KCRag Forum

Surprised they didn't just 'accidentally' knock the whole building down. They are going to let those buildings rot out of spite.

Those buildings will probably come down in three years, though it's shitty of MAC to blight the street by leaving the buildings in that condition in the interim.

It's very, very unlikely than anyone can renovate those and not lose their shirt. The combination of structural/MEP work, making them ADA accessible, and doing it to the Department of the Interior's standards for the tax credits, in a local historic district makes it really tough to pull off. Someone was also explaining to me that the rear porches were converted to bedrooms at some point, and those would either have to be returned to porches either for the tax credits or to make room for the elevators (I can't recall which). The upshot is the apartments then go from 3BR to a 2BR units.

chaglang wrote:Those buildings will probably come down in three years, though it's shitty of MAC to blight the street by leaving the buildings in that condition in the interim.

It's very, very unlikely than anyone can renovate those and not lose their shirt. The combination of structural/MEP work, making them ADA accessible, and doing it to the Department of the Interior's standards for the tax credits, in a local historic district makes it really tough to pull off. Someone was also explaining to me that the rear porches were converted to bedrooms at some point, and those would either have to be returned to porches either for the tax credits or to make room for the elevators (I can't recall which). The upshot is the apartments then go from 3BR to a 2BR units.

Every building that has been renovated would qualify as 'lose your shirt' opportunity. It's an art, as well as a skill. ADA accessibility is grandfathered unless there is a change of use, so where does this come from? All the rest is detail, and a lot can be in those details...good and bad. Elevators? Even the mention of elevators is total red flag for a two story property. That alone makes me feel like someone doesn't want to do it.

I understand when things are 'beyond' saving, or when something 'better' is to follow. I also have a very low bullshit threshold, when it comes to saving historic properties and in this conversation we are in the land where such stink often dwells.

My understanding is this: ADA "grandfathering" is a myth. There's no such provision in the law. The 1990 law relies on planned alterations to remove barriers over time. Alterations, as defined by the ADA, include renovations. So these buildings would need to be made accessible, which would mean a small elevator or (maybe) a chair lift (?) or LULA (??). That's how we've approached projects in the past, though we may err on the safe ("don't get sued") side more than we need to.

I tend to believe MAC on this, if for no other reason than they have a wildly successful business model renovating old apartment buildings. It doesn't make a ton of sense for them to demo and build new here if they could avoid it. If this was a JoCo developer saying it's not possible I would be much more suspicious.

Chaglang, I've said before that I'm a big fan of MAC/Anthem and all the incredible work that they have done. They have changed the world of midtown. That does not mean that they get carte blanche to do anything they wish without public reaction..........

How-ever and back to the point, the city can and does grant huge leeway on ada requirements on rehab of existing dwelling units. Period. Reasonable accommodation.

At minimum, to allow a first floor unit to meet ada requirement, is often a default acceptable position on even a change of use development.

They do NOT require an elevator be installed to make all units accessible in an existing residential building.

An elevator in a two, three, or often even four story new construction building, is often ludicrous and full ada is met in selected first floor units. See City Place in Westport for example.

If anyone in city hall says that these specific buildings MUST have an elevator, then it's time to set up the barricades and burn.

The first floor units are up a flight of steps.

The recent porch demo looks like an intentional effort to render the buildings unsalvageable and to turn public sentiment for full demolition. Such underhanded and unethical development practices go a long way towards undoing the good reputation MAC has previously earned in this town as far as I am concerned. This is the sort of shoddy behavior I expect from surface parking lot developers.

LenexatoKCMO wrote:The recent porch demo looks like an intentional effort to render the buildings unsalvageable and to turn public sentiment for full demolition. Such underhanded and unethical development practices go a long way towards undoing the good reputation MAC has previously earned in this town as far as I am concerned. This is the sort of shoddy behavior I expect from surface parking lot developers.

