KCRag Forum

normalthings wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 3:11 pm

beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 3:05 pm

normalthings wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 3:02 pm The school boards #1 stakeholders are the students. Selling to the highest bidder gives them more funds to put towards said students. The number #2 stakeholder are tax payers. Selling to the highest bidder provides the best value to said rate payers.

You're forgetting the value of the building to the general public compared to the field of grass. The public lost in that exchange, in my opinion. Of course, the school district had a sale in place for the building to be renovated and flittered it away.

So the least involved and least important stakeholder lost out? It is not like a blighted tower in the middle of town benefited the general population much anyways. The school's number 1 priority should be the kids and as far as I can tell this benefitted the kids better than the other option.

I don't really remember a competitive/realistic bidder that would have renovated the property. Do you have a link?

That’s not apparent yet, the additional tax revenue could’ve gone to schools. We don’t know how long this will be vacant there are surface lots from decades ago.

Not to mention it destroys the fabric of a neighborhood, this is what I mean exactly when I say they shouldn’t behave like a business. They should be more foreword thinking than a quarterly report, not to mention the negative social implications. They should’ve accounted for the social impact and potential environmental externalities arising from this action

You forgot to account for the carrying cost of the building. I wonder how much their insurance went down when it sold?

It’s not zero odds the carrying cost of the building was so high that getting rid of it was well worth it at any amount.

DColeKC wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 2:46 pm

Riverite wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 10:13 am No public entity should sell to a private developer that immediately demolished the property full stop

Even if the money has been spent and the result is the building isn't historic and is too costly to renovate? It sucks, but sometimes the land a building sits on is more valuable as a clean, empty slate.

The building was already on the register, so it had gone through the process of being determined eligible as a historic building.

...Listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and designed by Edward W. Tanner & Associates, this building is an outstanding example of the Modern Movement: International Style - specifically the influence of Miesian design.
...

https://www.kshb.com/news/local-news/ol ... -preserved

Too costly to renovate? Says who? There had already been asbestos remediation for the building to be demolished. So they spend that money to demolish it, but not to remediate it for renovation? Granted, I know there were other costs to redo the plumbing and heating systems, etc., but wasn't the same done for the Flashcube building on Main, and Traders on Grand when they were renovated?

As for the school district needing to sell the building to raise cash, I don't really buy that argument seeing that the district has taken years, even decades to sell old schools for renovation or demolition because they went through a lengthy process of involving neighborhoods and stakeholders, and going through the process of reviewing various redevelopment proposals.

I can't imagine that redevelopment of the Westside High School and Switzer School was easy or inexpensive. This complex included five separate structures built at different times that likely had separate heating/cooling systems and plumbing ages. There probably had to be some asbestos and lead abatement in that redevelopment.

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0904261 ... !1e3?hl=en

Didn't the buyer have to agree to not pursue incentives?

DaveKCMO wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 8:27 pm Didn't the buyer have to agree to not pursue incentives?

This is why it was torn down, political posturing against incentives. Selling it to a developer who would rightly ask for incentives to redo it was ‘uncomfortable’ when the districts messaging is anti-TIF. So, sell it to the wrecking ball.

Perhaps it was a final middle finger to the city from a school district that never considered all of its constiuents equitably.

herrfrank wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 10:36 am Perhaps it was a final middle finger to the city from a school district that never considered all of its constiuents equitably.

Do you really think the school district doesn't care about it's kids?

It might be a middle finger to the city, but I doubt it's for that reason.

Coming out against incentives several years before the sale of 1212 in order to provide the public rationale to sell to a developer who wouldn't seek incentives and would tear the building down, leaving a vacant lot catacorner to City Hall in order to get the city back for (jeez... something?) is a level of planning foresight and discipline I'd argue is beyond KCPS's abilities.

chaglang wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 1:35 pm Coming out against incentives several years before the sale of 1212 in order to provide the public rationale to sell to a developer who wouldn't seek incentives and would tear the building down, leaving a vacant lot catacorner to City Hall in order to get the city back for (jeez... something?) is a level of planning foresight and discipline I'd argue is beyond KCPS's abilities.

There doesn't need to be foresight for that to be the plan today.

I still think it's more likely they took the first opportunity to get out from under an empty building's costs and it ended up that the buyer tearing it down was a bonus for a group wanting to make a point around incentives reform.

Copaken said his company also is exploring the possibility for a two-block development, factoring in the existing surface parking lot at 13th and Grand and a site it owns directly to the west, at 12th and McGee streets, where Kansas City Public Schools' former downtown headquarters was demolished.

"We're revisiting some of the plans as to how to energize both of those blocks, maybe, rather than just one," he said.

Copaken acknowledged the potential for Waddell & Reed Financial Inc.'s under-construction $140 million headquarters to compete with other planned developments, in the scenario that the building becomes partly or fully available to other tenants after Macquarie Asset Management's $1.7 billion acquisition.

Still, he said, "The positive is that we're always in search in this community to get Class A (office) product on the shelf, and so if we're recruiting the next user, it could really be a positive. ... There really are a lot of different angles."

https://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/ ... grand.html

Historic Kansas City buildings are being demolished—can we do more to save them

In December, Kansas City lost one of the buildings on the National Register of Historic Places with the demolition of the old Board of Education building on McGee. Local architect Edward W. Tanner designed the building, which opened in 1960, in a mid-century modern style that was inspired by the iconic Mies van der Rohe.
...

https://www.kansascitymag.com/why-some- ... emolished/

Here is a pic my grandmother snapped in early 1963 of the glass tile mural at the old KCMO Board of Ed building.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/hA2UEzFbNEAChdTT9

The mural was removed. I think it would look great at the zoo.

One would think the old KCPS HQ could be a top spot for the new county jail.

I support the jail staying downtown, but I think the KCPS site would be better served with a higher use

normalthings wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 2:43 pm One would think the old KCPS HQ could be a top spot for the new county jail.

a jail should be in a spot where the back of the building doesn't need an active use and there's no chance anyone would ever be right up against the back of the jail legitimately

TheLastGentleman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 2:46 pm I support the jail staying downtown, but I think the KCPS site would be better served with a higher use

But what if it was a mixed use jail with a city target and a grocery store on the ground floor?

chaglang wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 5:26 pmBut what if it was a mixed use jail with a city target and a grocery store on the ground floor?

This is acceptable

I think the new jail is going to be built east of I-435 and south of the stadium complex on Raytown Road.