Discuss items in the urban core outside of Downtown as described above. Everything in the core including the east side (18th & Vine area), Northeast, Plaza, Westport, Brookside, Valentine, Waldo, 39th street, & the entire midtown area.
Fang, I love your diagrams. Either of those would be a vast improvement on the current plan.
At the center of the project, the 2600 block of Olive is one of the best blocks in that neighborhood. The houses are occupied and in good shape. Lawns are mowed. Only a couple of vacant lots. I understand that the neighborhood needs help, but tearing down one of the area's few assets is a stupid way to do it.
There are parts of much more expensive neighborhoods that don't look that good. I would be happy to have that block in Squier Park.
chaglang wrote:No idea what the offers were. I do know the idea was floated about moving the houses. The KCPD initially considered moving 4 or 5 of the houses, then decided not to.
The issue with comps and what qualifies over there is why they should have been offered replacement cost for those houses. FWV is almost always less than what it would cost to buy a similar house.
Wow, I wasn't aware they looked at moving homes. Surely that would have been cost prohibitive, though I admit I don't know a thing about what it takes to lift a home and transport it some place.
The replacement cost would probably have been a better solution depending on the number of homes affected. It would be very interesting if we could get some details on the appraisals given, and have someone come up with a cost to replace.
The downside to cost to replace is definitely over-payment. Almost every home in KC would be worth significantly more if using a cost to replace calculation vs. market value. But to make up for the inconvenience it would have been a nice gesture to have offers near cost to replace.
FangKC wrote:When I look at this project overall, at the very least, I can say that it was ill-conceived, anti-urban, and not green in concept in that it demolishes many houses.
It does look pretty over the top. However, can we even cite any other developments in the metro that weren't anti-urban and non-green? Seems this is just par for the course regarding developments not only in KC, but in many cities.
That would imply that one would replace with a new structure, not providing an owner with funds to move to a like property. Most if not all owners received funds in excess of the fair market value of the property and from what many have said similiar houses with similiar prices should be available.
So if appraised at $40,000 then the owner should have $50,000 to $60,000 to "replace".
I found the document on compensation today (I can't find the link right now), and I have to admit that the formulas seem quite fair. If anyone knows what the appraisals came in at, I am curious about that. The formulas all hinge on a strong appraisal price.
Looking upon this whole plan, it doesn't matter in the long run how much the property owners got, or if it was fair or not in our own minds.
The project is ill-conceived at best. There will be long-standing resentment when the building is completed.
This doesn't build good relationships with the neighborhood, so there will probably not be robust cooperation from the community with the people who are attempting to make the neighborhood better. The building itself will not affect crime levels. The only thing that will is the police having good relations with the people in the community, who they need to help them reduce crime.
The project doesn't accomplish that. Even the design says that the police are afraid of the neighborhood they are in. It places an abundance of convenient parking at a higher priority than people's homes and lives. Taking up four entire blocks is excessive at best, and it doesn't minimize the disruption to these people's lives.
This police facility should be trying to fit into the neighborhood, and not make the neighborhood fit to the police department's needs.
There are probably six different solutions that would have accomplished the goal, but this is not one of them.
It is hard to dream up a worse plan.
It's like saying "We want to make your neighborhood better by making you move somewhere else."
I'm surprised Helix is the architect on this project. The massing is absolutely inapporpriate for an urban site. The site planning is uninspired and lazy, at least from a cursory glance, especially in this age of density and 'green impact zones.' Is this Shoal Creek or 27th and Prospect?
I'm embarrassed for the architect - this shows an utter disregard for context. I assume they are touting some green elements such as water filtration, reflective roof, etc, but the most sustainable thing they could do is use 2/3 of the site.
voltopt wrote:I'm embarrassed for the architect - this shows an utter disregard for context. I assume they are touting some green elements such as water filtration, reflective roof, etc, but the most sustainable thing they could do is use 2/3 of the site.
...but the KCMO water department has a new mandate that all developments must meet or exceed water runoff and contaminant levels of the site before it was developed….the first time. Not current vs proposed levels. They want pre-development vs proposed levels. As in…what were the water runoff levels and contaminant levels in 1872, not 2011. If this mandate holds, expect ALL urban developments in KC to be like this. Only special projects will be able to add (expensive) subterranean cisterns and mechanical filtering of site water. It will be cheaper for most developers to buy more land for detention and raingardens. This is bad news for anyone trying to develop a site as urban as possible.
If this is the case I take back my disappointment. If anything, the City Council should take the lead on differentiating parts of the city and how this applies. A mandate like this may make sense in Ruskin, but in the center city it is appalling.
voltopt wrote:I'm embarrassed for the architect - this shows an utter disregard for context. I assume they are touting some green elements such as water filtration, reflective roof, etc, but the most sustainable thing they could do is use 2/3 of the site.
...but the KCMO water department has a new mandate that all developments must meet or exceed water runoff and contaminant levels of the site before it was developed….the first time. Not current vs proposed levels. They want pre-development vs proposed levels. As in…what were the water runoff levels and contaminant levels in 1872, not 2011. If this mandate holds, expect ALL urban developments in KC to be like this. Only special projects will be able to add (expensive) subterranean cisterns and mechanical filtering of site water. It will be cheaper for most developers to buy more land for detention and raingardens. This is bad news for anyone trying to develop a site as urban as possible.
i had actually heard this from a developer in the city. i didn't quite understand what he meant at the time (im guessing this is what he was talking about), but his assessment was that it was the biggest SNAFU the city had made in awhile regarding development. gonna have some problems in the future complying with this
Water Quality Improvement
Thresholds
Currently, city regulations do not establish thresholds
for when water quality-related improvements
are required as part of development or permit
requests. The result is that property owners are
often required to make or install water quality
improvements even in situations in which such
improvements provide little tangible water quality
benefit. This advisory group recommendation calls
for the city’s regulations to be revised to establish
a basic threshold standard for when such improvements
are required or establish exemptions identifying
when they are not required. The City of
Lenexa, for example, does not require water quality
improvements as part of projects that are not
increasing the amount of on-site impervious cover
This is the first I've heard of this. Is this in writing somewhere?