The news report I saw last night (KSHB?) stated the owner wanted to turn the property into parking, but the city required the structures to stand for 3 more years. Was the first time I'd heard that they were back to the parking option...although local news isn't known for fact-finding.

I would guess that was the plan all along. They would tear down the buildings under the guise of building a great new building and then it never happens. I think the neighborhood should be commended for fighting having them torn down.

I actually thought the renderings of the proposed dev. were a nice attempt at a modernist interpretation of a traditional midtown apartment block. I just would have liked to see them built as infill on one of the countless, vacant lots in the area, rather than as replacements for nice existing building stock.

LenexatoKCMO wrote:I actually thought the renderings of the proposed dev. were a nice attempt at a modernist interpretation of a traditional midtown apartment block. I just would have liked to see them built as infill on one of the countless, vacant lots in the area, rather than as replacements for nice existing building stock.

Yes, but I don't think they would ever have been built. It was a shell game to allow them to tear the buildings down.

That would be quite a bit more diabolical. Surface parking for their other buildings? Seems like it would be too far of a walk to where their real densities and parking issues are a couple blocks east.

beautyfromashes wrote:

LenexatoKCMO wrote:I actually thought the renderings of the proposed dev. were a nice attempt at a modernist interpretation of a traditional midtown apartment block. I just would have liked to see them built as infill on one of the countless, vacant lots in the area, rather than as replacements for nice existing building stock.

Yes, but I don't think they would ever have been built. It was a shell game to allow them to tear the buildings down.

Yeah, much like the Kempers did in the North Loop of Downtown back in the 1950s under a "redevelopment plan" that they never completed. Instead downtown got square blocks of surface parking.

beautyfromashes wrote:

LenexatoKCMO wrote:I actually thought the renderings of the proposed dev. were a nice attempt at a modernist interpretation of a traditional midtown apartment block. I just would have liked to see them built as infill on one of the countless, vacant lots in the area, rather than as replacements for nice existing building stock.

Yes, but I don't think they would ever have been built. It was a shell game to allow them to tear the buildings down.

What's this based on?

So what is everyone's thoughts on MAC now?

I really don't know how to feel. I, just like everyone else, was in love with the work they had been doing in midtown. They more or less changed the face of midtown single handedly. This though... this was really, really bad on their part. It was soulless, unethical, and immature. I don't really know how to feel at this point. Part of me wants them to get the hell out of KC, but then I remember everything else they've done and that wouldn't be fair. They still have other plans for parts of Armour as well that could be further game changers, like the 301 E. Armour building.

I still can't believe they did this. Just another example of how you can't trust anyone in this world. Even the ones who seem most noble are full of greed when it comes down to it. MAC is making plenty of money here. They should have just sold the buildings to someone who cared.

My opinion? 1 strike against them. Something like 19 wins for them. I don't like what they did with this specific property, but all in all they still saved Armour Blvd IMO.

Depends on what they do with it. Following through with the project would mitigate part of the shady, underhanded crap associated with the demo. If however they really are just paving parking, they can GTFO of town as soon as possible.

Considering the change along the rest of Armour that they brought about, I'm still ok with them. Nobody local could have done that. They are still the best hope for the remaining large apartments on Armour.

To continue my role in this conversation as devils advocate, have any developers come out and said they could have done the project and not lost money? When they tried to give away the buildings, I don't recall there being a long list of takers.

Does it change anyone's opinion of MAC that they are going to try and convert that horrible Housing Authority albatross at the sw corner of Armour and Gillham?

I think even given the very disappointing handling of the west armour buildings, MAC is to be commended for the investment that they've single handedly sunk into midtown and the incredible transformation of Armour as a whole. I get the impression that they are in it for the long haul and the improvements will continue as they add buildings and complete additional amenities (like the HA building on Gillham).

I really, really hope that we aren't looking at surface parking along west armour for any length of time, however. That would be strike one, but it would be a big fat swinging strike at a curveball in the dirt.