KCRag Forum

kboish wrote:Goddammnit. Owners should be fined if they allow their buildings to fall into disrepair. this better not get demo'ed.

Agree - deadbeat owners need to be fined. It's prolly cheaper to let it fall into disrepair, have the city demo it, get billed for the demo and then turn around and sell the property (or turn it into a surface lot).

I don't understand why the city can't just ED it, drop maybe $100k into stabilizing it, then sell it on the cheap to whoever has a plan and cash.

^ that would be the smart proactive approach...you'd think this would be high on their priority list for ED usage, but instead they use it to build a new police station in a neighborhood (though it may not be a very viable neighborhood---there is plenty of empty land for a new PD HQ---not trying to bring up that debate).

I don't know why the Downtown Council took a pass on buying this building for $700,000. It seems to me that it would be in the interest of downtown stakeholders to be proactive, get this building into more responsible hands, and get it renovated. It seems like a good project for Sherman Associates (who did 1006 Grand), or someone locally who knows how to convert these buildings into housing (George Birt, Dale Schulte, Roger Buford of Recon Development, Inc. and Metro West Properties, Inc, etc.). Another developer might be MAC Properties. They have done a lot of work on Armour Boulevard, and this could be their first downtown property.

Another potential buyer is Time Equities, which owns City Centre Square across the street, and redeveloped the Manhattan Condos on E. 8th Street.

Or add it to the Library Lofts building group and encourage Master Realty Properties Inc. or DST to renovate it.

Another option might be to turn it into additional hotel rooms for the Phillips Hotel, and run a skybridge between the two buildings.

Although the most reasonable thing to do with this building is to convert it into apartments.

This situation brings up again the need for downtown stakeholders to form some sort of real estate consortium to buy empty buildings and renovate them before they become dangerous, and sit empty so long. This group would also identify buildings that have the potential to become troublesome or blighted soon, and buy them before they get too run down.

FangKC wrote:I don't know why the Downtown Council took a pass on buying this building for $700,000. It seems to me that it would be in the interest of downtown stakeholders to be proactive, get this building into more responsible hands, and get it renovated. It seems like a good project for Sherman Associates (who did 1006 Grand), or someone locally who knows how to convert these buildings into housing (George Birt, Dale Schulte, Roger Buford of Recon Development, Inc. and Metro West Properties, Inc, etc.). Another developer might be MAC Properties. They have done a lot of work on Armour Boulevard, and this could be their first downtown property.

Another potential buyer is Time Equities, which owns City Centre Square across the street, and redeveloped the Manhattan Condos on E. 8th Street.

Or add it to the Library Lofts building group and encourage Master Realty Properties Inc. or DST to renovate it.

Another option might be to turn it into additional hotel rooms for the Phillips Hotel, and run a skybridge between the two buildings.

Although the most reasonable thing to do with this building is to convert it into apartments.

This situation brings up again the need for downtown stakeholders to form some sort of real estate consortium to buy empty buildings and renovate them before they become dangerous, and sit empty so long. This group would also identify buildings that have the potential to become troublesome or blighted soon, and buy them before they get too run down.

Fang, apartments in the building would be great, but the big problem is a relatively small floorplate in a tall building, which creates huge expensive solutions for lifesafety issues in converting to residential. The need for a second means of egress, a stair, is a budget buster that seriously screws up the floorplan.

Also, the floorplate is so small, that it doesn't create enough units for a MAC, Sherman, Alexander, etc.....

Commercial reuse is likely the answer to salvaging this property.

This is probably a stupid question, but couldn't they run a fire escape down the side, or install some alternate kind of egress (escape chutes, etc)?

I would use an escape chute as my primary egress.

Codes review, especially on life safety issues, is decidedly devoid of flexibility, with good reason. They don't like creative alternatives. They will consider engineered and proven options.

Exterior stairs are less attractive, especially at this height. A lot of potential problems that would make this hard to sell to codes for good reasons.

The greatest problem to this solution is that the land under the control of this ownership is limited to that which rests under the building. They could try to secure the air rights from an adjoining property, but why would those owners give up the right to someday build into that space? It would likely be prohibitively expensive to acquire that right.

Does Time Equities own the garage next door, or it that a city-owned garage?

So, Loftguy, that building doesn't have a set of stairs, only an elevator?

loftguy wrote: The greatest problem to this solution is that the land under the control of this ownership is limited to that which rests under the building. They could try to secure the air rights from an adjoining property, but why would those owners give up the right to someday build into that space? It would likely be prohibitively expensive to acquire that right.

I agree that it might not be the most attractive option, but a traditional fire escape would at least be cheap retrofit, and proven. I'm not sure what the codes require. Would they need more than just something on the east side going down to the sidewalk?

FangKC wrote:So, Loftguy, that building doesn't have a set of stairs, only an elevator?

Just having stairs does not mean they met the specs for a fire escape. In some older buildings the stairs go into the lobby which is a no-no. If the fire is in the lobbythen the people using the stairs exitinto the fire. Also the stairs have to be fire and smoke proof.

It can be done to bring up to code but can be a very expensive requirement due to require modifications.

At minimum, two fire-rated means of egress (two, enclosed stairways) are required for residential use. This building has one stair, basically in the middle.

Fire escape was a solution one hundred years ago and though in some cases still applicable, it will not pass muster for a highrise residential facility. I would not want to be responsible for people living in such a building.

You may say "what are the chances?" Eventually the chances shift out of your favor.

Why not just supply all residents with fireproof suits?

taxi wrote:Why not just supply all residents with fireproof suits?

Actually, I was thinking insurance policies. I'm pretty sure we can get a sweet discount on group rate!

So it's okay for an office building to only have one set of stairs and an elevator, but not a residential building?

FangKC wrote:So it's okay for an office building to only have one set of stairs and an elevator, but not a residential building?

Well, specifically in this case, yes. The building has been commercial use since construction, so it can continue use as built.

Conversion to residential is a change of use, and initiates city codes review to insure current codes are met and that residential requirements are followed.

.

I noticed the fire escape on the side on the building facing the alley.

Would those fit the code if there is a use change?