KCRag Forum

Tax abatement approved.

http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/n ... ntown.html

KCMax wrote:Tax abatement approved.

http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/n ... ntown.html

THIS my friends, is how you build proper urban infill. Damn that is a fine building.

.

pash wrote:It's a little odd that it's being developed by a commercial real-estate group yet there's no ground-floor retail. I guess they didn't want to compete with themselves, since they now manage the City Market.

Should be a nice addition to the neighborhood.

This was raised in another forum as well. What can be done to encourage ground-floor retail? I feel like we are about to hit upon a stronger demand for it and we will have a dearth of acceptable space.

...because kansas city is over-retailed and developers have trouble filling it.

we should be requiring it in certain places, but not everywhere. at minimum, the ground floor at this site should be active (not necessarily retail, and certainly not parking).

DaveKCMO wrote:...because kansas city is over-retailed and developers have trouble filling it.

we should be requiring it in certain places, but not everywhere. at minimum, the ground floor at this site should be active (not necessarily retail, and certainly not parking).

But then you have examples like 1515 Walnut where both storefronts are already filled.

i'm not saying they try hard, that's just what you hear as the excuse.

DaveKCMO wrote:i'm not saying they try hard, that's just what you hear as the excuse.

Ah, understood.

smh wrote:

KCMax wrote:Tax abatement approved.

http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/n ... ntown.html

THIS my friends, is how you build proper urban infill. Damn that is a fine building.

Yes, I am usually opposed to designs trying to emulate old classic buildings because they often end up looking nothing like the originals. This design however, looks really good. Nicely done.

Demosthenes wrote:

smh wrote:

KCMax wrote:Tax abatement approved.

http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/n ... ntown.html

THIS my friends, is how you build proper urban infill. Damn that is a fine building.

Yes, I am usually opposed to designs trying to emulate old classic buildings because they often end up looking nothing like the originals. This design however, looks really good. Nicely done.

I agree. This looks well done.

It's the cornice that gives it that classic look.

If it's anything more than stucco panels and brick veneer, I'll be shocked.

You don't need retail in every building.

Yes, KC has trouble filling retail space. But it's hard filling retail spaces in urban parts of most old cities.

However, I would like to see the new buildings designed in a manner that the retail could be added later if the demand for it increases. For now, the first floor spaces could be a big lobby that could be reduced in size once demand exists.

We are living in different times than when most older urban buildings--that had retail in them--were built. People buy things off the Internet now, and that is having an effect on the need for traditional retail space. I think most downtown retail in the future will be mostly restaurants and bars, and services (doctors, dentists, hair salons, spas, gyms, dry cleaners, real estate agents).

to me there's some great space literally across the street that would make good retail.

when the demand arrives it's way underutilized.

I bet we'll see another wave of conversions in time. like Delaware between 3rd and 5th has current ground floor office space that would work well to change as leases are up or businesses fold.

If it's anything more than stucco panels and brick veneer, I'll be shocked

I'm quite certain that a previous article (or previous version of Collison's article) posted within the last couple of days, said they would be using natural stone. I was surprised.

.

smh wrote:

DaveKCMO wrote:...because kansas city is over-retailed and developers have trouble filling it.

we should be requiring it in certain places, but not everywhere. at minimum, the ground floor at this site should be active (not necessarily retail, and certainly not parking).

But then you have examples like 1515 Walnut where both storefronts are already filled.

The retail at 1515 is a gift from the developer. They are micro retail spaces that will not pay for themselves. Too small and way frigging expensive to develop. It's a wonderful thing they have done in creating the life that such spaces create, but it's not a business model that a developer can easily sell to investors and lenders. It's a net loss on the balance sheet.

And yes, you snarksters, it's a fact. Retail has been a loss for downtown property owners and nearly impossible to fill with credible, bankable tenants. It's pretty maddening for developers that are committed to growing the city, because we know that streetfront retail is needed badly and that ultimately it will be in demand, but we have taken it in the shorts for thirty years on ALL retail spaces.

If I owned the Centropolis development, I would do all I could to include retail there, because the experience of that corner with the streetcar arrival will shift the market and make that frontage highly valuable, if configured for current retail standards. However, I don't and I can in no way fault the developer for not having that as part of their project.

These guys get kudos for having the balls to get in there and develop this property.

moderne wrote:It's the cornice that gives it that classic look.

Yep. It's amazing how such a simple cornice can take a design completely over the top. Architects usually don't like to include such details any more. Even when going for a classic design like this they skip important aspects like that.

I hope the final product turns out as good as the rendering.

First permits for this project showed up today - all of them related to site prep.

Permit

KCDowntown

Downtown Development Map

Feels weird to have a suburban engineer working on an urban site. Like, do they feel dirty designing a building with no setback?