Three Light

[Highlander]

Will Three light be exclusively a residential building? I thought I had read that the proposal contained both residential and office but more recent announcements look to be only residential.

[DColeKC]

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.

I spent several years working for Cordish, so yes I’m a fan. I worked for them before ground was broke. Are they not supposed to hold the city to their agreement because they’ve been successful? They’ve made concessions if anything and haven’t held the city to own up to exactly what was agreed. The exact opposite of whipping the horse. If Cordish buys the land and pays to cap the highway, they can do what they please. If they pay for most of the project, they should get some say in how it’s utilized.

I’m not sure what you do for a living but not holding people to an agreement because you’re doing well isn’t good business. Why don’t you ask someone who works for the city, like the city manager or the last major, current mayor etc what they think of Cordish? The city and Cordish have had a great working relationship now for almost 15 years.

Also, Cordish isn’t into slapping their family name of things they build, so the park name would likely be a tie into local history. Lastly, this is my first account in here but I’ve been reading for a decade. I know who you’re trying to imply I am, like several other accusations, you’re wrong again.

[kas1]

If Cordish buys the land and pays to cap the highway, they can do what they please.

False premise. The land is owned by the government and isn't for sale. Hence, the government can do what they please with it. And the people here are expressing their opinions about what they should do with it.

Also, just to be clear: is it your contention that residents would collectively pay an additional $100+ million in rent to have access to a dog park that's shared with a couple thousand of their neighbors but not a dog park shared with the rest of their neighbors?

[DColeKC]

If Cordish buys the land and pays to cap the highway, they can do what they please.

False premise. The land is owned by the government and isn't for sale. Hence, the government can do what they please with it. And the people here are expressing their opinions about what they should do with it.

Also, just to be clear: is it your contention that residents would collectively pay an additional $100+ million in rent to have access to a dog park that's shared with a couple thousand of their neighbors but not a dog park shared with the rest of their neighbors?

I previously mentioned that the state/city would have to make some exceptions to allow Cordish to make the purchase.

My opinion is more about Cordish wanting to ensure the park was maintained and secured, otherwise it could be detrimental to their property. The city hasn’t had a great track record of doing well with the parking garages or the green roof, thus the reason Cordish now maintains, operates and secures them.

I’m all for everyone’s opinions, 99% of the people on here respectfully opine.

[missingkc]

If the highway is capped with a park, it must be open to the public. If the city/MODOT can't, won't finance it, it shouldn't happen. The trench is not the end of the world for downtown. No private park.

[beautyfromashes]

I’m fine with Cordish making money in the park to cover the expense of maintenance and upkeep. Build their own Bar-K type dog park and sell food, allow for private outdoor concerts that you need to purchase tickets for, street vendors, etc. What I am against is a gated dog park or playground or private space fenced off “For Light Residents Only”.

[normalthings]

I’m fine with Cordish making money in the park to cover the expense of maintenance and upkeep. Build their own Bar-K type dog park and sell food, allow for private outdoor concerts that you need to purchase tickets for, street vendors, etc. What I am against is a gated dog park or playground or private space fenced off “For Light Residents Only”.

I guess that’s what my confusion was from. I had thought this was more along the lines of an open park that Cordish sometimes uses for its events that it may charge people to attend. I don’t think it’s ever be said or hinted at that there would be a fenced off section. In my mind, Cordish’s involvement guarantees active programming, proper security, and upkeep which are all lacking in other city parks.

[missingkc]

I, too, am ok with Cordish building, operating and making money from functions they fund in the park. It's exclusion of non-residents I find offensive.

[missingkc]

As though my opinion on any of this makes one whit of difference.

[TheLastGentleman]

All I want is for visitors to come to the park and not run into arbitrary fences.

[DColeKC]

I’m fine with Cordish making money in the park to cover the expense of maintenance and upkeep. Build their own Bar-K type dog park and sell food, allow for private outdoor concerts that you need to purchase tickets for, street vendors, etc. What I am against is a gated dog park or playground or private space fenced off “For Light Residents Only”.

Even though a gated, private dog run already exists? I don't see an issue with Cordish wanting 10% of the space for residents if they toss in 50% of the funds. A public park across the street isn't going to demand higher rent without some exclusive amenities. For example, when I look out of my apartment I see the crossroads. I'm not willing to pay any extra just so I have the ability to look down and see some green space. I'm also not willing to pay more to simply have a public park across the street. At resident events, I seem to be in the majority on this. Now, add in half-court basketball hoop or something and I start to get excited.

