KCRag Forum

beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 12:07 pm

alejandro46 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 11:17 am

Brian David Platt
@BrianDavidPlatt
Will look into this tomorrow, and try to contact the owner.
9:46 PM · Jan 30, 2024

Brian David Platt
@BrianDavidPlatt
Update: we have not received any permits or pre-applications for demolition or any other plans to renovate this property. We will of course now be monitoring closely given the fencing and request for water shutoff. Thanks for flagging everyone!

https://twitter.com/BrianDavidPlatt/sta ... 1502001463

But how do city leaders have no idea something like this is happening? Doesn’t someone have to approve a permit? They shouldn’t have to be informed by the public. It’s like they’re all asleep at the wheel.

The Mayor, Council, and City Manager aren't notified of every issued building demolition permit. However, they can request in advance to flag and be notified if a certain building has a demo permit requested--especially if it's on the historic register.

FangKC wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 12:45 pm The Mayor, Council, and City Manager aren't notified of every issued building demolition permit. However, they can request in advance to flag and be notified if a certain building has a demo permit requested--especially if it's on the historic register.

Then they aren’t running their staff very well. I’d want to know every demolition permit that is being requested in my district before its issue, especially one that’s 100 years old. Tear down permits shouldn’t be issued so easily that a building like this could be days away before they even know about it.

beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 12:52 pm

FangKC wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 12:45 pm The Mayor, Council, and City Manager aren't notified of every issued building demolition permit. However, they can request in advance to flag and be notified if a certain building has a demo permit requested--especially if it's on the historic register.

Then they aren’t running their staff very well. I’d want to know every demolition permit that is being requested in my district before its issue, especially one that’s 100 years old. Tear down permits shouldn’t be issued so easily that a building like this could be days away before they even know about it.

I agree. There should be a minimum time period requirement between application, and approval, unless an emergency exists. Public input should also be able to be given within a specified time period.

We need a better system for review and approval of permits associated with structures over [X] years old without being overly burdensome and also having appropriate remedies and financial assistance to incentivize historical preservation. St Louis has a pretty robust historical review process.

There were ~50 pre-demo permits for commercial buildings issued in 2023 city-wide, should not be hard for anyone at City Hall to keep up with.

alejandro46 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 1:41 pm We need a better system for review and approval of permits associated with structures over [X] years old without being overly burdensome and also having appropriate remedies and financial assistance to incentivize historical preservation. St Louis has a pretty robust historical review process.

Probably can find the same thing said on here when the Knickerbocker was bulldozed as well. Bunch and some other councilpeople said it was a travasty but ended up "there's nothing we could do". I have little hope that the same thing won't happen here. This isn't the first historic building that has been torn down and no one ever puts laws in place to stop it.

I'm at a multi-year nadir of optimism on the KC urban renewal front. Some of it is just the hard environment nationally on multi family construction and some of it is very specific to KC like this and the active discussion about bulldozing whole blocks of the Crossroads.

The City Manager sent out building inspectors and placed a hold on demolition because nothing was filed according to him. Nothing will be approved here until further notice as the next steps are taken.
https://x.com/briandavidplatt/status/17 ... 77631?s=46

Chris Stritzel wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 5:16 pm The City Manager sent out building inspectors and placed a hold on demolition because nothing was filed according to him. Nothing will be approved here until further notice as the next steps are taken.
https://x.com/briandavidplatt/status/17 ... 77631?s=46

Sounds like a great time to lobby the city manager and the council into an interim rule requiring public participation and/or a realistic plan for replacement before demolition of structures in good working condition. Maybe there's a way to place a hold on property taxes, to keep them from being reduced unless the building is demoed for a replacement?

The answer is always a land value tax instead of property tax. That way the owner has to improve the land to generate revenue instead of destroying it to reduce property value.

Historically, the City has lost so many commercial structures to parking that it reduced the potential for tax revenue. It's in the City's interest to challenge certain building demolitions. Then we wonder why there isn't a lot of street activity downtown and in commercial districts. New businesses could afford the older buildings because the rents were much cheaper than newly-built spaces. They also provide opportunities for businesses that fall outside of Cordish's curated mix.

KC_Ari wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2024 1:19 am The answer is always a land value tax instead of property tax. That way the owner has to improve the land to generate revenue instead of destroying it to reduce property value.

Some momentum on this in Colorado.

https://schalkenbach.org/land-value-tax ... ommission/

Chris Stritzel wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 5:16 pm The City Manager sent out building inspectors and placed a hold on demolition because nothing was filed according to him. Nothing will be approved here until further notice as the next steps are taken.
https://x.com/briandavidplatt/status/17 ... 77631?s=46

Tearing up Linwood today for shutdown of service to the building. Nothing from the city, that I’ve seen.

Application to place Carmen building 101 W. Linwood on local historic register to be heard March 22. Letters of support must be received by 5p.m. Thursday March 14. kchp@kcmo.org

Historic KC issues press statement on Carmen building. Encourages contacting 4th district council people.

The Carmen Building was nominated to the City's Historic Register at Friday's Historic Preservation Commission meeting. It goes to city council next.

The owner of the property claimed they want to build a 'very nice' 15-story apartment building on the site. Developer is from Lenexa. Said something about wanting to build something like the Bellagio. Who knows what the real story is.

I hope the building can be preserved. There is room to build another building on the same parcel either West of the Carmen building or behind it. (Or both.)

People with money and no taste (who think the Bellagio is classy) aren't looking to move to Linwood in Midtown...good story Lenexa developer.

Speaking of Lenexa, I had to spend some time there a couple days ago. It is wild the amount of development and cranes out there.

The development process in KCMO is broken and people in the city need to wake up to just how much money is going out to JoCo greenfield development.

It's ridiculous.

There will ALWAYS be people who want to live in the suburbs even if it's not for many of us. At least developments like Lenexa City Center are providing some denser mixed-use pedestrian-oriented development instead of what's going on at the old Sprint campus. Why shit all over something like this when the city could've easily chosen to develop something far worse?