KCRag Forum

There really has not been interesting added from a design standpoint to the skyline in a long time. Just a bunch of boxy designs, nothing bold or too interesting.

Kauffman Center is a gem, most other new buildings are ok, nothing iconic for sure. Not ugly stuff, nothing beautiful. Just filling up spaces with a bunch of solid “6’s” so to speak. The only interesting buildings added in the last 15 yrs are Children’s Mercy and KU Med expansion.

I’m guessing more dramatic designs are more expensive to build. But all the new building have a “subdivision” “tract housing” kind of feel recently.maybe my expectations are out of whack. But with the brilliant design firms here I’d xpect a few more gems

Depending on how the RFP is worded, if the City promised the City Market vendors that there would be a specific number of parking spaces allotted for their employees and customers if that parking lot was developed, then the City must replace those. I don't know if that necessarily means it has to be on that specific parcel though. They might be able to "find" those spaces in other locations. Unless it's in the contract, then the City is probably not legally obligated to provide free parking for ANYONE in the River Market. That includes street parking spaces.

I want area businesses to thrive, but there is always going to be development and change, and if businesses can't adjust to that, they either move to another location where they can make it work, or they go out of business. Should city leaders not have redeveloped the South Loop so that Justrite Rubber Stamp and Seal Co. and a wig store could remain in business there? Justrite is still round--just a few blocks away from its' old location.

The situation angered Lindahl, who owns HyperKC, a T-shirt shop in the River Market.

Lindahl, who spoke with FOX4 Wednesday, does not want council members approving the project because he’s concerned it will take away parking spots for workers there, not to mention shoppers.

I don't know that the City can fail to redevelop itself so that a T-shirt business can stay in business.

This project brings 300 new housing units into the central city south of the river--a part of KCMO that until recently was losing housing units much faster than it could build them. Even if no affordable housing units go into this project, the housing it creates will cause some people to move there and out of older housing units that then become the replacement affordable housing. Most affordable housing is passively created this way. The problem with affordable housing in Kansas City is that there are higher earners renting all the older units and lower-income people can't complete for those apartments. New higher-rent housing draws higher earners out of their current apartments and frees up the older housing that was being artificially priced too high for the amenities provided.

City officials have to make hard choices and that often leaves some people unhappy. The Council should approve the project as is so that it can get started.

dukuboy1 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 1:51 am There really has not been interesting added from a design standpoint to the skyline in a long time. Just a bunch of boxy designs, nothing bold or too interesting.

Kauffman Center is a gem, most other new buildings are ok, nothing iconic for sure. Not ugly stuff, nothing beautiful. Just filling up spaces with a bunch of solid “6’s” so to speak. The only interesting buildings added in the last 15 yrs are Children’s Mercy and KU Med expansion.

I’m guessing more dramatic designs are more expensive to build. But all the new building have a “subdivision” “tract housing” kind of feel recently.maybe my expectations are out of whack. But with the brilliant design firms here I’d xpect a few more gems

We don't have ultra-wealthy local companies that want to build, or rent in, "statement" buildings.

In many instances, it seems from parking lots to buildings with occupants.

It seems to me this project has ground floor activity in the important spots: 4th and 5th. It would be even better if it had full activation along Main, but given that's also rotting vegetable HQ I don't think it is a dealbreaker that it isn't fully activated.

That corner spot on 4th and the commitment of $500,000 to improve the park are a recipe for a potentially good third place.

smh wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 1:30 pm rotting vegetable HQ

Maybe they should crate a composting center!

Committee delays approval. Requests the original 160 replacement parking spaces return in exchange for the elimination of 15 units at 50% AMI. If the team manages to do this, I think it gets approved. But what a bunch of bullshit. So many parking spots in what will become the most walkable neighborhood in the city in the coming years.

http://portkc.com/wp-content/uploads/20 ... ERSION.pdf

Unfortunately the 160 spots are in the RFP... Starts on page 25

Looks like they have to do it then. There doesn't appear to be any wiggle room by providing the parking spaces off-site in another location near the market.

Looking less & less like project ready to go. My guess is they may pull plug. Time marches on…

dukuboy1 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 11:18 pm Looking less & less like project ready to go. My guess is they may pull plug. Time marches on…

We have to take the emotions out of some of these decisions. Does a development meet x,y and z requirements and standards? Yes. -Proceed. Our politicians are obviously hindered from making correct decisions based on emotions. If it brings significant money to the city, people to a neighborhood and increases overall business, it should be approved in an expedited manner. These should be business decisions. Let the person hired to handle the business of the city make the decisions based on the numbers only, not emotions.

