Beacon Hill

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.
User avatar
KCtoBrooklyn
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1260
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 4:01 pm

Re: Beacon Hill

Post by KCtoBrooklyn »

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.
User avatar
FangKC
City Hall
City Hall
Posts: 18141
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound

Re: Beacon Hill

Post by FangKC »

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.
Location:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0775791 ... 8192?hl=en
User avatar
alejandro46
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1350
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2018 11:24 pm
Location: King in the North(Land)

Re: Beacon Hill

Post by alejandro46 »

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.
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.
User avatar
normalthings
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 8018
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:52 pm

Re: Beacon Hill

Post by normalthings »

50% of homes at Mount Prospect are sold or under contract.

https://mountprospectkc.com/home-design/
User avatar
Critical_Mass
Colonnade
Colonnade
Posts: 995
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Union Hill

Re: Beacon Hill

Post by Critical_Mass »

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.
shinatoo
Ambassador
Posts: 7393
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 3:20 pm

Re: Beacon Hill

Post by shinatoo »

Critical_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.
Hidden Gem, LOL
User avatar
normalthings
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 8018
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:52 pm

Re: Beacon Hill

Post by normalthings »

shinatoo wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 3:25 pm
Critical_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.
Hidden Gem, LOL
Mid-27 took some design tips from Two Light ;)
User avatar
chaglang
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 4132
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:44 pm

Re: Beacon Hill

Post by chaglang »

Bravo, internet
User avatar
taxi
Penntower
Penntower
Posts: 2081
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:32 am
Location: North End
Contact:

Re: Beacon Hill

Post by taxi »

This made my day.
User avatar
alejandro46
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1350
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2018 11:24 pm
Location: King in the North(Land)

Re: Beacon Hill

Post by alejandro46 »

Image

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/
User avatar
normalthings
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 8018
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:52 pm

Re: Beacon Hill

Post by normalthings »

Lucas's tweets do not sound at all supportive. Project is being attacked online.
User avatar
smh
Supporter
Posts: 4305
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 10:40 pm
Location: Central Loop

Re: Beacon Hill

Post by smh »

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.
User avatar
Chris Stritzel
Penntower
Penntower
Posts: 2294
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2017 9:27 pm

Re: Beacon Hill

Post by Chris Stritzel »

normalthings wrote: Mon Dec 28, 2020 7:16 pm Lucas's tweets do not sound at all supportive. Project is being attacked online.
What did you expect from him? I bet if the developer slipped some money under the table he would shut it
horizons82
New York Life
New York Life
Posts: 458
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2016 8:41 am

Re: Beacon Hill

Post by horizons82 »

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
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.
User avatar
alejandro46
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1350
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2018 11:24 pm
Location: King in the North(Land)

Re: Beacon Hill

Post by alejandro46 »

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.
User avatar
normalthings
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 8018
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:52 pm

Re: Beacon Hill

Post by normalthings »

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.
User avatar
chaglang
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 4132
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:44 pm

Re: Beacon Hill

Post by chaglang »

Look at you all, supplying Collison with his next 3 blog posts.
flyingember
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9862
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: Beacon Hill

Post by flyingember »

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-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.
$68,000 is very close to the $15 minimum wage goal many have. It looks like $32/hour is enough for $1660 per month.

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.

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.
It's under 75% of market rate. At market rate the $1700 unit would be around $2300 per month.

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.
User avatar
chaglang
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 4132
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:44 pm

Re: Beacon Hill

Post by chaglang »

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.
horizons82
New York Life
New York Life
Posts: 458
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2016 8:41 am

Re: Beacon Hill

Post by horizons82 »

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.
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.

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.
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.
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.
Post Reply