5th and Main (Northwest Corner)

[FangKC]

Garage access should be on independence only.

A non-ingress route into the RM via a garage directly off Indy is a great idea and something I have tried to also talk about to whoever will listen. Lot is there, others have agreed, just need some visibility and city initiative. This should be a requirement of the next RFP for the lot south of 5th. Tougher deal with the old massive sewer line bisecting this parcel, but solvable.

I brought up a parking structure, with direct access off the reworked HOA approach, that could keep northlander's cars off the river market streets and it led to a debate between the Free Range Parkers vs. the Socialist Mandated Park & Riders.

Would a parking garage between 5th and Independence benefit this jewel? It has to be KC's best looking storage bin. I'm told it's undevelopable because of lack of parking.

I think there is someone who lives on the top floor of 529 Main.

[Rabble]

Would a parking garage between 5th and Independence benefit this jewel? It has to be KC's best looking storage bin. I'm told it's undevelopable because of lack of parking.

I think there is someone who lives on the top floor of 529 Main.

Oh, so it's a townhouse. I thought it was just full of some idiot's crap but those are actually furnishings. I'm relieved.

[FangKC]

The bldg on the corner, 429 Main, is owned by an individual who has a residence on top and private warehousing in the rest of the building. Also has zero interest in selling, developing, etc...

viewtopic.php?p=340646#p340646

[normalthings]

The bldg on the corner, 429 Main, is owned by an individual who has a residence on top and private warehousing in the rest of the building. Also has zero interest in selling, developing, etc...

viewtopic.php?p=340646#p340646

looks like it sold in 2018

[Rabble]

The bldg on the corner, 429 Main, is owned by an individual who has a residence on top and private warehousing in the rest of the building. Also has zero interest in selling, developing, etc...

viewtopic.php?p=340646#p340646

looks like it sold in 2018

I've always liked the Index Restaurant Supply but maybe some day these three buildings could be redeveloped together. I realize it would take a lot of effort to restore the facade of the north building, but after watching what was done with the ninth street facade of the West Bottoms Apartments, anything is possible.

Thanks FangKC, I had never noticed the curtains along the entire 4th floor.





Ninth Street facade right after West Bottoms construction began.



Thanks to the Last Gentleman for the following pictures.

Compare the first floor to the picture above.



Compare the cornice to what was there before.

[dukuboy1]

Just reviewing the plans (renderings and what is publicly out there), I would definitely choose the Flaherty and Collins proposal. I'll explain why.

Flaherty and Collins Pros...
- 300 apartments (great density for the parcel).
- 45 affordable apartments (meets the 15% minimum as stated in the RFP. Couple this with the affordable project F&C are involved with at the Riverfront Park and the total number of affordable units developed by, or co-developed by, F&C in the area will be 169 units).
- No parking garage entrance on 5th Street (does not mess with the Streetcar route any and is a bonus for pedestrians).
- Apparent underground parking for 400 cars.
- 240 parking spaces for residents (.8 space per unit ratio, perfect for being on a transit line).
- 10,000sf of commercial space (helps with activation and adding new things to the neighborhood).
- Apparent re-introduction of Main Street on the side of the building (healing the grid?).
- Using local architecture firm for design services.

RM Housing Pros...
- 5-Story height matches the neighborhood.
- Design matches the neighborhood.
- Over-exceeds the 15% minimum for affordable housing (90% in this building).

Now, there are Cons about both projects...

Flaherty & Collins Cons...
- Facade materials appear to be cheap (while we don't know for sure, good facade materials can make or break this project in terms of looks).
- Only reaches 15% affordable housing, which was the bare minimum. They make it work with 15%, but 22% could've been a little bit better as that would've yielded 66 affordable apartments, but economics ultimately wins here.

RM Housing Cons...
- Less density on the property means less potential residents patronizing nearby businesses (only 100 apartment units, but probably won't cause NIMBY outrage as much).
- Garage access on 5th Street.
- Exposed parking structure.
- No apparent retail space fronting 5th Street. The blank walls are just not good for an urban environment (as we learned with Reverb and will learn with Waddell and Reed).
- Using out of town architecture firm for the design work. While Hord Coplan Macht is a decent firm, the fact that a local developer couldn't have tapped a local architecture firm is a con to me.

The Neutral (same amongst the two)...
- Both will seek Low Income Housing Tax Credits from the State and Feds.
- Both could seek property tax abatements.
- Both develop a surface parking lot into a higher usage.
- Both meet the 160 public parking space requirement as defined in the RFP issued by Port KC.