The City might need to reassess promises for any specific amount of parking for businesses in the City Market buildings in future lease renewals, and at the same time remove parking minimums in River Market zoning, and eventually city-wide.

Two questions about the status of this project:

1. Why can't the city do something with the two surface parking lots across the street from this site at the same time? Seems like a good opportunity to develop at least one other site to make up for the lost parking of this project.

2. Why haven't we heard anything from KC Tenants about the loss of affordable units on this project?

beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 11:42 pm

dukuboy1 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 11:18 pm Looking less & less like project ready to go. My guess is they may pull plug. Time marches on…

We have to take the emotions out of some of these decisions. Does a development meet x,y and z requirements and standards? Yes. -Proceed. Our politicians are obviously hindered from making correct decisions based on emotions. If it brings significant money to the city, people to a neighborhood and increases overall business, it should be approved in an expedited manner. These should be business decisions. Let the person hired to handle the business of the city make the decisions based on the numbers only, not emotions.

100%. We can't have this protracted public debate every time a project is proposed. We need to be building 10 City Harvests tomorrow. Stretching approvals out for more than a year on a lot the city owns and has specified its requirements, selected a developer, etc. is insanity. If we can't get a development going in this circumstance how is there any hope for meaningful development at scale across the core? Need to get rid of UR zoning option, rezone areas along MAX and Streetcar for higher density specifying how the ground floor needs to interact with the street and then let folks have at it. I know progress is not a straight line, but damn if this one doesn't have me very frustrated at KC's ability to tie itself in knots.

SHPNeighbor wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 8:54 am Two questions about the status of this project:

1. Why can't the city do something with the two surface parking lots across the street from this site at the same time? Seems like a good opportunity to develop at least one other site to make up for the lost parking of this project.

2. Why haven't we heard anything from KC Tenants about the loss of affordable units on this project?

1. I believe there is another project in the works across the street that, unfortunately, is by a less forward-thinking developer who is not pushing back on City's parking requests...so I imagine it gets through more easily because it will be mostly parking (just like the neighborhood :-0 )

2. Was wondering the same, but I think the answer is they don't really care about affordable housing. In a similar vein, did Downtown Council speak on behalf of this project? Where are they in helping move downtown forward? Sean O'Byrne went out of his way to support the Waddell & Reed project after assuring the neighborhood that Downtown Council would support DNA's ask for design changes (i.e., a ground floor). DNA will sometimes attend and testify, but as a volunteer org it can be tough for folks to get there and I doubt this was a big concern given it literally checks all the city's boxes.

SHPNeighbor wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 8:54 am 2. Why haven't we heard anything from KC Tenants about the loss of affordable units on this project?

I reached out to a member of KCT about this, I’ve not heard back yet, but when I had sat down with them a little while back they expressed the same concerns about development and the constant need for parking over adding units to a similar degree as we do. Hopefully they’ll provide some pushback on this, but we’ll see

smh wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 9:09 am

beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 11:42 pm

dukuboy1 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 11:18 pm Looking less & less like project ready to go. My guess is they may pull plug. Time marches on…

We have to take the emotions out of some of these decisions. Does a development meet x,y and z requirements and standards? Yes. -Proceed. Our politicians are obviously hindered from making correct decisions based on emotions. If it brings significant money to the city, people to a neighborhood and increases overall business, it should be approved in an expedited manner. These should be business decisions. Let the person hired to handle the business of the city make the decisions based on the numbers only, not emotions.

100%. We can't have this protracted public debate every time a project is proposed. We need to be building 10 City Harvests tomorrow. Stretching approvals out for more than a year on a lot the city owns and has specified its requirements, selected a developer, etc. is insanity. If we can't get a development going in this circumstance how is there any hope for meaningful development at scale across the core? Need to get rid of UR zoning option, rezone areas along MAX and Streetcar for higher density specifying how the ground floor needs to interact with the street and then let folks have at it. I know progress is not a straight line, but damn if this one doesn't have me very frustrated at KC's ability to tie itself in knots.

Absolutely. Wish we could hear something - anything - about the status of Ordinance 220701

Happy this will (likely) move forward. I think swapping the 15 super-affordable (50% AMI) units for parking is an acceptable and maybe even preferable compromise in this location, given the parking was promised in the RFP and this is a high-value residential site that also serves as a central companion lot to the City Market.

Bigger issue to me is zoning and the elimination of parking minimums in the urban core. Wish we could see this happen sooner than later and let developers build what they deem necessary and profitable re: parking without these crazy back and forth discussions.

What this says is that if it comes down to a clash between the NIMBYs and the Tenants groups: the city will support the NIMBYs