on the SW corner of Grand and Warwick Trafficway near E. 26th Street.

Image

Below is the Pierce-Arrow auto dealership that was on the SE corner of Grand and Warwick near E. 26th Street.

Image

Below is the Hudson auto dealership on the east side of Main around 27th Street.

Image

Below is the 8-story former auto dealership building that existed on the east side of Warwick Trafficway between 26th and 27th streets.

Image

The two photos below show the auto dealership building that used to be on the SE corner of 27th and Main. The second photo is more recent. Since there are still empty hillside parcels on Union Hill, that photo was taken prior to those new houses being constructed.

Image

Image

My point in showing these buildings is to illustrate that had Hallmark not been so quick to demolish them, by now they most likely would have been renovated, and those parcels wouldn't be sitting empty waiting for redevelopment. These were structures built of reinforced concrete, and probably would have been very structurally sound.

It would have been fairly easy to have left them, and still built the two large office buildings to the south. The office towers aren't on the footprint of any of these buildings. The street grid was changed after the buildings were demolished. However, even if it the former street layout had remained, Crown Center could have designed 2600 Grand to fit the parcel.

This example speaks to the point I made earlier about large single developers demolishing viable, and in some cases, larger buildings long before it's necessary, or even before they have an actual replacement structure for the parcel. I'm not always opposed to demolition of a building if a more productive structure will replace it, and there are problems finding a suitable already-vacant parcel for that tenant. But I am opposed to tearing down viable existing structures with no replacement, or arguable purpose.

The Dodge Brothers and Hudson auto dealerships were not even torn down for surface parking. The land on which they existed is now just a grassy parcel.

The fact that they were older buildings wouldn't have prevented Crown Center from building the new office towers--as long as they would have renovated them before marketing the office properties. Federal historic tax credits have been available since 1976, and I can recall that some of these buildings still existed in the late 1980s/early 90s. At least I recall ones being along Main Street around 27th. Someone might remember when they were demolished. If my memory serves me from that time, there used to be a business that had vintage cars in the showroom around there.
shinatoo
Ambassador
Posts: 7392
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 3:20 pm

Re: Downtown Loop

Post by shinatoo »

flyingember wrote:
shinatoo wrote:None of the traffic issues are going to matter in 10-20 years. By then the majority of cars will be self driving. And our current infrastructure, even with population increases, will be waaaay overbuilt.
Planning on self driving cars in 10-20 years is beyond stupid.

All electric cars date to 2008. We're 8 years in on that tech and they're not even close to having major uptake.
The hybrid electric car is 19 years old. It's also not remotely a universal technology.
Rear view cameras for cars came out in the US in 2000. It's not going universal until 2018.

Some self driving exists but only on ~20 models of cars. There have been 210 models of cars in the past 15 years. So 10% offer the tech today as an option.

The average age of a car on the road is 11 years. So rear view cameras had to become mandatory around 2000 to be standard on the average car in 2016.

If 10% of cars sold contain the tech and the update takes as long as hybrid vehicles we might get to 10% update in a decade.

Don't plan on designing a city around automated traffic until 2050-2060 at the soonest.
It's happening, and is going to happen. Doubting that is beyond stupid. Maybe not 100% self-driving but it will be the prevalent. Insurance and the law will favor self-driving cars, marginalizing those who do not chose to update with that technology.

It has nothing to do with electric or hybrid. Gas powered cars can be self driving too. In fact, I would would be pretty confident to guess that artificial photosynthesis will produce methanol much cheaper than any battery technology and our second run at battery powered cars will be as unsuccessful as the first. Methanol has about half the energy density of gasoline, but the best battery technology has about a tenth of the energy density of gasoline.
User avatar
DaveKCMO
Ambassador
Posts: 20039
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:22 pm
Location: Crossroads
Contact:

Re: Downtown Loop

Post by DaveKCMO »

