KCRag Forum

DaveKCMO wrote: was this the closure that really ended up being a lease that wasn't renewed by the landlord? the star link is dead...

I believe Tanners was the one who decided not to renew their lease.  Dave, you may be remembering Fred P. Otts, who was not renewed by their owner.

The Broadway property is owned by the family that operates the event space, Club 1000.  Sweetheart lease deals don't come much better than that.

There was somebody in the front window today doing some sort of handyman work.

KCPowercat wrote: There was somebody in the front window today doing some sort of handyman work.

I have seen some one in there at least once a week since they shut down. Some one had told me that they heard some one would be moving in fairly soon, I took it for a grain of salt based on the source. Also doesn't make since as the Red Development/leasing signs are still up.

My fiancee and I were meeting with John, the owner of Club 1000, last night to set the floorplan for our wedding reception next week and I got the scoop on this space.

John has bought it and is currently remodeling it and will use it primarially on Friday nights as a showcase for caterers where potential clients can come in for a trial run.  He also will use it for an additional event space.  He said he wouldn't rule out somebody like KC Hopps coming in and opening a concept for the rest of the week.

I hope the concept thing happens as it would be a bummer to have such a prominent corner of downtown dark 5 nights a week - but I wouldn't count on it happening anytime in the real near future.

No sane restaurateur is going to agree to open in that space if they have to close up shop on Saturday nights. Unless, perhaps, the rent is super super super crazy cheap.

yeah that whole setup sounds weird.  Only thing that might work under that arrangement is a lunch place or coffee shop?

Overall it sucks, QH needs more retail/amenities.....a coffee shop being #1

It's a great space which, in my opinion, deserves a great restaurant. Unfortunately, it is probably doomed to be a dead zone.

mean wrote: It's a great space which, in my opinion, deserves a great restaurant. Unfortunately, it is probably doomed to be a dead zone.

Seems kind of... stupid... to own a prime location like that and allow it to sit empty 6 nights a week. 

Ummm... don't you think if they could get people in the doors they would? Downtown still needs a lot of help, despite what some say.

What help do you propose?...there are all kinds of landlords out there that turn down businesses....or rents so high they don't want people in their space.  Not every empty space is just begging for someone to open up there.....

and by the looks of the entire metro, a lot of areas still need a lot of help.

From what I hear, he deliberitly ran off Tanners - seems a little odd if his only backup plan was so half-assed. 

Tanners was terrible. The Quaff is terrible, too, but at least the Quaff has a certain neighborhood charm, mainly because of Joe, that offsets the general douche factor. Tanners was everything bad about the Quaff with none of the redeeming qualities, set in a skeezy suburban strip mall vibe complete with 25 taps that all taste the same and ridiculous Journey cover bands doing voice-cracking versions of Don't Stop Believing at 2:00a.m. It's like someone took a lame suburban "neighborhood (chain) bar" concept and tried to wedge it into downtown. Probably because that is exactly what happened.

mean wrote: Tanners was terrible. The Quaff is terrible, too, but at least the Quaff has a certain neighborhood charm, mainly because of Joe, that offsets the general douche factor. Tanners was everything bad about the Quaff with none of the redeeming qualities, set in a skeezy suburban strip mall vibe complete with 25 taps that all taste the same and ridiculous Journey cover bands doing voice-cracking versions of Don't Stop Believing at 2:00a.m. It's like someone took a lame suburban "neighborhood (chain) bar" concept and tried to wedge it into downtown. Probably because that is exactly what happened.

I would agree with everything you said - but I would also argue that it contributed a hell of a lot more to the neighborhood than a basically vacant room that gets used to show off caterers to brides and grooms one night a week at most. 

Oh, totally agree. I even went there occasionally when I lived at Opera House, just because it was close and convenient. Tanners may have been terrible, but a vacant building is infinitely worse. I was more reaching to explain why the Tanners concept failed, because I think the right concept would do extremely well in that spot.

And, of course, I have the right concept. 

mean wrote: I was more reaching to explain why the Tanners concept failed, because I think the right concept would do extremely well in that spot.

From what I hear it didn't "fail" - he wanted them gone so he threatened to audit their books and make their life as painful as he could.  The Tanners folks said no thanks.  At least that is the word on the street. 

Hrm. Who is 'he', anyway? Maybe he wanted them gone because it was a shitty concept? 

mean wrote: Hrm. Who is 'he', anyway? Maybe he wanted them gone because it was a shitty concept? 

John, the owner of Club 1000. He owns most or all of that building from what I understand.

Ok, I didn't realize he owned it although I just reread the original "back from the dead" post which says, "John bought it." So, there you go.

Anyway, it's probably a moot point because nobody is going to open there if they have to be closed one of the busiest nights of the week. You're killing a huge revenue stream and confusing untold numbers of new customers who are going to show up and expect you to be open, and then never come back. It's just a stupid idea all around.

That said, if you could close off the back room or something and use it for tastings (I don't recall right off whether it'd be big enough) while keeping the main tenant open, that might work out. Or do it on, you know, Monday nights.

The reason I heard (and I trust my source) that Tanners shut the doors, was because they were being less than truthful about their sales.  Is/was their rent based on a percentage of sales?  Can anyone verify that? 

Tanner's Downtown sued for Rent.

http://economy.kansascity.com/?q=node/523

See they are looking to fill the space with another restaurant once the economy turns.