KCRag Forum

chaglang wrote: ↑Mon Dec 23, 2019 8:09 am That BM would upload drawings that WR hadn’t approved (as seems to be the case) is very strange. Wondering if WR had approved something and then backed up when the drawings were not received favorably.

^Agreed. This has all the marks of something fairly far along that they pulled after how things have been criticized politically and design wise.

The fact that they’re already applying for foundation and other permits leaves me with an ominous feeling that whatever the “improved” design is, it’s still going to be a car-centric/inactive pedestrian experience design.

horizons82 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 23, 2019 8:49 am

chaglang wrote: ↑Mon Dec 23, 2019 8:09 am That BM would upload drawings that WR hadn’t approved (as seems to be the case) is very strange. Wondering if WR had approved something and then backed up when the drawings were not received favorably.

^Agreed. This has all the marks of something fairly far along that they pulled after how things have been criticized politically and design wise.

The fact that they’re already applying for foundation and other permits leaves me with an ominous feeling that whatever the “improved” design is, it’s still going to be a car-centric/inactive pedestrian experience design.

Well of course. Your going to have a thousand more cars downtown to have to deal with. Nothings really changed.

horizons82 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 23, 2019 8:49 am

chaglang wrote: ↑Mon Dec 23, 2019 8:09 am That BM would upload drawings that WR hadn’t approved (as seems to be the case) is very strange. Wondering if WR had approved something and then backed up when the drawings were not received favorably.

^Agreed. This has all the marks of something fairly far along that they pulled after how things have been criticized politically and design wise.

The fact that they’re already applying for foundation and other permits leaves me with an ominous feeling that whatever the “improved” design is, it’s still going to be a car-centric/inactive pedestrian experience design.

They can always just not use the permit and go for a new one.

I don't know why you would pay for the plans review and permitting fees and then abandon the permit.

chaglang wrote: ↑Mon Dec 23, 2019 10:42 am I don't know why you would pay for the plans review and permitting fees and then abandon the permit.

Easy to not worry about money when someone writes you a check for $100M.

chaglang wrote: ↑Mon Dec 23, 2019 10:42 am I don't know why you would pay for the plans review and permitting fees and then abandon the permit.

Foundations and grading can stay the same even if what the building looks like changes. The developers are going to make more then enough to cover a few hundred or thousand in permit fees.

langosta wrote: ↑Mon Dec 23, 2019 11:02 am

chaglang wrote: ↑Mon Dec 23, 2019 10:42 am I don't know why you would pay for the plans review and permitting fees and then abandon the permit.

Foundations and grading can stay the same even if what the building looks like changes. The developers are going to make more then enough to cover a few hundred or thousand in permit fees.

The foundations and gradings staying the same makes some sense. But the permit fees on a building that size are going to be in the thousands, if not the tens of thousands. I know people are having fun with the $100m but I don't know of any developers or clients who are willing to just eat that amount of money.

chaglang wrote: ↑Mon Dec 23, 2019 11:21 am

langosta wrote: ↑Mon Dec 23, 2019 11:02 am

chaglang wrote: ↑Mon Dec 23, 2019 10:42 am I don't know why you would pay for the plans review and permitting fees and then abandon the permit.

Foundations and grading can stay the same even if what the building looks like changes. The developers are going to make more then enough to cover a few hundred or thousand in permit fees.

The foundations and gradings staying the same makes some sense. But the permit fees on a building that size are going to be in the thousands, if not the tens of thousands. I know people are having fun with the $100m but I don't know of any developers or clients who are willing to just eat that amount of money.

Following up on what Langosta said, Burns & Mac was charged less then $800 for the development plan that may need to be refiled.

FeeCPDM - Non-Residential Development Plan Fee
Computed:$783.73

Don’t they have a foundations permit? IIRC you need more than development plans to pour foundations.

(Apologies for the tangent)

chaglang wrote: ↑Mon Dec 23, 2019 8:09 am
Don’t they have a foundations permit? IIRC you need more than development plans to pour foundations.

(Apologies for the tangent)

I had heard WR had rejected this design before the development plans were filed.

No fee calculations have been uploaded yet for the additional plans/permits. From language used in news reports, it sounds like a development agreement has been signed but they need to finalize a lease agreement. I assume these sorts of costs will be reimbursed under the development agreement in the extremely unlikely case that the deal falls apart. Even if it isn’t, a few hundred or thousand dollars is the equivalent of the day rates of architects from a top firm - they really haven’t spent too much yet.

Other projects (Ex. Reverb) have come back and filed updates development plans.

Why are we charging for development plans anyway, especially if it is a significant amount? It seems if we want more development, remove every barrier or hinderance, no matter how small.

beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Tue Dec 24, 2019 12:33 am Why are we charging for development plans anyway, especially if it is a significant amount? It seems if we want more development, remove every barrier or hinderance, no matter how small.

It's the cost of reviewing the plans for codes compliance.

flyingember wrote: ↑Tue Dec 24, 2019 9:17 am

beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Tue Dec 24, 2019 12:33 am Why are we charging for development plans anyway, especially if it is a significant amount? It seems if we want more development, remove every barrier or hinderance, no matter how small.

It's the cost of reviewing the plans for codes compliance.

It’s a way to make money. A project I was working on was quoted in the mid 7 figures for all of the plans and permits.

normalthings wrote: ↑Tue Dec 24, 2019 11:42 am

flyingember wrote: ↑Tue Dec 24, 2019 9:17 am

beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Tue Dec 24, 2019 12:33 am Why are we charging for development plans anyway, especially if it is a significant amount? It seems if we want more development, remove every barrier or hinderance, no matter how small.

It's the cost of reviewing the plans for codes compliance.

It’s a way to make money. A project I was working on was quoted in the mid 7 figures for all of the plans and permits.

I really doubt they're making money off any project.

Let's assume this project takes four years of work from initial discussions through to occupancy permit and $5 million in fees. If we use a baseline of a standard 40 hour work week that's $600 per hour for the cost on average.

That seems low for the amount of work that would go into a big project.

Remember, the fees don't just cover the direct workers, they cover anything tangentially related. It's paying for accounting, marketing and such. It's also paying for their benefits.

Direct workers include the time the heads of departments spend on a project too. Permits will go to recover time they're never going to bill otherwise like taking meetings.

It's also covering failed projects. Any big developer is going to come with lots of ideas that don't pan out. So the cost of permits has to cover time spent on things that don't go in.

They're also likely used to keep other permit costs down.

City Plan Commission Hearing - Public Meeting - Council Chamber, 26th Floor, City Hall - 01/21/2020 09:00 am CST to 12:00 pm CST

The amount of fencing used is a bit much, but it is what it is

Chris Stritzel wrote: ↑Sun Dec 29, 2019 7:55 pm The amount of fencing used is a bit much, but it is what it is

Looks like the fences above the orange plastic bases was removed. Interesting

normalthings wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 1:10 pm Foundation Permit:

Applied Date:12/20/2019
Description:Drilled piers for a new office building and parking structure at 1400 Baltimore.


https://compasskc.kcmo.org/EnerGov_Prod ... f8a078ad2

Grading Permit:

Applied: 12/20/2019
Description:Private grading for a new office and parking structure at 1400 Baltimore.

https://compasskc.kcmo.org/EnerGov_Prod ... 636b4f19c

Foundation Permit fees of almost $100,000 have been paid. Plans have yet to be uploaded as noted in the discrepancy report.

1. Complete building demolition permit filed today.
https://compasskc.kcmo.org/EnerGov_Prod ... ttachments

2. Site Grading Permit fees were paid. ~$4,700

IBM building has a hole in it.