KCRag Forum

From KC Star:
"Councilman Lee Barnes Jr. , 5th district at-large, said incentives were appropriate because the city could otherwise risk losing an employer that’s been here for over 50 years."

I think that pretty much says it all. If we're serious about GRID's plan to stop bleeding everything into JoCo, then you gotta do stuff like this or else it *will* go to Kansas. It's tough but true.

^Horrible response. Opens the door for every company to threaten to leave for incentives.

Also need to stop building private islands in the city if involving incentives. Work with them to come up with a solution that contributes to integrating within urban environment and provides broader public benefit. Then incentives are justified. If a company/developer wants to take advantage of what the streetcar offers, it's reasonable to *ask* developers to give something back that contributes to the TOD intentions of streetcar line and if requesting incentives, is reasonable for it to be *required*.

earthling wrote: ↑Thu Dec 02, 2021 10:55 pm ^Horrible response. Opens the door for every company to threaten to leave for incentives.

Also need to stop building private islands in the city if involving incentives. Work with them to come up with a solution that contributes to integrating within urban environment and provides broader public benefit. Then incentives are justified. If a company/developer wants to take advantage of what the streetcar offers, it's reasonable to *ask* developers to give something back that contributes to the TOD intentions of streetcar line and if requesting incentives, is reasonable for it to be *required*.

I'm not really sure why we're having them build this anyway when they could just move into Waddell Reed's spot

normalthings wrote: ↑Thu Dec 02, 2021 1:03 pm

chaglang wrote: ↑Thu Dec 02, 2021 12:54 pm

normalthings wrote: ↑Thu Dec 02, 2021 12:01 pm

Does not mean much when you can’t get to your house in the suburbs via transit

Tough shit. Guess that's the price of moving to 237th and Quivera.

Its a lot easier to get a finance job out in JoCo than it is downtown.

Even taking the bus to a house near downtown OP is a ~1 hour ride vs a 25 minute drive. It's not unknown that KC's transit funding is poor and service levels (frequency and breadth) are poor. Putting jobs in JOCO appears to be easier and cheaper so fighting one of the few firms dedicated to downtown is counter-productive. Its an empty field right now

Yeah... DGAF. I'm honestly tired of screwing up our built environment to cater to the whims of people who chose to live an hour and a half south of downtown and give zero shits about the city, and who work for companies that will leave for the exurbs at some point anyway. The ROI on them gracing us with their presence is vanishingly small.

The Union Hill homeowners quoted by the Star are not complaining about the height, but about the same concerns being voiced here. What is being presented now is just a preliminary plan and not any final version. The thing is not to grant any incentives before there is a final acceptable version.

For those saying that you can't retain parking within a new development, the Tracks project is breaking ground: https://milhaus.com/news/milhaus-breaks ... -district/. 150 surface spots retained in the garage.

chaglang wrote: ↑Fri Dec 03, 2021 10:10 am

normalthings wrote: ↑Thu Dec 02, 2021 1:03 pm

chaglang wrote: ↑Thu Dec 02, 2021 12:54 pm

Tough shit. Guess that's the price of moving to 237th and Quivera.

Its a lot easier to get a finance job out in JoCo than it is downtown.

Even taking the bus to a house near downtown OP is a ~1 hour ride vs a 25 minute drive. It's not unknown that KC's transit funding is poor and service levels (frequency and breadth) are poor. Putting jobs in JOCO appears to be easier and cheaper so fighting one of the few firms dedicated to downtown is counter-productive. Its an empty field right now

Yeah... DGAF. I'm honestly tired of screwing up our built environment to cater to the whims of people who chose to live an hour and a half south of downtown and give zero shits about the city, and who work for companies that will leave for the exurbs at some point anyway. The ROI on them gracing us with their presence is vanishingly small.

There are a lot people who care about the city but who don't live downtown. They end up moving away for a variety of reasons (schools, jobs, etc). There is a very real lack of professional service jobs downtown compared to the rest of the metro. A person driving from downtown to their job in JOCO is almost the same problem. The problem can't be solved unless we build more office space downtown and building some new spec office space is the first step.

With the city having bent over so far for W&R, they've left themselves without much to stand on for this project. In my view, while I don't like the proposed design, it's just as (or arguably more) urban than W&R. I don't see how this doesn't get approved.

Pushing the parking to be lower on this project is a waste of political capital for the groups fighting this. The time to have pushed for that was before it was public, by city staff. It looks like they did what they've done on other TOD projects in the pipeline: ask the developer to keep the parking ratio below the suburban standard of 3-4 spaces/1,000 square feet of office...so brave & bold of them /s

If the relevant groups want to get something better for the neighborhood, focus on an improved street level interaction. It's doable, but likely not as a ton of retail. I would suspect as a term of the sale CC does not want more than x amount of retail space in the project, in order to protect the leasing for CC Shops. Even Gallerie is struggling to lease the spaces that were built for it.

Beyond that, get a firm legal commitment on how the garage will be screened. The renderings & written descriptions leave it vague enough for the final product to be VE'd to death.

Union Hill residents on a weekday counted empty stalls in the nearest parking garages and lots and counted 3,700 empty.

moderne wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 4:29 pm Union Hill residents on a weekday counted empty stalls in the nearest parking garages and lots and counted 3,700 empty.

I don't think counts are entirely accurate considering many are still working from home.

In KC, people demand parking close to their office/house/retail option,etc. Keeping spaces empty in front of ones house is clearly something people want even at urban core neighborhood meetings. Not that fair to demand a parking space at your house but not for others.

BREAKING Council approves Fidelity Security Life HQ incentive package on 11-1 vote.
Council Committee Supports $83.4M Insurance Firm HQ Plan https://cityscenekc.com/council-committ ... m-hq-plan/ via
@CitySceneKC

We are getting a new tower.

Who was the 1?

beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 6:02 pm Who was the 1?

Ryana Parks Shaw

I was surprised it was 11-1 after all that.

Will the Fidelity Life insurance own this building?

Yes.

Need some future guidance that requires some TOD leaning design requirements along streetcar line if there are incentives involved. Is that realistically possible?

i thought TOD policy already existed, incentivized or not.

https://www.kcmo.gov/city-hall/departme ... tod-policy

I just really hope they plan to develop the grass lawn on the north half of the lot, right at the streetcar stop, so it is not a dead zone. They are probably more interested in preserving the downtown/memorial view, which they will ironically be blocking from some Union Hill residents.

Funny to hear about Union Hill: When I lived at 204 E. 30th street in 1996-2001 -- the Shook/Hardy/Bacon building was controversial too.

In truth, it turned-out to be a nice update to the "UH Skyline".