900 Baltimore Ave.
- FangKC
- City Hall
- Posts: 18410
- Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
- Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound
Re: 900 Baltimore Ave.
Article on the Cosby Hotel in today's Star. The reason for the teardown is because the brick facade is failing due to winter damage and water.
It is ridiculous to me that the building should be demolished because of this. Can't they just put up a safety barrier and block the street lanes near the building until it is stabilized? Put up a support structure, and hire someone to come in and take down the damaged facade brick by brick until the dangerous section is gone. Then build it back up with recycled era bricks from another similar building.
This same thing happened with the west wall of the Empire Theater. The bricks were buckling and falling off. Parts of the west brick facade had collapsed. The City made Executive Hills hire someone to fix it.
It's like this City doesn't even try and save historic buildings.
http://www.kansascity.com/2010/07/08/20 ... 1-may.html
It is ridiculous to me that the building should be demolished because of this. Can't they just put up a safety barrier and block the street lanes near the building until it is stabilized? Put up a support structure, and hire someone to come in and take down the damaged facade brick by brick until the dangerous section is gone. Then build it back up with recycled era bricks from another similar building.
This same thing happened with the west wall of the Empire Theater. The bricks were buckling and falling off. Parts of the west brick facade had collapsed. The City made Executive Hills hire someone to fix it.
It's like this City doesn't even try and save historic buildings.
http://www.kansascity.com/2010/07/08/20 ... 1-may.html
Last edited by FangKC on Fri Jul 09, 2010 5:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
There is no fifth destination.
- dangerboy
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 9029
- Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 8:28 am
- Location: West 39th St. - KCMO
Re: 900 Baltimore Ave.
This also really calls into question the sincerity of the developer. Why wasn't he maintaining this building during these rough seasons and repairing damage as it happened?
- KCMax
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 24051
- Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 3:31 pm
- Location: The basement of a Ross Dress for Less
- Contact:
Re: 900 Baltimore Ave.
So replace the bricks! I don't understand why the entire freakin building has to come down.?We?re concerned about the facade or bricks coming off the building,? he said.
- smh
- Supporter
- Posts: 4367
- Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 10:40 pm
- Location: Central Loop
Re: 900 Baltimore Ave.
So, besides just venting our rage here, what should be our next step? Or are we SOL?
"It's only when you leave Kansas City do you realize truly how great a city it is. ... If you have to go away, go away for a while. You'll be back. And when you come back, bring your ideas and willingness to make Kansas City the best."- Sly James
- GRID
- City Hall
- Posts: 17317
- Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 12:20 pm
- Contact:
Re: 900 Baltimore Ave.
Wow this sucks. Another surface parking lot replaces a historic 1880's building that could have been saved.
-
- Valencia Place
- Posts: 1588
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 7:57 am
- Location: River Market
- Contact:
Re: 900 Baltimore Ave.
I think the damage has been accruing over many, many years. I don't know if Lane Blueprint owned the building or not, but it certainly did not look like anything was done to maintain the exterior of the building while they occupied it. Then Lane moved to an old building on Main (I think) just south of downtown and it also exhibited an extreme lack of maintenance or care on the exterior.dangerboy wrote: This also really calls into question the sincerity of the developer. Why wasn't he maintaining this building during these rough seasons and repairing damage as it happened?
-
- Bryant Building
- Posts: 3528
- Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 10:54 am
- Location: UMKC Law
Re: 900 Baltimore Ave.
Instead of investing money in demolishing buildings, why does the City not invest in preserving them?
Small example. KCMO sank 1 million into demolishing the parking garage at 11th and Grand and rehabbing that site. For a fraction of that cost (10K?), the City could preserve this building... But...
Small example. KCMO sank 1 million into demolishing the parking garage at 11th and Grand and rehabbing that site. For a fraction of that cost (10K?), the City could preserve this building... But...
-
- City Center Square
- Posts: 14667
- Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 3:34 pm
- Location: Valentine
Re: 900 Baltimore Ave.
I think the sincerity is even more questionable given the "aw schucks" tone he uses in his response to the newspaper. If he had even a remote interest in doing the right thing, we wouldn't be hearing bullshit along the lines of "well the city is just doing its job to look out for safety . . . " Note that there is no indication of who filed the complaint - dollars to donuts its someone related the future proud surface parking lot owner himself.dangerboy wrote: This also really calls into question the sincerity of the developer. Why wasn't he maintaining this building during these rough seasons and repairing damage as it happened?
-
- Penntower
- Posts: 2443
- Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 3:02 pm
Re: 900 Baltimore Ave.
For the $115,000 he's going to be billed for the demo, couldn't the owner have at the very least updated the exterior to keep it from being a hazard? I applaud the owner for fixing up two other buildings, but to purchase property, let it sit vacant for years waiting for a tenant to come along seems like he went about it the wrong way. Probably a reason I'm not a real estate agent, but it seems to me he could have fixed it up and rented the space until another buyer came along...better than sitting vacant for over a decade with no income.
