KCRag Forum

earthling wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 5:16 pm In the 30-year+ big picture, placement of the retail is important, especially for such a prime corner. Lobby entrance for residential should be off to the side, not waste that highly active corner.

During COVID, sporting goods, hobby, music/bookstores category making a comeback given many are either home or into outdoor activity. Might be something for Cordish to target until bars/restaurants return full steam. Clothing stores are probably mostly damaged forever now that online shopping makes it very easy to return clothes, and in COVID period, more people are getting more used to shopping for clothes online.

earthling wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 5:16 pm In the 30-year+ big picture, placement of the retail is important, especially for such a prime corner. Lobby entrance for residential should be off to the side, not waste that highly active corner.

During COVID, sporting goods, hobby, music/bookstores category making a comeback given many are either home or into outdoor activity. Might be something for Cordish to target until bars/restaurants return full steam. Clothing stores are probably mostly damaged forever now that online shopping makes it very easy to return clothes, and in COVID period, more people are getting more used to shopping for clothes online.

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 5:28 pm Maybe we need a new company trying to lease these spaces?

It's just something the city needs to be aware of as cordish proposes changes like this. It's not an insignificant amount of money coming out of the general fund annually. Seems like a no-brainer to monitor it.

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 5:49 pm Seems like no brainier idea if I was leasing those spaces. To their credit I do think cordish has reached out to many known kc brands in the past and I think got turned down due to the rent amount.

We built assumption of tax performance based on this being a mixed use neighborhood.. if that is changing substantially, the city needs to be involved. We now have this space maybe going away, strata taking some retail space, leasing to banks (no sales tax) and a lot of empty space. It adds up

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 6:24 pm I thought it was taking the main street space where Jos a bank was?

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 6:24 pm I thought it was taking the main street space where Jos a bank was?

DColeKC wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 4:52 pm It’s sat empty for a reason. 300+ more people living in that space is much more valuable than any retail in the same square footage to both the city and downtown business.

beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 12:46 pm

DColeKC wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 4:52 pm It’s sat empty for a reason. 300+ more people living in that space is much more valuable than any retail in the same square footage to both the city and downtown business.

So, this was just a placeholder building for more residential all along? And they didn't lease it out because of this? What are the cities requirements for incentives for this space since I don't believe it was part of the original plan? Are we required to subsidize any number of Cordish buildings inside the district or just the ones originally planned?

beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 12:46 pm

DColeKC wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 4:52 pm It’s sat empty for a reason. 300+ more people living in that space is much more valuable than any retail in the same square footage to both the city and downtown business.

So, this was just a placeholder building for more residential all along? And they didn't lease it out because of this? What are the cities requirements for incentives for this space since I don't believe it was part of the original plan? Are we required to subsidize any number of Cordish buildings inside the district or just the ones originally planned?

normalthings wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 1:22 pm

beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 12:46 pm

DColeKC wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 4:52 pm It’s sat empty for a reason. 300+ more people living in that space is much more valuable than any retail in the same square footage to both the city and downtown business.

So, this was just a placeholder building for more residential all along? And they didn't lease it out because of this? What are the cities requirements for incentives for this space since I don't believe it was part of the original plan? Are we required to subsidize any number of Cordish buildings inside the district or just the ones originally planned?

I take his comment to mean "there is a reason it sat empty (lack of market demand). 300+ more people living in that space and a smaller retail stall as proposed is a more valuable alternative than a big empty space."

IIRC, I looked into this building and it did not appear to have a proper floor.

DColeKC wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 7:55 pm

beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 12:46 pm

DColeKC wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 4:52 pm It’s sat empty for a reason. 300+ more people living in that space is much more valuable than any retail in the same square footage to both the city and downtown business.

So, this was just a placeholder building for more residential all along? And they didn't lease it out because of this? What are the cities requirements for incentives for this space since I don't believe it was part of the original plan? Are we required to subsidize any number of Cordish buildings inside the district or just the ones originally planned?

The idea to put a tower there has been around for a few years and they stopped actively trying to lease it at that point. About the only two companies to seriously consider that space was a local radio station group and rally house.

I believe the city is on the hook for 4 towers max.

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 5:04 pm I totally understand the history of the space but every square foot that is removed eliminates any future chance of sales tax dollars ever coming in again. Maybe it's fine in this situation but overall the city needs to keep an eye on the available square footage available to generate tax dollars.

300 more people living there AND retail space remaining is obviously still an option.

DColeKC wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 7:55 pm

beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 12:46 pm

DColeKC wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 4:52 pm It’s sat empty for a reason. 300+ more people living in that space is much more valuable than any retail in the same square footage to both the city and downtown business.

So, this was just a placeholder building for more residential all along? And they didn't lease it out because of this? What are the cities requirements for incentives for this space since I don't believe it was part of the original plan? Are we required to subsidize any number of Cordish buildings inside the district or just the ones originally planned?

The idea to put a tower there has been around for a few years and they stopped actively trying to lease it at that point. About the only two companies to seriously consider that space was a local radio station group and rally house.

I believe the city is on the hook for 4 towers max.

beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:38 am

DColeKC wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 7:55 pm

beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 12:46 pm
So, this was just a placeholder building for more residential all along? And they didn't lease it out because of this? What are the cities requirements for incentives for this space since I don't believe it was part of the original plan? Are we required to subsidize any number of Cordish buildings inside the district or just the ones originally planned?

The idea to put a tower there has been around for a few years and they stopped actively trying to lease it at that point. About the only two companies to seriously consider that space was a local radio station group and rally house.

I believe the city is on the hook for 4 towers max.

I guess at least we know now why it hasn't been rented for so long... at least the last two years they haven't even been trying.