FangKC wrote:I can think of one instance when a developer who wanted to renovate an older historic building of significant size, and certain local banks with a big presence wouldn't even entertain giving them any financing, and actively worked against them getting financing from other banks locally and outside of town, and even worked against them getting incentives from the City. The project ended up getting done only because the developer got financing from outside Kansas City. One of the most active parties running interference on redeveloping this historic structure touts himself as a preservationist. However, we almost lost this historic building because of his meddling.
you can say jonathan kemper. it's okay.
aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12624
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: Downtown Loop

Post by aknowledgeableperson »

"The biggest problem with these large landholders is that real estate and redevelopment was not their primary business. Stan Durwood, the Kemper banks, and Hallmark ended up holding a lot of cleared land, but real estate was not their primary focus."

Durwood did not own the properties. What he possessed were the redevelopment rights to the property. That resulted in property owners not willing to invest in their properties under the threat of Durwood taking the properties at any time if a project came along. It is quite possible that if he wasn't shooting for the "big project" he might have been able to section out the properties for many minor projects.
mgh7676
Western Auto Lofts
Western Auto Lofts
Posts: 552
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:00 am

Re: Downtown Loop

Post by mgh7676 »

DaveKCMO wrote:
FangKC wrote:I can think of one instance when a developer who wanted to renovate an older historic building of significant size, and certain local banks with a big presence wouldn't even entertain giving them any financing, and actively worked against them getting financing from other banks locally and outside of town, and even worked against them getting incentives from the City. The project ended up getting done only because the developer got financing from outside Kansas City. One of the most active parties running interference on redeveloping this historic structure touts himself as a preservationist. However, we almost lost this historic building because of his meddling.
you can say jonathan kemper. it's okay.
Didn't we lose the Law Building because of something like this?
User avatar
FangKC
City Hall
City Hall
Posts: 18141
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound

Re: Downtown Loop

Post by FangKC »

That was a strange situation. A guy named Matt Abbott was going to renovate the Law Building. Then I think he lost his financing, or a tenant backed out because it was taking too long to get done. I think it was Crawford Architecture. Anyway, then we were told that some "mysterious" buyer out of New York wanted to buy the Law Building from Abbott, but he had to tear it down first. So he did, and then the buyer from New York didn't end up buying it. Not long after that, Jon Copaken ended up owning that parcel and most of the rest of the block. Everything was demolished except that little retail building on the NE part of the block.

After it happened, I suspected that the "mysterious" New York buyer was just someone working in tandem with Copaken to get control of the entire block. I don't know if Matt Abbott knew this, and went along with it, or if he was just duped.

With the Sprint Center and P&L District being constructed down the street, that entire block would become much more valuable--especially if it was mostly cleared. The reason for this is that any big office project, or hotel, would require a big parking garage. To accomplish that, you would need the entire block so that you could excavate and build a lot of parking spaces below ground. Big office buildings require a lot of parking.

So in my opinion, the Law Building was lost solely to be able to provide a lot of parking spaces for any new building Copaken would build. I sort of understand why he'd want to do it, because One Kansas City Place, and City Center Square have always had problems because they didn't have enough parking--especially City Center Square. That problem alone has devalued City Center Square as a property. It wouldn't be a problem in a transit-rich city like New York City, San Francisco, Chicago, or Boston. But in Kansas City, it's a big problem for a property-owner.

I think one could have kept the Law Building, and built a new office building on the south part of the block, but it might have required a smaller below-grade garage, and placing an auxiliary parking garage in another location. For example, on one of the blocks east of Oak, and south of 13th Street. It would have been more expensive for the developer, because you are having to finance an off-site garage as well as buy the property to build it. Kansas City office rents are not high enough to justify a lot of additional expenses. If you have high demand downtown for office space, it's less a problem. But there are a lot of competing office projects that don't have to pay for those extras. Demand for downtown space was not that great then or even now.