As for events in the park like concerts. They're not going to put on public events in a space one block away from the event space surrounded by bars and restaurants. Especially not considering it's built for concerts.

[beautyfromashes]

I'm not willing to pay any extra just so I have the ability to look down and see some green space. I'm also not willing to pay more to simply have a public park across the street.

Yeah, I can’t really think of any examples where access or view of green space brings any type of rental premium. I’m sure Cordish has the same point of view. Good night.

[DaveKCMO]

Somehow they got a private dog park in public right-of-way...

[DColeKC]

I'm not willing to pay any extra just so I have the ability to look down and see some green space. I'm also not willing to pay more to simply have a public park across the street.

Yeah, I can’t really think of any examples where access or view of green space brings any type of rental premium. I’m sure Cordish has the same point of view. Good night.

There is no view. The park would be what, 50ft north to south? A bit different if the park extended hundreds of yards south where you could look out of your apartment and see green space without looking down.

Your arguments are always lazy and rude. Toss me some examples instead of coming in hot with IF THIS— FUCK YOU.

Access to a public green space isn’t enough to charge a premium in Kansas City.

[DColeKC]

Somehow they got a private dog park in public right-of-way...

There’s still public access to the north of the dog park but how it got done is just another example of the city working with them. Positive result, no more homeless people camping out scaring the shit out of downtown residents when they take their dogs out.

[kas1]

Positive result, no more homeless people camping out scaring the shit out of downtown residents when they take their dogs out.

Just a few days ago you were really gung-ho about building a garden with no security for homeless people to hang out in and argued that there's no reason anyone should ever feel unsafe walking past it.

[DColeKC]

Positive result, no more homeless people camping out scaring the shit out of downtown residents when they take their dogs out.

Just a few days ago you were really gung-ho about building a garden with no security for homeless people to hang out in and argued that there's no reason anyone should ever feel unsafe walking past it.

The difference is the area next to Waddell and reed would be nicely maintained. The area where the dog park is now wasn’t at all. It also wasn’t patrolled by security as it is now. The one and only time I’ve had a scary encounter with a homeless man took place there. Not a fan of having a knife pulled on me.

So the two situations aren’t really comparable. I’m sure W&R would not only have cameras, but private security patrolling their property.

[missingkc]

Knife-wielding homeless people can be dealt with using a finer instrument than permanent, private control of what should be a public space. What would Cordish do with that person that I, or you, couldn't do? Banish them? Like some, the most likely to be violent, homeless people could care. Cordish can call the police; you or I could call the police.

[DColeKC]

Knife-wielding homeless people can be dealt with using a finer instrument than permanent, private control of what should be a public space. What would Cordish do with that person that I, or you, couldn't do? Banish them? Like some, the most likely to be violent, homeless people could care. Cordish can call the police; you or I could call the police.

It would fall under the watchful eye and patrol of their third party private security team who currently patrol the district 24/7. This is why the homeless tend to hang on the fridges of the district, because it’s common knowledge they’ll be escorted out of the PNL district. Matter of fact, one of the main reasons Cordish took over control of parking garages was because of the homeless problem in them and the lack of effort by the city to do anything about it. And yes, you banish them and charge them with trespassing if they return. It happens all the time and dozens upon dozens of homeless are banned from entering the district due to causing issues in the past. If they show up, they are arrested by the security team and held for the police. That’s something we can’t do.

Let’s reel it back here a bit and make it clear that I’m not implying Cordish would control all of the space or even a majority. I’m simply saying if they tossed money in they’d likely want some resident only amenities. Now if they were to pay for 100% of the project, you’d think they’d only do so if they would own the land.

I mean they literally own the sidewalks in the PNL district which is very odd for most downtown areas. So who knows what would be worked out. I just don’t see Cordish putting in a substantial amount of money if it’s 100% public. So maybe it won’t ever happen because it won’t happen without money from Cordish.

[missingkc]

A private company owning sidewalks in downtown - or on the Plaza - is, well, I can't think of another word at this hour - an abomination. If Cordish wants private green space, supply it on the 8th floor of 4 light, including a place for dogs to, well, shit. Leave the city streets, parks, rights-of-way to the city and the people. No private control of what should be public spaces. Let them keep their money. Better there be no cap. How hard is that?