KCRag Forum

Does anyone have access to tour this building? I would love to check out the windows inside and observatory deck.

KCPowercat wrote:

FangKC wrote:Doesn't 909 Walnut do rental?

Good point...Yes....with the intent to go condo from the beginning of the project. Its been pushed back given the economy and demand for rentals.

As I understand it, these will be market rate apartments for people with income below 26,000$. Can you really build something that is affordable for such low incomes and make them marketable at a later date as condos? These are going to have to be of a pretty basic and inexpensive design to get such low incomes into them.

Highlander wrote:

KCPowercat wrote:

FangKC wrote:Doesn't 909 Walnut do rental?

Good point...Yes....with the intent to go condo from the beginning of the project. Its been pushed back given the economy and demand for rentals.

As I understand it, these will be market rate apartments for people with income below 26,000$. Can you really build something that is affordable for such low incomes and make them marketable at a later date as condos? These are going to have to be of a pretty basic and inexpensive design to get such low incomes into them.

Where did you read that? Market rate typically doesn't mean income restrictions.

Usually when they go to condo, the developer does high-quality interior upgrades. These might includes amenities like a doorman, valet parking, or exercise facility.

For the rentals, the fixtures and interiors will probably be basic.

KCPowercat wrote:

Highlander wrote:[quote="KCPowercat
As I understand it, these will be market rate apartments for people with income below 26,000$. Can you really build something that is affordable for such low incomes and make them marketable at a later date as condos? These are going to have to be of a pretty basic and inexpensive design to get such low incomes into them.

Where did you read that? Market rate typically doesn't mean income restrictions.

Not knowing the stipulations on a market rate project, I googled "market rate Kansas City" and found several references to various projects in KC with a wide array of definitions of "market rate" including at least one with income restrictions.

I do not know if any of the definitions apply to the KCPL - Just wondering how a developer can build a project for two very different purposes (relatively low rent apartments and condos). It's an iconic building, I'd like to see it with an eventual purpose that is commensurate with its dominance of the skyline and place in KC history.

Highlander wrote:

KCPowercat wrote:

Highlander wrote:[quote="KCPowercat
As I understand it, these will be market rate apartments for people with income below 26,000$. Can you really build something that is affordable for such low incomes and make them marketable at a later date as condos? These are going to have to be of a pretty basic and inexpensive design to get such low incomes into them.

Where did you read that? Market rate typically doesn't mean income restrictions.

Not knowing the stipulations on a market rate project, I googled "market rate Kansas City" and found several references to various projects in KC with a wide array of definitions of "market rate" including at least one with income restrictions.

I do not know if any of the definitions apply to the KCPL - Just wondering how a developer can build a project for two very different purposes (relatively low rent apartments and condos). It's an iconic building, I'd like to see it with an eventual purpose that is commensurate with its dominance of the skyline and place in KC history.

Per news reports, the PnL will be market rate, which means absolutely no restriction on income. So, there won't be busboys living there (or at least not busboys who are responsible for the rent).

Theres little difference between the average market rate apartment and one that is income adjusted under the section 42 tax credit program, also known as "low to moderate income housing". Sheet rock, insulation, plumbing pipes, sprinklers, elevators, roofs, windows and so on, cost essentially the same to install in either. The finishes will be basic builder grade in most low/mods, though the developers have learned the benefit of good design and reasonable quality, in order to succeed in that market as well.

Glad the p & l is to be market rate, as the developer should, and likely well, make investments in common area elements that might not be included in a more basic finish program.

Sherman and Associates, the apparent developer of PnL, has a lot of history in developing low/mod housing, and I for one assumed that course in the PnL. Glad I'm wrong.

I am also glad it will be market rate apartments. They did/do have market rate they are slated to build in the EV. Hopefully success with this project will help them get financing for building new construction in the EV.

I was kind of hoping P&L building would attract some new developer that hasn't been in KC....kind of open us up to new blood....but Sherman has done a fine job so far.

I think the City really needs to court more out-of-town, or out-of-country, developers since many of the City's own are so conservative in investing and building--especially new buildings.

I think Kansas City is really ripe for new residential rental apartments, and in time, condos. It would seem to me that with people's lives being so busy, that there is a big market for housing that is low maintenance or doesn't require a lot of effort on the part of the owner.

There appears to be a real lack of boosterism that the City had in the past.

Even if it means taking out advertising in investment and development publications promoting Kansas City's effort to rebuild its' core, and the high demand for urban residential that is unmet.

I don't understand why Crown Center/Hallmark doesn't build residential rental apartments along W. 27th Street and along Gillham. I would think they would have a lot of single or newly-married employees that would love to live close to work--not to mention all the employees in the area that work at law firms, IBM, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Assurant, the IRS and Federal Reserve, and Hospital Hill. That rental population would surely contribute to retail sales at Crown Center.

One of the lessons J.C. Nichols taught us with the Plaza was to also build residential apartments all around retail for long-term success.

Fang, it really blows my mind that Crown Center/ Hallmark hasn't developed those surface lots yet. There is a long term plan for the area, correct? It just seems that putting in a few residential buildings on the south side of Crown Center would be wildly successful. Maybe this could help progress the residential component of Founders at Union Hill.

Deal to buy P&L Building Fell Through...

The historic Power & Light Building in downtown Kansas City is back on the market after a $13.75 million purchase agreement announced last July fell through.

Sherman Associates, the Minneapolis firm that had a contract to redevelop the 36-story landmark at 14th Street and Baltimore Avenue into 200 apartments, had its contract terminated about a week ago by Gailoyd Enterprises, the building’s New York owner, attorney Spencer Thomson said today.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/11/19/39 ... rylink=cpy

That is too bad. I'm sure it will get developed at some point, but it's a shame that the additional apartments will not be coming online anytime soon.

really a shame sherman got stuck on parking incentives. at least our current mayor has some semblance of a standard when it comes to incentives.

I could see a shared parking garage if the city was working on a convention hotel at the same time.

maybe to sweeten a parking deal they have to find a a Target (or similar) to put under the garage.

offer money with that as the catch.

According to some the building was not worth the proposed purchase price. So both sides wanted the city to kick in the difference and the city said no.

Meaning that it didn't appraise at the purchase price? Or the buyer just didn't want to pay the full price on their own?

my take is it didn't appraise. or what happens sometimes my appraiser says X and the appraiser for the other party says Y

It probably came down to two different appraisals. One appraisal of the value of the building assuming the City granting incentives to build a parking garage. The other value being the building without a parking garage.

aknowledgeableperson wrote:According to some the building was not worth the proposed purchase price. So both sides wanted the city to kick in the difference and the city said no.

Who?

But look at the issue this way: The owner of the building wanted upward of $14 million for it. Why? It didn’t appear to be worth that much, especially if it required multimillion-dollar subsidies to redevelop. So the seller could have brought the price down by millions of dollars, thereby making the project more feasible.

Instead, the seller — and the buyer — unsuccessfully tried to pressure taxpayers into backing the deal.

Read more here: http://voices.kansascity.com/entries/gi ... rylink=cpy

One written source plus comments from others in the know.