At the time the Law Building was demolished, there was also talk that Kansas City Power & Light was looking for new space, and maybe Copaken was in a hurry to provide it. There might also have been another big tenant in play at the time. It might have been Waddell & Reed, AMC, Polsinelli, or Freightquote. Whatever was going on, it didn't pan out because Copaken is still shopping that site.

Image
mgh7676
Western Auto Lofts
Western Auto Lofts
Posts: 552
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:00 am

Re: Downtown Loop

Post by mgh7676 »

FangKC wrote:That was a strange situation. A guy named Matt Abbott was going to renovate the Law Building. Then I think he lost his financing, or a tenant backed out because it was taking too long to get done. I think it was Crawford Architecture. Anyway, then we were told that some "mysterious" buyer out of New York wanted to buy the Law Building from Abbott, but he had to tear it down first. So he did, and then the buyer from New York didn't end up buying it. Not long after that, Jon Copaken ended up owning that parcel and most of the rest of the block. Everything was demolished except that little retail building on the NE part of the block.

After it happened, I suspected that the "mysterious" New York buyer was just someone working in tandem with Copaken to get control of the entire block. I don't know if Matt Abbott knew this, and went along with it, or if he was just duped.

With the Sprint Center and P&L District being constructed down the street, that entire block would become much more valuable--especially if it was mostly cleared. The reason for this is that any big office project, or hotel, would require a big parking garage. To accomplish that, you would need the entire block so that you could excavate and build a lot of parking spaces below ground. Big office buildings require a lot of parking.

So in my opinion, the Law Building was lost solely to be able to provide a lot of parking spaces for any new building Copaken would build. I sort of understand why he'd want to do it, because One Kansas City Place, and City Center Square have always had problems because they didn't have enough parking--especially City Center Square. That problem alone has devalued City Center Square as a property. It wouldn't be a problem in a transit-rich city like New York City, San Francisco, Chicago, or Boston. But in Kansas City, it's a big problem for a property-owner.

I think one could have kept the Law Building, and built a new office building on the south part of the block, but it might have required a smaller below-grade garage, and placing an auxiliary parking garage in another location. For example, on one of the blocks east of Oak, and south of 13th Street. It would have been more expensive for the developer, because you are having to finance an off-site garage as well as buy the property to build it. Kansas City office rents are not high enough to justify a lot of additional expenses. If you have high demand downtown for office space, it's less a problem. But there are a lot of competing office projects that don't have to pay for those extras. Demand for downtown space was not that great then or even now.

At the time the Law Building was demolished, there was also talk that Kansas City Power & Light was looking for new space, and maybe Copaken was in a hurry to provide it. There might also have been another big tenant in play at the time. It might have been Waddell & Reed, AMC, Polsinelli, or Freightquote. Whatever was going on, it didn't pan out because Copaken is still shopping that site.

Image
Thanks, this happened shortly before I really became interested in KC and development. I find it really interesting to hear about the buildings we lost just before this latest round of development.
User avatar
FangKC
City Hall
City Hall
Posts: 18141
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound

Re: Downtown Loop

Post by FangKC »

We came precariously close to losing the Mainstreet Theater (then called the Empire Theater), and the President Hotel. There was actually a pre-demolition inspection permit issued on the Mainstreet Theater. Fortunately, It was caught it in time to contact the Mayor, City Council members, the Historic Kansas City Foundation, and the local media. Additionally, there was a lot of public outcry and the City Council was flooded with support for saving the building, which they used to justify purchasing it to hold for the Power & Light District redevelopment.

http://kivaweb.kcmo.org/kivanet/2/permi ... 6&jur=KCMO

It took a quick city council action to put a temporary hold on demolition. Because the owner had never allowed the theater to be placed in the historic register, there was no flag on the parcel to notify the Mayor and Council of permit activity on it. That doesn't automatically happen on building demolitions. City Planning can issue a pre-demolition inspection permit without Council notification. The City then ended up buying the Mainstreet Theater from the property owner. Many were aware that the owner of One Kansas City Place was seeking more parking for that building. Then, at another time later on, the idea was floated that it was being considered as a possible site for a new Kansas City Power & Light headquarters.

http://kcrag.com/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=1 ... re+Theater

The Law Building demolition happened similarly. The demolition started within several days of the permit being approved. In fact, demolition had already started before most people were aware it was happening.

