KCRag Forum

In this case, a vacant would more attractive than a building that’s fallen into disrepair. As great as it would be to restore this building (which is beautiful), this represents an opportunity for a taller building with more use cases and more density. There is momentum downtown and someone will want to build from the ground up. This is prime real estate along the streetcar line. Give it 12-18 Months tops.

grecobs wrote:In this case, a vacant would more attractive than a building that’s fallen into disrepair. As great as it would be to restore this building (which is beautiful), this represents an opportunity for a taller building with more use cases and more density. There is momentum downtown and someone will want to build from the ground up. This is prime real estate along the streetcar line. Give it 12-18 Months tops.

Don't get me wrong, I don't fully disagree with you but you don't tear this down without a plan. Mights and maybes are not a good enough reasons to create more surface parking lots along the streetcar line.

There is a huge list of past projects that were proposed with a tear down and never happened.

They want parking and are too lazy or cheap to arrange it otherwise.

grecobs wrote:In this case, a vacant would more attractive than a building that’s fallen into disrepair. As great as it would be to restore this building (which is beautiful), this represents an opportunity for a taller building with more use cases and more density. There is momentum downtown and someone will want to build from the ground up. This is prime real estate along the streetcar line. Give it 12-18 Months tops.

That's a dangerous line of thought. You could start with Union Station and write a book about buildings that had that logic applied to them at one time and are now fully-restored gems.

Wish Cordish could get control of these lots. More likely to cover the freeway ditch if it were surrounded with their properties.

grecobs wrote:In this case, a vacant would more attractive than a building that’s fallen into disrepair. As great as it would be to restore this building (which is beautiful), this represents an opportunity for a taller building with more use cases and more density. There is momentum downtown and someone will want to build from the ground up. This is prime real estate along the streetcar line. Give it 12-18 Months tops.

The streetcar has been operating for 18 months.

I was listening to something that had architects mentioning their quickest project took 8 years from vision to completion.

This is the same company that objected to losing their sight lines when the hotel was constructed, yes? Pardon me if I don't believe they have any incentive to develop the surface lot anytime soon. They've had this lot for years now and they haven't even bothered to pave and stripe it until now when they are losing access to the Baltimore surface lots. Sure, they may have a great plan, but it isn't until it is.

And tearing down a building along the streetcar line just to extend an existing surface lot is shameful, historic or not. Right next to a large parking garage no less. This same pattern is the very reason downtown is in surface lot hell right now. So the building is expensive to repair...okay? You purchased it.

In exchange for tearing down a building along the streetcar line to extend a surface lot the city should be levying a fine/fee for every month it remains undeveloped. Sure, there are undeveloped lots up and down the streetcar corridor, but those have all been grandfathered in. At no point moving forward should you be able to create more surface parking along the streetcar route. Just no, are you kidding me!?

KCMOJoe89 wrote:This is the same company that objected to losing their sight lines when the hotel was constructed, yes?

correct.

and the same ownership that put all of the cerner jobs on the fringe with some of the largest public subsidies in KC history.

and whose owners are the people in charge of the American Royal which is now in KCK with crazy subsidies.

DaveKCMO wrote:

KCMOJoe89 wrote:This is the same company that objected to losing their sight lines when the hotel was constructed, yes?

correct.

and the same ownership that put all of the cerner jobs on the fringe with some of the largest public subsidies in KC history.

So now this ownership has completely bought into this downtown thing and is willing to build a 15-story apartment/hotel and eliminate their eastern sight lines. Possibly. It's a great plan, "but it could change".

"Sure, tearing down a historic building is going to be controversial, but you're going to love the beautiful cars in our surface parking lot in the meantime. Along the streetcar line. Don't worry, we seriously want to redevelop this lot...eventually."

I'll wait to be surprised.

DaveKCMO wrote:

KCMOJoe89 wrote:This is the same company that objected to losing their sight lines when the hotel was constructed, yes?

correct.

and the same ownership that put all of the cerner jobs on the fringe with some of the largest public subsidies in KC history.

Haha basically the urbanist’s version of a cartoon villain.

One thing to keep in mind.
When they redo their lot the current city code applies to parking lot design

This requires a green or wall buffer along both streets and a percent of the lot itself be green space.
My math in the past made it so 20-25% of the lot must be green space with the redo.

I'm not sure they'll actually gain any parking spots if this is done to code.
So the strongest force against a teardown may be to push hard on seeing the final project and that it meets code before the city approves a tear down. Use code to our advantage.

The more I think about this situation, the more frustrated I get. Of all the places! A surface lot with virtually no development plans, right next door to a parking garage, made out of the footprint of a 128 year old building, on the streetcar line, in an area of town already blighted with surface lots? Is this 2017?

I agree. I see almost no good reason to ever tear down vintage treasures. Have always thought that the whine about parking is the wrong whine...it should be " I cant find enough cool places to live so i can WALK to work".

Illegal sidewalk-blocking barracades are up. Looks like 1520 main will be razed soon.

Critical_Mass wrote:Illegal sidewalk-blocking barracades are up. Looks like 1520 main will be razed soon.

They're allowed to have them for so many days.

It was a mistake for the ordinance to not allow unlimited blocking but they must provide a temp sidewalk the whole tiome. Would be better for peds and developers alike.

No saving it now I guess.....ugh

TheLastGentleman wrote:No saving it now I guess.....ugh

the goal is to get the development plan moving so they can build once the convention hotel is finished (which is driving their parking "need").

Ugh. That reminds me of the perfectly nice apartment building (probably pre-1900 and not a common architectural design in KC) on 17th Street that was torn down for parking/staging for the construction of the Kauffman Center.

It is still a gravel lot to this day (that no one even parks in anymore).

Ugh. That reminds me of the perfectly nice apartment building (probably pre-1900 and not a common architectural design in KC) on 17th Street that was torn down for parking/staging for the construction of the Kauffman Center.

Yep. I haven't forgotten about that one. Really changed the character of that little stretch of 17th when it was demoed. Sad.