Beacon Hill
- KCtoBrooklyn
- Alameda Tower
- Posts: 1261
- Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 4:01 pm
Re: Beacon Hill
There is a proposal to demolish the buff brick building behind the Christian Church Hospital at 27th and Paseo and replace it with a 96 unit group living rehab facility. It is a companion building to the hospital and I believe is was originally housed nurses. The duplexes and West Paseo would also be demolished, but those are no loss.
It is not as significant as the hospital building, but I think it would be a shame to tear this down, especially when there is vacant land to the north of the hospital.
It is not as significant as the hospital building, but I think it would be a shame to tear this down, especially when there is vacant land to the north of the hospital.
- FangKC
- City Hall
- Posts: 18233
- Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
- Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound
Re: Beacon Hill
Location:KCtoBrooklyn wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:16 pm There is a proposal to demolish the buff brick building behind the Christian Church Hospital at 27th and Paseo and replace it with a 96 unit group living rehab facility. It is a companion building to the hospital and I believe is was originally housed nurses. The duplexes and West Paseo would also be demolished, but those are no loss.
It is not as significant as the hospital building, but I think it would be a shame to tear this down, especially when there is vacant land to the north of the hospital.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0775791 ... 8192?hl=en
- alejandro46
- Alameda Tower
- Posts: 1357
- Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2018 11:24 pm
- Location: King in the North(Land)
Re: Beacon Hill
Yes another perfectly good building with a potential appointment with a wrecking ball because our state can't get Historic Tax Credits back. I obviously have no idea the state of that building, but going the extra mile to incorporate the historic annex and aesthetics of the old Hospital would be fantastic.KCtoBrooklyn wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:16 pm There is a proposal to demolish the buff brick building behind the Christian Church Hospital at 27th and Paseo and replace it with a 96 unit group living rehab facility. It is a companion building to the hospital and I believe is was originally housed nurses. The duplexes and West Paseo would also be demolished, but those are no loss.
It is not as significant as the hospital building, but I think it would be a shame to tear this down, especially when there is vacant land to the north of the hospital.
- normalthings
- Mark Twain Tower
- Posts: 8018
- Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:52 pm
- Critical_Mass
- Colonnade
- Posts: 996
- Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 7:56 pm
- Location: Union Hill
Re: Beacon Hill
LOL who did this? --> https://goo.gl/maps/XJoSSZ2hHonGJRkJ8
Check out the interior photos. Then look at the exterior if you are not familiar with it.
Check out the interior photos. Then look at the exterior if you are not familiar with it.
Re: Beacon Hill
Hidden Gem, LOLCritical_Mass wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 3:18 pm LOL who did this? --> https://goo.gl/maps/XJoSSZ2hHonGJRkJ8
Check out the interior photos. Then look at the exterior if you are not familiar with it.
- normalthings
- Mark Twain Tower
- Posts: 8018
- Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:52 pm
Re: Beacon Hill
Mid-27 took some design tips from Two Lightshinatoo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 3:25 pmHidden Gem, LOLCritical_Mass wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 3:18 pm LOL who did this? --> https://goo.gl/maps/XJoSSZ2hHonGJRkJ8
Check out the interior photos. Then look at the exterior if you are not familiar with it.
Re: Beacon Hill
Bravo, internet
Re: Beacon Hill
This made my day.
- alejandro46
- Alameda Tower
- Posts: 1357
- Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2018 11:24 pm
- Location: King in the North(Land)
Re: Beacon Hill
9 new Townhomes proposed for vacant lot near Wonder Lofts. 29th and Forest.
1,500- to 1,900 square feet, and rent for $1,695 to $1,995. Same dev as Wonder.
Probably will ask for incentives as no city sewer or water.
https://cityscenekc.com/affordable-town ... -corridor/
- normalthings
- Mark Twain Tower
- Posts: 8018
- Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:52 pm
Re: Beacon Hill
Lucas's tweets do not sound at all supportive. Project is being attacked online.