-
- City Center Square
- Posts: 14667
- Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 3:34 pm
- Location: Valentine
Re: 900 Baltimore Ave.
Old buildings with no tennants and fixed up bricks don't generate any parking revenues.kcjak wrote: For the $115,000 he's going to be billed for the demo, couldn't the owner have at the very least updated the exterior to keep it from being a hazard?
-
- City Center Square
- Posts: 12670
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm
Re: 900 Baltimore Ave.
I am sure that losing money for ten years was his intention when he purchased the property. Yes, he could have spent more money after purchase to fix it up but that still would not have guaranteed a tenant. If one has an unlimited source of funds one can do just about anything but just because he purchased the building doesn't mean he had access to funds to rehab it without a lease in hand.kcjak wrote: but to purchase property, let it sit vacant for years waiting for a tenant to come along seems like he went about it the wrong way. Probably a reason I'm not a real estate agent, but it seems to me he could have fixed it up and rented the space until another buyer came along...better than sitting vacant for over a decade with no income.
I may be right. I may be wrong. But there is a lot of gray area in-between.
-
- Bryant Building
- Posts: 3850
- Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:12 pm
Re: 900 Baltimore Ave.
From an somewhat informed perspective;
kcjak's observation is spot on. Don't know that demolition was the ultimate intent, but neglect has been long term and consistent with this property. The owner seems to be a pretty complicated guy, so who knows?
kcjak's observation is spot on. Don't know that demolition was the ultimate intent, but neglect has been long term and consistent with this property. The owner seems to be a pretty complicated guy, so who knows?
- dangerboy
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 9029
- Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 8:28 am
- Location: West 39th St. - KCMO
Re: 900 Baltimore Ave.
Yes, it would have been a lot cheaper to do some tuck pointing. But if the ultimate goal is a parking lot, then the $115,000 isn't an unreasonable investment for the long-term income from parking fees.kcjak wrote: For the $115,000 he's going to be billed for the demo, couldn't the owner have at the very least updated the exterior to keep it from being a hazard?
-
- City Center Square
- Posts: 14667
- Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 3:34 pm
- Location: Valentine
Re: 900 Baltimore Ave.
"I didn't originally intend to" is not a reasonable excuse for destroying the fabric of our community.aknowledgeableperson wrote: I am sure that losing money for ten years was his intention when he purchased the property.
- dangerboy
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 9029
- Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 8:28 am
- Location: West 39th St. - KCMO
Re: 900 Baltimore Ave.
Please email the Historic Kansas City Foundation and ask them to step up and defend this building.
hkcf@historickansascity.org or http://historickansascity.org/
hkcf@historickansascity.org or http://historickansascity.org/
- smh
- Supporter
- Posts: 4367
- Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 10:40 pm
- Location: Central Loop
Re: 900 Baltimore Ave.
LenexatoKCMO wrote: "I didn't originally intend to" is not a reasonable excuse for destroying the fabric of our community.
Amen.
"It's only when you leave Kansas City do you realize truly how great a city it is. ... If you have to go away, go away for a while. You'll be back. And when you come back, bring your ideas and willingness to make Kansas City the best."- Sly James
-
- City Center Square
- Posts: 12670
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm
Re: 900 Baltimore Ave.
A reasonable excuse - yes. An acceptable one on the other hand - no.LenexatoKCMO wrote: "I didn't originally intend to" is not a reasonable excuse for destroying the fabric of our community.
I may be right. I may be wrong. But there is a lot of gray area in-between.
- dangerboy
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 9029
- Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 8:28 am
- Location: West 39th St. - KCMO
Re: 900 Baltimore Ave.
No, it's BS. If he really intended to redevelop this building he would have been doing basic maintenance to keep it standing until he had a tenant lined up to pay for the renovation. And given that he was able to finish the Union Carbide and Larue buildings, he should have some income to able to afford upkeep.aknowledgeableperson wrote: A reasonable excuse - yes. An acceptable one on the other hand - no.
-
- City Center Square
- Posts: 14667
- Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 3:34 pm
- Location: Valentine
Re: 900 Baltimore Ave.
A lot of people don't set out to do bad things - that doesn't excuse it when they do.aknowledgeableperson wrote: A reasonable excuse - yes. An acceptable one on the other hand - no.
-
- Alameda Tower
- Posts: 1250
- Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2003 12:07 pm
- Location: downtown
Re: 900 Baltimore Ave.
This is a shame.....GREAT BUILDING! The facade can be repaired....it's Rick Powell's fault, he let the building deteriorate. Most likely he'll turn it into parking for his condos next door. HE GETS A BIG "F" FOR FAIL!