According to a source at the Economic Development Corp. of Kansas City, a local investment group is buying the building at 1828 Walnut St. and plans to covert it into nine floors of apartments over ground-floor commercial.
Leading development of the project will be Alan Waterman, who was project manager for Simbol Commercial’s condominium conversion of the 909 Walnut building.
The residential development announcements lately seem to be as high or higher than early-mid 2000s momentum. Conversions are good but announcements to fill in surface lots with new construction would be nice too.
This building would be cool as a semi-raw shell 'true loft' type space with industrial freight elevators. Like having über urbane kitchen/bathrooms with raw shell industrial yet functional feel. Does it have wooden or concrete floors?
KCMax wrote:Seems like we're getting good development news every other day lately, eh?
Imagine how much more we'd be getting if it wasn't for the corrupt boondoggle toy train boondoggle to nowhere boondoggle taxes boondoggle killing boondoggle business!!
KCMax wrote:Seems like we're getting good development news every other day lately, eh?
Imagine how much more we'd be getting if it wasn't for the corrupt boondoggle toy train boondoggle to nowhere boondoggle taxes boondoggle killing boondoggle business!!
Boondoggle.
you just described one pessimistic site well. I'm amazed any of the major posters there haven't moved out of KC yet.
Interesting update in the Biz Journal re: the Corrigan project. Developer still likely moving forward with apartments but will run the numbers as office space as well, and noted a spike in interest in downtown (specifically xroads) office space.
Couple of permits for this building today - one a team inspection for turning space into a restaurant and another tenant finish permit for the 10th floor. The 10th floor one could indicate that some (or all) of the building will remain commercial.
I have the understanding that it will remain commercial and not be converted to apartments. Acquiring enough parking spots was the deal breaker on residential conversion.
ThorsteinVeblen wrote:I have the understanding that it will remain commercial and not be converted to apartments. Acquiring enough parking spots was the deal breaker on residential conversion.
Deal breaker for the financing? Because I thought the city no longer had parking requirements w/n a certain distance of the streetcar.
ThorsteinVeblen wrote:I have the understanding that it will remain commercial and not be converted to apartments. Acquiring enough parking spots was the deal breaker on residential conversion.
That's crazy. Even if there is still a parking minimum (which I too thought was no longer in place along the streetcar line), this is one of the most bombed out parts of downtown. There are several large parking lots surrounding the building, so how can they not find parking? These people need a little creativity.
I will try to get some more concrete details but it was indicated with certainty that the conversion was no longer going to take place and the current owner indicated parking issues. There are two surface lots, one behind the building, and one across the street where they are currently keeping the streetcar rails.
ThorsteinVeblen wrote:I have the understanding that it will remain commercial and not be converted to apartments. Acquiring enough parking spots was the deal breaker on residential conversion.
That's crazy. Even if there is still a parking minimum (which I too thought was no longer in place along the streetcar line), this is one of the most bombed out parts of downtown. There are several large parking lots surrounding the building, so how can they not find parking? These people need a little creativity.
It's not that crazy. Say there were to be 70 apartments. To make sure they are "rentable" to the max he might have desired 50 spaces. Could be no one around wanted to give him 50 dedicated spaces for the renters. It is his money and not yours. He may not be willing to risk renting all of the apartments to non-car owners.
same owner has plenty of surface lots adjacent and had plans for a garage. parking is NOT the reason. commercial actually demands more spaces per square foot!
and, yes, there is no longer a parking minimum there.