Re: Beacon Hill
Such a weird look for a mayor to attack a private development of this scale. If anything, he should be talking about how suburban and automobile oriented it is in its design. Honestly, the term "affordable" has become so loaded it needs to be abandoned by anyone working outside of LIHTC.
For some reason this one really frustrated me today. I think the design is bad, but the rents aren't offensive. I feel like the urban community in KC is starting to eat itself. Tearing down NINE UNIT developments for not fitting some personal definition of affordable is wild, while in the meantime sprawl continues unchecked and (largely) unquestioned.
For some reason this one really frustrated me today. I think the design is bad, but the rents aren't offensive. I feel like the urban community in KC is starting to eat itself. Tearing down NINE UNIT developments for not fitting some personal definition of affordable is wild, while in the meantime sprawl continues unchecked and (largely) unquestioned.
- Chris Stritzel
- Penntower
- Posts: 2375
- Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2017 9:27 pm
Re: Beacon Hill
What did you expect from him? I bet if the developer slipped some money under the table he would shut itnormalthings wrote: ↑Mon Dec 28, 2020 7:16 pm Lucas's tweets do not sound at all supportive. Project is being attacked online.
-
- New York Life
- Posts: 458
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2016 8:41 am
Re: Beacon Hill
I've had my issues with Lucas re: development, but he's being consistent & fair here. It's the developer & Kevin Collison who have bungled things.
Lucas in 2018, when the council decided to set a specific amount for something to qualify as "affordable":
https://www.kcur.org/government/2018-05 ... le-housing
With inflation, this $1,100 figure should now be about $1,140. A staggering change, I know...Trying to pass off $1,700/mo as "affordable" & "workforce" rent is just not going to work politically. Claiming that near a significant delineation point like Troost is especially bad optics.
At $1,700/month, and spending no more than the 30% recommended for rent, you would need a minimum household income of $68,000 to afford this. The median household income in KC in 2019* was $54,194.
* - According to federal census data: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/ ... #INC110219
The actual built project seems nice and I hope gets built, but the way they've presented themselves politically/publicly is as dumb as the Hotel Bravo project.
Lucas in 2018, when the council decided to set a specific amount for something to qualify as "affordable":
https://www.kcur.org/government/2018-05 ... le-housing
The new ordinance, which will take effect in early June, defines affordable housing at 30 percent of the median income Kansas City, Missouri, around $1,100 a month.
“I realize that $1,000 a month is still pretty high for a lot of people, but what we’re trying to do is say that we will not give incentives based on affordability standards for units that are north of that figure,” Lucas says.
With inflation, this $1,100 figure should now be about $1,140. A staggering change, I know...Trying to pass off $1,700/mo as "affordable" & "workforce" rent is just not going to work politically. Claiming that near a significant delineation point like Troost is especially bad optics.
At $1,700/month, and spending no more than the 30% recommended for rent, you would need a minimum household income of $68,000 to afford this. The median household income in KC in 2019* was $54,194.
* - According to federal census data: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/ ... #INC110219
The actual built project seems nice and I hope gets built, but the way they've presented themselves politically/publicly is as dumb as the Hotel Bravo project.
- alejandro46
- Alameda Tower
- Posts: 1357
- Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2018 11:24 pm
- Location: King in the North(Land)
Re: Beacon Hill
Agreed, all of this kerfuffle is dumb as shit. People should be happy that there is new construction east of Troost drawing market rate or near market rate rent. This is not gentrification. This is an empty lot with a decent infill project proposed with reasonable ask for development assistance in utilities.
A bad combo of Collison/others describing this as affordable housing plus our Mayor singling out this small project has lead to unnecessary attention to a relatively mundane project but an overall larger issue of affordable housing. Building infill development as one of many housing types in the area is generally a good thing.
A bad combo of Collison/others describing this as affordable housing plus our Mayor singling out this small project has lead to unnecessary attention to a relatively mundane project but an overall larger issue of affordable housing. Building infill development as one of many housing types in the area is generally a good thing.
