KCRag Forum

Scouring the permit wire led me to a new project called Summit on Quality Hill.

It is rezoning 39 mostly empty parcels in the southwest parts of the loop as residential. The parcels are located in the the area shown in this map.

This project appears to be undertaken by an Indianapolis company called Cityscape Residential. Here is a link to some of Cityscape Residential's current work.

Permit

Based on the permits at this point I cannot tell whether this is for a single building or many buildings.

KCDowntown

Downtown Development Map

KCDowntown wrote:Scouring the permit wire led me to a new project called Summit on Quality Hill.

It is rezoning 39 mostly empty parcels in the southwest parts of the loop as residential. The parcels are located in the the area shown in this map.

This project appears to be undertaken by an Indianapolis company called Cityscape Residential. Here is a link to some of Cityscape Residential's current work.

Permit

Based on the permits at this point I cannot tell whether this is for a single building or many buildings.

KCDowntown

Downtown Development Map

An interesting catch. I had understood (told, not confirmed) those parcels of land are under DST and Shirley Helzberg's control, respectively?

There's a public hearing on an adjustment to the Quality Hill Historic District boundaries this Friday. I wonder if that is related to this project?

Eon Blue wrote:There's a public hearing on an adjustment to the Quality Hill Historic District boundaries this Friday. I wonder if that is related to this project?

Who is having the hearing?

The City. I don't have a link, I received the info via email.

All of the parcels west of Pennsylvania are owned by Walnut Creek Ranch, which is Shirley Helzberg. The couple of parcels on the east side of Pennsylvania are owned by KSM Company, which I couldn't find anything out about.

KCDowntown

Downtown Development Map

the city should connect Jefferson to 13th and redo 13th as two-way at the same time

- 256 market rate units ($1.50/sq ft)
- convert pennsylvania south of 12th to 2-way, on street parking retained
- low rise (4-story) with parking in back and underneath due to elevation changes

DaveKCMO wrote:- 256 market rate units ($1.50/sq ft)
- convert pennsylvania south of 12th to 2-way, on street parking retained
- low rise (4-story) with parking in back and underneath due to elevation changes

About time something is done with this area.

Here is an outline of this project. I believe it also includes the lot at the SW corner of 12th/Washington. NOTE: I have incorrectly included the small duplex in the project area. It is NOT within the project area and should have been excluded from my drawn boundary. Also the highlighted parcel in the middle means nothing, it just happened to be selected when I took the screen grab from Parcel Viewer.

^ I'm confused now.
1. Are you indicating that the site does not front 12th St. AT ALL? Both surface lots remain on either side of Jefferson?
2. You also mentioned in another thread that it did include the surface lot on the SW corner of 12th & Washington which is off this map. So does the project site cover a significant portion of the empty lots between Pennsylvania & Washington as well?

What meeting was this info presented at?

Critical_Mass wrote:^ I'm confused now.
1. Are you indicating that the site does not front 12th St. AT ALL? Both surface lots remain on either side of Jefferson?
2. You also mentioned in another thread that it did include the surface lot on the SW corner of 12th & Washington which is off this map. So does the project site cover a significant portion of the empty lots between Pennsylvania & Washington as well?

What meeting was this info presented at?

1. It is my understanding that the only 12th Street frontage is at Washington and that both parking lots on 12th remain (owned by DST and at least one is leased to HNTB).
2. I should have zoomed out a touch further. I think the project WILL include the empty lots on the east side of Pennsylvania as well, but I don't recall a specific discussion about that part. Logically though, you'd think that land must be included otherwise what's the point of 12th/Washington?

It was a neighborhood stakeholder meeting put on by the developer.

from http://cityscaperesidential.com

not horrible. four stories, balconies, material variety for looks, street trees, lots of windows

I would really like to see the Quality Hill projects built in a denser fashion. For example they are four story buildings. I think they could easily be six. Considering they want a full tax abatement, I think this is an opportunity for the City to insist on additional density to conform to the GDAP. I'll say again, these are being built at ~20 du/acre which will do very little (if anything) to add to the liveliness and walkable urbanism of the neighborhood.

I hope the design is revised to be more sensitive to the streetscape. The developer could actually get more density per acre doing 3-story shared-entrace townhouses. A more sophisticated transition between the street and facade (stoop entrances, small yards / front gardens, patio doors, etc) would be better for street life in this context. There's already precedent for this housing typology in the neighborhood. The balconies and facade transparency are a decent start, at least.

It also goes without saying that the developer is throwing money away using otherwise leasable space for surface parking. I know more conservative lenders think one space / bedroom increases marketability, but increasing density, good design, and creating an environment more conducive to social interaction and walkability yields higher rents, too (as well as reducing parking demand...).

The only thing I don't like about that rendering is the lack of doorways. There should be more places where people can enter and exit the street. The building already is made to look like rowhomes, why not make them actual rowhomes with individual doors for each building? They can still be flats and hold the same number of apartments they are looking for.

Otherwise though, I like it.

Demosthenes wrote:The only thing I don't like about that rendering is the lack of doorways. There should be more places where people can enter and exit the street. The building already is made to look like rowhomes, why not make them actual rowhomes with individual doors for each building? They can still be flats and hold the same number of apartments they are looking for.

Otherwise though, I like it.

after having lived in a controlled access building downtown, i would never consider an outside door to my home again. the added security (and quiet) is priceless.

DaveKCMO wrote:

Demosthenes wrote:The only thing I don't like about that rendering is the lack of doorways. There should be more places where people can enter and exit the street. The building already is made to look like rowhomes, why not make them actual rowhomes with individual doors for each building? They can still be flats and hold the same number of apartments they are looking for.

Otherwise though, I like it.

after having lived in a controlled access building downtown, i would never consider an outside door to my home again. the added security (and quiet) is priceless.

Controlled access for five+ stories and/or developments with smaller footprints is fine; in this context and block-sized scale, the rowhouse typology is more appropriate.

And having lived for many years in rowhouses in (much larger) cities: noisier perhaps, but rowhouse streets are inherently safer because they are more active.

So, three cheers for housing choice.