KCRag Forum

The fitness center is NAS-TY. It would be nice if a quality fitness center would be built as part of the new development and open to Hallmark employees in addition to the renters.

lol @ too much traffic in downtown KC.

pash wrote:Based on the statement that Hallmark decided to sell in part because Milhaus's plan complimented Hallmark's own development plan, I'm going to go ahead and speculate wildly that plans to develop the parcels to the west along 27th are also in the works!

Tax breaks for development south of Crown Center move forward

If you want to try to read into the expansion of the PIEA tax break area, it does seem like more development to the west could be in the works - or maybe they are just doing this for hypothetical projects in the future. It does expand west to Grand, although it doesn't go north of 27th, where the largest Hallmark owned surface lots are:

Something that is missing in this article is the fact that while the request is asking to extend the PIEA tax break area as depicted, it does not mention why this is being done. The extension area depicted is already approved as a Chp 353 blighted area and could move forward with that type of abatement if they wanted. This type of abatement is left over from when Crown Center was originally declared blighted and the redevelopment plan initiated and I don't believe allows them to request shorter time periods.

The developer, however, is trying to be sensitive to the current climate and is asking to consolidate the area they plan to redevelop into the Union Hill PIEA abatement area so that they can request LESS incentives over a shorter time frame. PIEA requires them to get a "new" blight designation (which would also end the 353 plan for the affected area- though the lots north of 27th street would still be deemed blight under the old CC plan in anticipation of office development sometime in the future...i digress). This fact seemed lost on the committee members during the discussion. If the council denies this new designation- the developer could still move forward with the old 353 plan and obtain a higher abatement.

http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics ... 43712.html

Jan Parks, a spokeswoman for the Metro Organization for Racial and Economic Equity, said Thursday that the coalition is considering mounting a referendum petition drive to overturn the City Council’s latest vote.

Does anyone know if this project would just be a big couple story building? or a mix of high-rise and low rise buildings?

There have been no drawings put forth yet by these developers for those parcels. I would guess that the apartment buildings would be similar to those UC-B Properties and Milhaus have both previously developed. Those being 3-5 story buildings.

ldai_phs wrote:Does anyone know if this project would just be a big couple story building? or a mix of high-rise and low rise buildings?

I believe 15-20 townhomes are a part of this plan as well.

ldai_phs wrote:Does anyone know if this project would just be a big couple story building? or a mix of high-rise and low rise buildings?

It's definitely not going to be one two-story building, the development site is a five-story tall hill.

According to rep from Draw Architecture, 50+ condos on southwest corner of 27th & McGee. September groundbreaking, November 2017 completion.

TheBigChuckbowski wrote:According to rep from Draw Architecture, 50+ condos on southwest corner of 27th & McGee. September groundbreaking, November 2017 completion.

actual condos that you purchase?

Would be very surprising if condos - leased units intended to eventually go condo maybe?

DaveKCMO wrote:

TheBigChuckbowski wrote:According to rep from Draw Architecture, 50+ condos on southwest corner of 27th & McGee. September groundbreaking, November 2017 completion.

actual condos that you purchase?

I wasn't at the meeting but that's what it said in the minutes.

But the person was there in relation to the townhomes going in at 27th & Campbell and those are definitely for sale.

Has anyone heard updates on whether a petition will be sought to derail this development? What can the city do if that is the case?

http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/n ... g-for.html

A petition has been filed to stop the development south of crown center.

Petitioners abandon their fight to stop the Crown Center development:

http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/n ... -near.html

Despite the concessions made by developers it sounds like the petitioners are loosing momentum.

JBmidtown wrote:Despite the concessions made by developers it sounds like the petitioners are loosing momentum.

dunno. this narrative shifts weekly, so i wouldn't assume they're done.

Sounds like they can win whenever they want to win. They're certainly winning the PR battle.