- normalthings
- Mark Twain Tower
- Posts: 8018
- Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:52 pm
Re: Beacon Hill
No suburban projects are ever affordable yet all get a free pass. Inversely, it feels like most downtown projects have been getting attacked for not being affordable, even when they include truly low income units.
Re: Beacon Hill
Look at you all, supplying Collison with his next 3 blog posts.
-
- Mark Twain Tower
- Posts: 9862
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am
Re: Beacon Hill
$68,000 is very close to the $15 minimum wage goal many have. It looks like $32/hour is enough for $1660 per month.horizons82 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 28, 2020 11:08 pm I've had my issues with Lucas re: development, but he's being consistent & fair here. It's the developer & Kevin Collison who have bungled things.
Lucas in 2018, when the council decided to set a specific amount for something to qualify as "affordable":
https://www.kcur.org/government/2018-05 ... le-housingThe new ordinance, which will take effect in early June, defines affordable housing at 30 percent of the median income Kansas City, Missouri, around $1,100 a month.
“I realize that $1,000 a month is still pretty high for a lot of people, but what we’re trying to do is say that we will not give incentives based on affordability standards for units that are north of that figure,” Lucas says.
With inflation, this $1,100 figure should now be about $1,140. A staggering change, I know...Trying to pass off $1,700/mo as "affordable" & "workforce" rent is just not going to work politically. Claiming that near a significant delineation point like Troost is especially bad optics.
At $1,700/month, and spending no more than the 30% recommended for rent, you would need a minimum household income of $68,000 to afford this. The median household income in KC in 2019* was $54,194.
* - According to federal census data: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/ ... #INC110219
The actual built project seems nice and I hope gets built, but the way they've presented themselves politically/publicly is as dumb as the Hotel Bravo project.
It's the contradiction of saying something isn't affordable and at the same time demanding the minimum for everyone basicaly be enough that makes it affordable for 100% of families that's so frustrating.
It's under 75% of market rate. At market rate the $1700 unit would be around $2300 per month.alejandro46 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 28, 2020 11:12 pm Agreed, all of this kerfuffle is dumb as shit. People should be happy that there is new construction east of Troost drawing market rate or near market rate rent. This is not gentrification. This is an empty lot with a decent infill project proposed with reasonable ask for development assistance in utilities.
One example on Twitter they mentioned an affordable home renovation renting at about 1/3 that cost. Which makes complete sense. Everything not put in new saves money, like the foundation is worth about $75 in rent, framing about $250.
Re: Beacon Hill
This developer has several larger projects in the works. It’s entirely likely that Lucas’s foot stomping is more about those projects, not this one. And KC urbanist Twitter is a cesspool that hates everything.
-
- New York Life
- Posts: 458
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2016 8:41 am
Re: Beacon Hill
At 40 hours per week, you work a total of 2,080 hours per year. $15 x 2,080 = $31,200 gross. That’s less than half of $68,000, so a couple both working full time at $15/hr still wouldn’t qualify.flyingember wrote: ↑Tue Dec 29, 2020 9:32 am $68,000 is very close to the $15 minimum wage goal many have. It looks like $32/hour is enough for $1660 per month.
More importantly, as you hinted at but glossed over, $15 is not the standard now. The min wage is still stuck at $9.45 (thanks Jeff City!), only folks doing business with the city are guaranteed that $15 rate.
Nobody told the developer they have to claim or make this affordable! That’s the crux. IMO, go full market rate and as far as utility assistance goes, compare your ask vs what’s given to the market rate single family housing up north. The merit of finally providing basic utilities to the plot shouldn’t hinge on if it’s affordable housing.flyingember wrote: ↑Tue Dec 29, 2020 9:32 amIt's the contradiction of saying something isn't affordable and at the same time demanding the minimum for everyone basicaly be enough that makes it affordable for 100% of families that's so frustrating.