KCRag Forum

awesome...

This would be great for the area.

KcTeen

Kinda want to see this become an office building. We need to keep a balance between housing, retail, offices, etc.

good point dangerboy, however with the incoming IRS/post office consolidation and the crown center expansion(s) these new lofts would fill an ever-increasing need for housing in the crossroads/union station/crowncenter area

kcTeen

I think any residential conversions are good news. There currently aren't enough people downtown to justify retail moving in.
I think that when the city gets some basic services within walking distance from the lofts, downtown is going to take off. So I'm in favor or more people everywhere, all of the time.

KCDowntown

As of today, my building is the only residential loft building in the freightouse district (south of 20th, between broadway and main). The Lee Building will be converted to 105 lofts. The PCB building will be demolished summer 2004. The bridge from Union Station to the Freighthouse ought to be starting fairly soon. Add in 300 lofts in the Stuart Hall Building, and there will be be around 450 loft units in a relatively small area. This area will be even more awesome than it is now when these projects are completed!

DST should have been penalized for not doing anything with the urban land. I am actually amazed that it took this long for anything to heppen to that building. I chalk it up to an irresposible city government, taking no ownership of the city's potential.

Actually, there had been a couple of major employers who looked at that building as a potential site, including midland mortgage. The biggest hurdle is the lack of parking. Apparently, offices in that building would require much more parking than is available. With the feds FINALLY moving forward on the demolition of the PCB building, A big hurdle to the final development of the area is coming down. Lofts in the Stuart Hall building can have parking in current lots and in the basement of the building.

The city has gone round and round with the feds concerning tearing down the PCB building. Its only across the alleyway from Stuart Hall, and has really been a drag to the area. Its a nasty building, and I look right out on it from my loft. I can't wait till it comes down!

bahua wrote:DST should have been penalized for not doing anything with the urban land. I am actually amazed that it took this long for anything to heppen to that building. I chalk it up to an irresposible city government, taking no ownership of the city's potential.

That is inaccurate. Midland Loan wanted to put their headquarters there, but the expense of adding a parking structure ultimately lead them to choose Corporate Woods over Stuart Hall. As for the city being irresponsible, well, they went all the way to the General Assembly to get the MoDESA bill passed for just such projects.

So a building is worthless without specific off-street parking designated for it? I don't buy that. That might be a common thought around here, and if it is, I am even more alarmed about this town's future.

they will have problems selling those places if some sort of parking isn't secured...now if that is the new parking garage in the area fine but the reality is people that will buy 250k places will have cars and will want somewhere to park.

bahua: its not only common thought. Unfortunetley, its law.

To get zoning for a new construction or renovation you NEED to prove (under law) to the city there is enough parking available for the structure. Don't really know why.... Usually what this entails is either constructing your own lot or having surronding property owners with public/private lots sign off that they will allow your tenants to use their parking spaces. Its a provision...a code... for some reason under KC MO zoning law...that there needs to be parking for it. They won't allow someone to say "Our visitors will find parking somewhere on the street" even iff the streets have plenty of spaces and are always deserted. This may pass for a small shop, but not an office building.

And yes, it sucks.

Thats why we need public transportation: more buses, commuter rail even (esp. for projects in the CC/US vicinity), and light rail

KcTeen

every development in every city will have parking provisions....it's great to think everybody will take mass transit but the reality in the US is everybody has a car and that has to be accounted for. The provision is for 1 car per unit....so visitors under the code still have to fend for themselves.

Hopefully this is taken care of with the parking structure, not any kind of surface lot.

KC wrote:they will have problems selling those places if some sort of parking isn't secured...now if that is the new parking garage in the area fine but the reality is people that will buy 250k places will have cars and will want somewhere to park.

I would assume, given the developers and the number of units, these will be rentals. Nevertheless, its a pretty safe bet that most of the tenants will have cars.

However, Western Auto has proven that people are so desparate for downtown housing that they will pay $250k+ for a place and park their car in an unprotected surface lot. Only the lucky few get the "coveted" spots under the bridge.

really? didn't know that about Western Auto....

Yep, I believe the 2 bedrooms get a parking spot underneath Grand. Everyone else parks in a lot out back. I believe the lot will be secure, but not covered.

this may be a little off the wall, but i remember a poster on my thread about the StL City Museum indicating they would like to see the Stuart Hall building used for such a museum in KC.

i still like that idea, but know it was the least likely thing to happen since it is not a revenue generating proposition.

re: Western Auto Loft parking. The folks that end up parking in the uncovered spaces in between building one and two close to Grand overpass and over by McGee are going to prolly be a little paranoid for a while. LOTS of pedestrians walk right over those bridges every day and night.

Will there be some type of round the clock security for those lots?

kcteen wrote:bahua: its not only common thought. Unfortunetley, its law.

I did know that, actually, but it hadn't occurred to me at the moment. While providing parking is generally a good idea, I think it's a horrible shame, and a direct roadblock to progress when a building will sit vacant for years because of it.

bahua wrote:

kcteen wrote:bahua: its not only common thought. Unfortunetley, its law.

I did know that, actually, but it hadn't occurred to me at the moment. While providing parking is generally a good idea, I think it's a horrible shame, and a direct roadblock to progress when a building will sit vacant for years because of it.

In the US, Manhatten and downtown Chicago are the only two places where you could even think about having a corporate headquarters without car parking. Even then I dare you do find one that doesn't provide at least some parking.

StL_Dan wrote:this may be a little off the wall, but i remember a poster on my thread about the StL City Museum indicating they would like to see the Stuart Hall building used for such a museum in KC.

i still like that idea, but know it was the least likely thing to happen since it is not a revenue generating proposition.

Ohhhhhhh, that would rock. The City Museum is fantastic. Maybe if they could somehow rope Hallmark into incorporating Kaleidoscope into it here...