So to recap...
- The Flaherty and Collins proposal has 8 pros and 2 cons for an adjusted score of 6.
- The RM Housing proposal has 3 pros and 5 cons for an adjusted score of -2.
SPREAD: Flaherty and Collins +8

I'm not trying to be hard on the development team at RM Housing, but I have to be real here. They had the opportunity to have increased density on this parcel, better street level activation, and overall more daring approach to the project than they did. I know they're trying to respect the neighborhood's surroundings, and I respect that, but they could've went just a bit taller. 7 floors would've been better in my view and would've had them rank a bit higher, but still wouldn't overcome the Flaherty and collins project, which seems to have hit the nail on the head pretty well on the first look-over of the project.

I look forward to seeing what proposal the folks at Port KC choose for this site. Will they go with ambitious and dense? Or will they go for traditional and not daring? We shall see, but in my opinion and grade book, Flaherty and Collins is the clear winner in this case and is ready to build something special.

great work here and I think the dense high rise is the way to go. The renderings do make it stick out quite a bit for the area. I'm curious how they will develop the street level to make it flow better into the vertical. Just because it's tall doesn't mean it can't fit. Given proper façade materials and attention to details to make it compliment in a unique way, not just be "different" could make it work better. I'd also not be surprised if the overall height of the project gets chop down to say 9 floors

[FangKC]

There are other cities that place new, taller buildings in older, historic districts. Portland has them in the Old Town and Pearl District for example.

Sure, you probably don't want to put a 25-30 story building there. I agree it will probably get cut down to 9-10 stories.

[flyingember]

There are other cities that place new, taller buildings in older, historic districts. Portland has them in the Old Town and Pearl District for example.

Sure, you probably don't want to put a 25-30 story building there. I agree it will probably get cut down to 9-10 stories.

The loop didn’t have a 25-30 story building until it did. Same with The Plaza

So why is the river market so different that it should be shorter?

[Major KC Fan]

I agree with letting the market (no pun intended) determine what height works for the River Market area. The only real restriction should be safety restrictions to height due to their proximity to Wheeler Downtown Airport. Anyone know what those are, if any? The more density in that area the greater chance that the actual riverfront itself might get some revamping to allow for a riverside promenade or something like that. With a greater emphasis on infrastructure by the incoming Biden administration, it would behoove the city to have plans ready for a closer pedestrian interaction with the river, our reason for the city being here in the first place.
The railroad bridge over the Kaw and its related development is something that should be looked at on the MO River at the RIVER Market.

[zonk]

^i think it's a recommended 75' per the GDAP. Not sure about FAA limitations.

[FangKC]

There are other cities that place new, taller buildings in older, historic districts. Portland has them in the Old Town and Pearl District for example.

Sure, you probably don't want to put a 25-30 story building there. I agree it will probably get cut down to 9-10 stories.

The loop didn’t have a 25-30 story building until it did. Same with The Plaza

So why is the river market so different that it should be shorter?

Because there are historic districts in the River Market. The concern would be that anything over 10-stories would likely require large parking garages -- or even more surface lots -- that might end up causing demolition of the historic buildings one seeks to protect. In many cities, one of the biggest threats to historic buildings is the demolition for parking.

[DaveKCMO]

^i think it's a recommended 75' per the GDAP. Not sure about FAA limitations.

Correct on the recommendation (it's not a restriction -- there is a process for exceeding the recommendation). The downtown airport flight paths do not impact the River Market.

Fang makes a good point about taller buildings impacting historic structures for parking. This is a very real problem in KC, although it does not appear to be an issue for this site's two proposals.

[Rabble]

There are other cities that place new, taller buildings in older, historic districts. Portland has them in the Old Town and Pearl District for example.

Sure, you probably don't want to put a 25-30 story building there. I agree it will probably get cut down to 9-10 stories.

The loop didn’t have a 25-30 story building until it did. Same with The Plaza

So why is the river market so different that it should be shorter?

Because there are historic districts in the River Market. The concern would be that anything over 10-stories would likely require large parking garages -- or even more surface lots -- that might end up causing demolition of the historic buildings one seeks to protect. In many cities, one of the biggest threats to historic buildings is the demolition for parking.

Lower Manhattan looked like this until the 1960's

What unchecked market forces can do.

[flyingember]

There are other cities that place new, taller buildings in older, historic districts. Portland has them in the Old Town and Pearl District for example.

Sure, you probably don't want to put a 25-30 story building there. I agree it will probably get cut down to 9-10 stories.

The loop didn’t have a 25-30 story building until it did. Same with The Plaza

So why is the river market so different that it should be shorter?

