KCRag Forum

TheLastGentleman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 18, 2023 7:15 pm Kc tenants is really going to be this board’s scapegoat for everything, isn’t it

Depends on the day. This one had a lot more to do with the local neighbors than it did KCT, but they were definitely opposed to the development

earthling wrote: ↑Wed Jan 18, 2023 5:46 pm

Pastense wrote: ↑Wed Jan 18, 2023 5:23 pm Another victory for KCtenants! No affordable apartments here! Could have had 70.

Could be partly KCtenants but as mentioned the neighborhood cried too about size and not enough parking. Appears that neighborhood feedback had much more to do with it.

Midtown needs to grow past the transition from desiring car-dependent suburbia last 50+ years and accept density, especially tower projects directly on streetcar line. Midtowners who desire car depedency need to move to suburbia as the amount of urban living options in KC is tiny while there are 95% more car lifestyle options for them elsewhere in metro, even most of city proper.

The City shouldn't give in to these types of neighborhood demands, let them move as there will be plenty transit oriented people to buy their homes at a premium once streetcar up and running. That said, Midtown should probably start to adopt permit street parking.

https://twitter.com/khzny/status/161571 ... qsPrCaMPbQ

Now to write up a form letter that's a rebuttal to the NIMBY-ism expressed in that tweet.

So I guess this project is using incentives now? Through RideKC?

Cratedigger wrote: ↑Thu Feb 16, 2023 12:33 pm So I guess this project is using incentives now? Through RideKC?

It was on their agenda yesterday, so probably. It would meet their requirements.

Project denied RideKC incentives

I've been holding my tongue on saying this but 2023 has been an awful year for development so far. Nothing good has happened other than Atlas reviving. All we've seen is projects get killed or stall. 2022 was great though, fantastic year all the way through.

Cratedigger wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 4:38 pm Project denied RideKC incentives

Not surprising considering they didn’t select the incentive box on their development application, so that got pushback. I wonder what other reasons for denial were.

Collison says 19 KC Tennants, allies spoke against, no support testimony. 6-2 denial.

Is it dead now?

How did the climate justice group present rationalize arguing against a minimal parking, TOD project?

I hope the project moves forward, really was great to be able to do a prominent corner along main nd the Street car route.

It's obvious the City Council is going to cower to any pushback and in all fairness MAC did themselves no favors in their mishandling of an application to get to where we are now.

Developers will need to see that if you want to sniff incentives at all you will need to execute perfectly and set aside some portion as affordable. Perhaps doing multiple projects at one time where one is your "revenue generator" and the other is affordable where you break even. Like a loss leader in marketing. IDK but it's getting stupid and I do not want to turn off developers, which we have already seen.

Why do people think there should be tax breaks and incentives for a private development located on a brand new street car line? There is already a public investment of $351.7 million for the streetcar. Is that not enough of public incentive for private development?

If Mac returns here (no indication they dropped it yet, but say they do), I expect either a shrinking of the scope (again) or doubling down on building a far more premium product that fetches the highest rents in Midtown. They can do it.

A company like Mac has thousands of apartments spread out over Chicago, St. Louis and Kansas City. Many buildings have commercial components. The company is raking in cash from these units and commercial spaces. The revenue from these other buildings should be creating enough of a buffer where an incentive isn't required to build something new on their end. That's the benefit of them having such a large portfolio. And they don't build too many new buildings all at once. But who knows, maybe their debt is at a level where they need an incentive to try and balance things out a little. If so, my recommendation would be to slow down.

No it is not, my guess because it has no direct impact on costs of developing the adjacent properties. If anything I assume that street car investment would drive up costs for developer in terms of property taxes etc. They have to pay to build it and maintain it, and over time taxes continue to increase as property value goes up. The incentives help to offset the start up costs of sorts. MAC is a for profit company looking at any and all ways to accomplish the development and secure as much revenue & profitability as possible for as long as they own the property.

I believe they will profit regardless of incentives but it does make it easier with them and it incentives them to actually want to build and invest in the development. So comes down to what MAC wants to do. It also gives them an appetite to do other developments in the metro.

At this point, I hope they go full luxury and set a new top to the Midtown market.

Would further demonstration of KC quickly absorbing higher rents lead to more interest in national developers?

The only reason I’m not too wound up on this one yet is because it wasn’t gonna break grind until 2024 anyways. They will still have plenty of time to get their shit figured out and solidified and then still break ground by their target 2024 date.

MAC keeps saying they cannot get the same rental rates in Midtown as could be gotten DT or Plaza for the same type product.

The time spent on all this... I can't wait for the day when the incentive piece is such a small amount compared to the delayed profit that developers just start building.

moderne wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 2:04 pm MAC keeps saying they cannot get the same rental rates in Midtown as could be gotten DT or Plaza for the same type product.

Is that a problem somehow?