They are winning the PR battle because city leaders are failing to adequately educate citizens about the long-term density problem the City faces, and more specifically, with generating revenue for a municipality that is very large physically for a population that is relatively low for its' space. Thus the need for incentives to regenerate existing neighborhoods, so that in a few years they will produce tax more tax revenue.

The most illustrative example of this problem is a city like Detroit that is physically large, not as dense anymore, and doesn't have the tax-base to maintain itself. It's not so much the population, but that the population is mostly poor. There aren't enough employed middle and upper class people to offset the poverty. More importantly, there is not enough economic activity. Keep in mind that the City of Detroit is not even half the physical size of KCMO.

The water mains break. The streetlights don't work. Snow removal is very slow. The police and fire departments are so ill-equipped and understaffed that they cannot provide even minimal protection. City services are terrible, so they are still experiencing population loss, which makes the problem even worse because taxpayers are being lost. Property in the City is so undervalued that it doesn't generate adequate revenue to maintain infrastructure, and taxes are too high on the remaining residents, who tend to be very poor. Detroit has a problem even collecting property taxes from its' residents.

Now let's look at some basic metrics.

The City of Detroit has a footprint of 143 sq miles.
It had roughly 680,250 people in 2013.
It has a density of about 5,142 per sq. mile.

KCMO has a footprint of 319 sq. miles.
Kansas City has roughly 471,000 people.
It has a density of about 1,474 per sq. mile.

Another comparison. New York City has a footprint of 309 sq. miles. Chicago has a footprint of 227.3 sq miles.

As KCMO develops its' raw land, it becomes even less dense. Because of its' current development patterns, as it continues to grow, basic infrastructure costs per resident will continue to become more expensive. A few economic downturns and bad luck could turn KCMO into Detroit within a few decades.

Detroit is a smaller city physically than KCMO, and has more people and more density per sq. mile. Yet, it still has a problem funding and maintaining itself. Detroit does have certain systemic problems that KCMO doesn't have--mostly a higher unemployment rate, and a long-term history of political corruption. It's population is also poorer.

Essentially, unless KCMO can regenerate its' older neighborhoods, it could easily grow itself outward to an unsustainable situation. The less dense your neighborhood is, the more expensive it is to maintain.

City leadership has done a really poor job educating the public about this. I would go so far as to say that even elected officials don't properly understand the problem. They continue to approve low-density neighborhoods in undeveloped parts of the City. Neighborhoods that are much less dense than the City was originally.

The Kansas City Public School District's opposition to granting incentives now will eventually come back to bite them in the ass. Their revenue stream is constricting. It's not because of incentives the City grants. It's because the vast majority of their district territory is slowly losing tax value. Most of the district sits east of Troost. Property values east of Troost continue to go down. If they continue contesting every incentives deal for development, developers will just not work in older parts of KCMO. It won't be worth the trouble. Vacant land and empty buildings will sit longer and there will be less likelihood that tax values go up on those properties in the future, so the school district will see even less revenue over time.

The reason for this is that rents are not high enough in most of KCMO to justify the expense of renovating or building new. The developer cannot yet earn enough profit on the project to justify the time and stress of doing it. It takes longer to develop an older property than on raw land in the suburbs. There are more carrying costs and challenges. There are more hoops to jump through. And without incentives, the payoff is not big enough.

At least with incentives, there will be a time when revenues will go up on those properties when the incentives expire.

I would wager that if all the people who are opposed to giving incentives actually tried to redevelop property in an older neighborhood, they would change their mind about giving them by the time they went through the process.

Even neighborhoods outside of the Kansas City Public School District will face this financial problem eventually. As the neighborhoods grow older and children leave home, enrollments will decline. Aging neighborhoods will produce less revenue, and because those neighborhoods were not dense enough to begin with, there will not be adequate property tax revenue for those school districts either.

Keep in mind that people like Crosby Kemper can always afford to move when the City hits the skids. The Kempers can take their banks and museums to more affluent suburbs outside the borders of KCMO.