Because there are historic districts in the River Market. The concern would be that anything over 10-stories would likely require large parking garages -- or even more surface lots -- that might end up causing demolition of the historic buildings one seeks to protect. In many cities, one of the biggest threats to historic buildings is the demolition for parking.

Since the taller building has fewer spots per unit than the smaller building, this doesn't hold up.

Economy of scale matters. My guess is over ten stories requires less parking than below it because they don't need to have as many public spots at a day rate to afford the project

[dukuboy1]

Makes sense, all of this information & perspectives. I think if we want to talk about taller buildings and increased opportunity for density we should continue to look at the downtown core. So many surface lots just waiting for development, including the recently under demolition ok’d KCPS building. Tons of opportunities where you could build garages as needed for those buildings without tearing down anything historic

[flyingember]

Makes sense, all of this information & perspectives. I think if we want to talk about taller buildings and increased opportunity for density we should continue to look at the downtown core. So many surface lots just waiting for development, including the recently under demolition ok’d KCPS building. Tons of opportunities where you could build garages as needed for those buildings without tearing down anything historic

This idea again...

What gets built on is up to each individual landowner. They can choose to never develop a lot. There’s parking lots today that already existed in 1920.

Your opportunities are hypothetical. This project is real and present.

Accepting any project that wants to meet density standards should be the goal and not worry about where they’re at. As long as it’s not a greenfield project.

If downtown stayed the way it is today and a developer wanted to build 10,000 units of residential east of The Paseo, other than tearing down homes, would that be a problem?

[normalthings]

We should know which proposal was selected with a few weeks right? 3rd Grand should be getting close to some development applications too if they are thinking early next year start.

[dukuboy1]

Makes sense, all of this information & perspectives. I think if we want to talk about taller buildings and increased opportunity for density we should continue to look at the downtown core. So many surface lots just waiting for development, including the recently under demolition ok’d KCPS building. Tons of opportunities where you could build garages as needed for those buildings without tearing down anything historic

This idea again...

What gets built on is up to each individual landowner. They can choose to never develop a lot. There’s parking lots today that already existed in 1920.

Your opportunities are hypothetical. This project is real and present.

Accepting any project that wants to meet density standards should be the goal and not worry about where they’re at. As long as it’s not a greenfield project.

If downtown stayed the way it is today and a developer wanted to build 10,000 units of residential east of The Paseo, other than tearing down homes, would that be a problem?

Umm you might want to relax a bit. Nowhere in my statements did I say this project was bad, and that I did not support it for the River Market. I did make some comments saying the rendering left some questions & was kind of vanilla, but I was confident that with proper materials, design & such would look great. I said it would likely be adjusted to 9-10 floors of height to appease the NIMBY crowd. However I think it is a great project and a great use of valuable land which is a parking lot now. I hoped that other projects of commercial or residential significance would come to life on existing parcels within downtown lands that are currently being used as parking lots. I’m not a dumb ass, or “sunshine seeker” and understand that property owners can do what they want with the land, provided that use is within the proper laws & legal governances. I was just looking at generating positive commentary, knowing reality may be vastly different for each specific outcome. But perhaps I should stop conducting wishful thinking on other topics such as shrinking the wealth gap or wanting better education opportunities for all. Both are noble pursuits but potentially pie in the sky thinking. If high rise projects go up East of the Paseo or in other economically or socially depressed areas , wonderful. I’ll be excited and wish those developments well & hope they will succeed, maybe even hope they are even more successful because of the impact they would have on their neighborhoods. Downtown has been focused on and is showing the fruits of their labor. If other areas can have an opportunity to shine like let’s do it. The more success we can share in as an entire city/metro the better it is for everyone. Otherwise the consequences of leaving neighborhoods & people behind will at some point come back to bite us all. The band Rage Against The Machine has a great lyric for this idea “hungry people don’t stay hungry for long”. Not trying to derail the conversation but I needed to clarify a lot as your comments left several ideas to twist in the breeze after missing my initial point, which is this project is great and it would be nice if other similar parking lots could be developed. I’ll give you credit that we should look at everywhere & not just downtown.

[Rabble]

What gets built on is up to each individual landowner. They can choose to never develop a lot. There’s parking lots today that already existed in 1920.

Since eminent domain was used in the 20th century to remove buildings that housed successful businesses, offices and housing, I don't understand why it can't be used today to free up surface lots for development. After all, the buildings torn down during the 1950's were also the property of "individual landowners". I think we're allowing parking leases to become our Krytonite.

[taxi]

In today's world, using eminent domain for private development is lengthy, costly, unpopular and very unlikely.