Regarding the President Hotel, there was an active effort by some parties to see it demolished for a park. The owner of the Kansas City Power & Light Building at the time, Gaylord out of New York City, was pushing the City to demolish the President--saying that it was affecting Gaylord's ability to redevelop or sell their building. It is ironic that after the President Hotel was renovated and reopened, that the KC Power & LIght Building still had problems being redeveloped and sold. It was actually the President Hotel's TIF district that allowed the KC Power & Light Building redevelopment to go forward--taking some of the revenue generated from the President Hotel TIF to finance that project. Had the President Hotel been demolished and a park created there, that revenue would not have been available.
shinatoo
Ambassador
Posts: 7392
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 3:20 pm

Re: Downtown Loop

Post by shinatoo »

Image
dnweava
New York Life
New York Life
Posts: 400
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2013 7:03 pm

Re: Downtown Loop

Post by dnweava »

Ok, so here is my updated "downtown loop" master plan.

Key:
Green: commuter rail line
light blue: Ind. Ave Streetcar
dark blue: new buildings under construction (I didn't mark buildings being renovated)
pink: surface lots and other blocks I would redevelop
green: parks

Freeways: Tie the west loop into the new Broadway bridge(removes major congestion between Broadway bridge traffic and the freeway). remove connection between east and north loops. Single point traffic light at Independence Ave and east loop, a high capacity stoplight that will be the gateway to downtown. Northloop ramps, arrange them to encourage traffic to use Walnut/Grand instead of Main to get traffic off of the streetcar route. Also ran the streetcar on Admiral to avoid the increased traffic on Independence ave, especially at the major stoplight. I-70 will be marked on the south loop, and I-35 will be marked across the north & west loop. Instead of full deck parks over the loop, I went with a more cost effect route and just widened the bridges that will see the most pedestrian traffic.

Image


Image
herrfrank
Western Auto Lofts
Western Auto Lofts
Posts: 637
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 2:12 pm

Re: Downtown Loop

Post by herrfrank »

I am reasonably sure that many of these buildings survived phase 1 of Crown Center back in the early 1970s. The buildings on Main were razed in the 1980s, when the streets were re-aligned and the 2600 Grand high-rise went up. Around the same time as the Glover plan and the demolition of Warner Plaza a few blocks to the south.

The 1980s were far worse for historic Kansas City than were the 1970s. Much of the city was original and intact until the megaprojects of the 1980s. The clearing of Michigan and Euclid for US-71 (a narrow strip was cleared in the 1960s, but a much wider right-of-way was graded in the 1980s); clearing of several dense residential blocks near Westport HS; large scale demos downtown for surface parking; the final parts of I-670 through the west bottoms; wholesale clearing of swaths of Troost, which had been quite dense; demolition of Oak Towers near UMKC and also multiple projects east of the plaza (demo of Paseo HS, Fountain View housing, Kauffman Foundation, the Citadel to the south, etc.). Some of these projects were a net positive, some are still scars 30 years later. I never heard a peep out of anyone at the Star or among city elders concerned about what was lost, except a few noises about Milton's nightclub being demolished alongside Warner Plaza.
FangKC wrote:The area of former auto dealership buildings in the area around 27th and Main.

The buildings with red lines around them are those that probably could have been saved and renovated. They were on parcels that have yet to be redeveloped today.

Image

Image

Image

Below is the Dodge Brothers auto dealership that was on the SW corner of Grand and Warwick Trafficway near E. 26th Street.

Image

Below is the Pierce-Arrow auto dealership that was on the SE corner of Grand and Warwick near E. 26th Street.

Image

Below is the Hudson auto dealership on the east side of Main around 27th Street.

Image

Below is the 8-story former auto dealership building that existed on the east side of Warwick Trafficway between 26th and 27th streets.

Image

The two photos below show the auto dealership building that used to be on the SE corner of 27th and Main. The second photo is more recent. Since there are still empty hillside parcels on Union Hill, that photo was taken prior to those new houses being constructed.

Image

Image

My point in showing these buildings is to illustrate that had Hallmark not been so quick to demolish them, by now they most likely would have been renovated, and those parcels wouldn't be sitting empty waiting for redevelopment. These were structures built of reinforced concrete, and probably would have been very structurally sound.

It would have been fairly easy to have left them, and still built the two large office buildings to the south. The office towers aren't on the footprint of any of these buildings. The street grid was changed after the buildings were demolished. However, even if it the former street layout had remained, Crown Center could have designed 2600 Grand to fit the parcel.

This example speaks to the point I made earlier about large single developers demolishing viable, and in some cases, larger buildings long before it's necessary, or even before they have an actual replacement structure for the parcel. I'm not always opposed to demolition of a building if a more productive structure will replace it, and there are problems finding a suitable already-vacant parcel for that tenant. But I am opposed to tearing down viable existing structures with no replacement, or arguable purpose.

The Dodge Brothers and Hudson auto dealerships were not even torn down for surface parking. The land on which they existed is now just a grassy parcel.

The fact that they were older buildings wouldn't have prevented Crown Center from building the new office towers--as long as they would have renovated them before marketing the office properties. Federal historic tax credits have been available since 1976, and I can recall that some of these buildings still existed in the late 1980s/early 90s. At least I recall ones being along Main Street around 27th. Someone might remember when they were demolished. If my memory serves me from that time, there used to be a business that had vintage cars in the showroom around there.
User avatar
normalthings
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 8018
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:52 pm

Re: Downtown Loop

Post by normalthings »

Plans to Cap the South Loop are back
joshmv
Strip mall
Strip mall
Posts: 214
Joined: Tue Sep 24, 2013 1:55 pm
Location: Overland Park

Re: Downtown Loop

Post by joshmv »

ldai_phs wrote:Plans to Cap the South Loop are back
?
User avatar
DaveKCMO
Ambassador
Posts: 20039
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:22 pm
Location: Crossroads
Contact:

Re: Downtown Loop

Post by DaveKCMO »

ldai_phs wrote:Plans to Cap the South Loop are back
there's a thread for that: http://kcrag.com/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3273
scooterj
Ambassador
Posts: 6020
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2003 1:30 pm
Location: Northmoor
Contact:

Re: Downtown Loop

Post by scooterj »

What's with all the Crown Center talk in this thread?
User avatar
FangKC
City Hall
City Hall
Posts: 18141
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound

Re: Downtown Loop

Post by FangKC »

The conversation about Crown Center here related to the practice, or idea, of awarding development rights to a single developer if the City removes the North Loop freeway trench. The chat centered around the pros and cons of doing that, and how a single developer controlling a lot of parcels can sometimes impede development--especially if the property owners' primary business is not real estate development. Crown Center and Tower Properties were given as examples of large property owners holding large tracts of land and not developing them for long periods. Also included in the discussion was the practice of demolishing structurally-sound older buildings for future development by those same developers, when if they had just left them standing, they would probably have been renovated by now. Thus, photo examples of this were provided, and people started commenting on that sidebar topic.

As is often the case on this forum, one issue often relates to another issue, or practice. Especially when it involves building demolition that doesn't produce redevelopment.
flyingember
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9862
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: Downtown Loop

Post by flyingember »

Add East Village in and it is a good point to show how doing projects with a single company controlling everything doesn't always work. It's dragged on too.

I can see a process where a north loop land sale should be setup where the land is transferred from the city the day construction is fully financed and the company is committed to building. Have it be held in escrow until then.
So a company that can't actually get financing doesn't end up owning the land to do nothing with it.
Post Reply