KCRag Forum

I feel like this project is significant enough to have its own thread.

To recap, Port KC issued an RFP for the parking lot at the Northwest corner of 5th and Main. The project requirement included having 15% of the units be affordable (and that was met by both of these proposals) as well as 160 public parking spaces.

The first proposal is from Indianapolis-based Flaherty and Collins. They are proposing a 300-unit, 12-story apartment building on the site. The plan also includes 10,000sf of commercial space and a 400 space parking space parking garage (meeting the requirement of 160 spaces to replace lost public parking). The architect is KEM Studio.

Renderings...





The second proposal comes from Kansas City-based RM Housing. Their plan calls for a much smaller 5-story building with 100 apartments (90 of which would be affordable). A 260 space parking garage is included in the plans but no retail space along the ground floor, which is a bummer considering this fronts the Streetcar line. What I don't like is the garage entrance on 5th. The project's architect is Hord Coplan Macht, the same firm behind 2 and 3 Light.

Renderings...



One of these projects will be selected by Port KC to be built on the site at 5th and Main. CityScene has an article on these two projects (which are where the numbers in this post comes from): https://cityscenekc.com/rival-plans-to- ... ory-tower/

I'll take the larger project with less parking, please. All parking in/out should be on a restored Main Street between 3rd and 5th.

DaveKCMO wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 9:43 am I'll take the larger project with less parking, please. All parking in/out should be on a restored Main Street between 3rd and 5th.

Agreed

DaveKCMO wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 9:43 am I'll take the larger project with less parking, please. All parking in/out should be on a restored Main Street between 3rd and 5th.

240 spaces for 300 units is one of the lower parking ratios we’ve seen right? Wish they could move a lot of that to an Independence Ave accessible garage.

Looking at a word document about the shorter plan by RM Housing, that will cost $25.5 Million and be financed through the Missouri Housing Development Commission and utilize 4% Low Income Housing Tax Credits along with Tax Exempt Bonds.

It is interesting that the out of town development firm went with a local architect, and the local development team partnered with an out of town architect.

The shorter proposal reminds me a lot of a Edison District in downtown Overland Park, an inferior version of it at that. The faux-historic detailing facing the park on the north side is particularly uninspired. If Main St is not restored I do like the idea of activating it as a pedestrian corridor. However, temporary folding canopies doesn't cut it.

That top floor 'greenhouse' restaurant space with killer views in the F&C proposal is a nice touch.
Do we know how parking is accessed on that one?

I had seen earlier iteration of FH proposal with an activated Main street for garage access. I assume still the same. They have used KEM before and seemingly a good design although the south-facing greenhouse atop would cook but great views agreed. Unsure if the FAA rules apply to the top elevation since the base is in quite a low spot. Respectful density solves problems.

ToDactivist wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 11:26 am I had seen earlier iteration of FH proposal with an activated Main street for garage access. I assume still the same. They have used KEM before and seemingly a good design although the south-facing greenhouse atop would cook but great views agreed. Unsure if the FAA rules apply to the top elevation since the base is in quite a low spot. Respectful density solves problems.

It reads that the smaller proposal will utilize your Deleware parking lot for temporary parking?

Critical_Mass wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 11:05 am It is interesting that the out of town development firm went with a local architect, and the local development team partnered with an out of town architect.

The shorter proposal reminds me a lot of a Edison District in downtown Overland Park, an inferior version of it at that. The faux-historic detailing facing the park on the north side is particularly uninspired. If Main St is not restored I do like the idea of activating it as a pedestrian corridor. However, temporary folding canopies doesn't cut it.

That top floor 'greenhouse' restaurant space with killer views in the F&C proposal is a nice touch.
Do we know how parking is accessed on that one?

I don't really care about temporary canopies. They are pretty popular in the UK and allow family & immigrant businesses a cheap space.

Lower Marsh Street (near Waterloo) is a good example to strive for. It serves as a small street during the off hours but is transformed into a food hall almost around the lunch and dinner hours. There is some sort of standardized tent and some common amenities (benches and things) that get set out.

normalthings wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 10:20 am

DaveKCMO wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 9:43 am I'll take the larger project with less parking, please. All parking in/out should be on a restored Main Street between 3rd and 5th.

240 spaces for 300 units is one of the lower parking ratios we’ve seen right? Wish they could move a lot of that to an Independence Ave accessible garage.

I think its worse than that...~160 of the 240 is required replacement for the City Market merchants displaced. Thus this is more like a true ToD ratio and good to see. Banks hold on tight...

normalthings wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 11:30 am

ToDactivist wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 11:26 am I had seen earlier iteration of FH proposal with an activated Main street for garage access. I assume still the same. They have used KEM before and seemingly a good design although the south-facing greenhouse atop would cook but great views agreed. Unsure if the FAA rules apply to the top elevation since the base is in quite a low spot. Respectful density solves problems.

It reads that the smaller proposal will utilize your Deleware parking lot for temporary parking?

correct. he asked and I obliged.

ToDactivist wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 11:35 am

normalthings wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 10:20 am

DaveKCMO wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 9:43 am I'll take the larger project with less parking, please. All parking in/out should be on a restored Main Street between 3rd and 5th.

240 spaces for 300 units is one of the lower parking ratios we’ve seen right? Wish they could move a lot of that to an Independence Ave accessible garage.

I think its worse than that...~160 of the 240 is required replacement for the City Market merchants displaced. Thus this is more like a true ToD ratio and good to see. Banks hold on tight...

The larger project is 400 spaces. So 160 for the city and 240 for the 300 units.

The smaller proposal has 160 for the city and 100 for 90 units.

Garage access should be on independence only.

normalthings wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 11:34 am I don't really care about temporary canopies. They are pretty popular in the UK and allow family & immigrant businesses a cheap space.

Lower Marsh Street (near Waterloo) is a good example to strive for. It serves as a small street during the off hours but is transformed into a food hall almost around the lunch and dinner hours. There is some sort of standardized tent and some common amenities (benches and things) that get set out.

There's nothing wrong with canopies. I was attempting to draw attention to the fact that without any street level retail spaces, the RM Housing proposal adds nothing to 'activating' Main St despite what the rendering shows. It would be a dead corridor when/if the canopies are not there, unlike your Lower Marsh Street example. They simply dropped them in the rendering along with those enormous trees as a band-aid to cover up any shortcomings.

Is the tall building on a parking pedestal or is parking underground? Not a fan of towers on top of parking structures in dense walkable areas. You are better off wrapping the garage with a low rise and creating a better sidewalk experience. I don't see parking in rendering so if it's underground than this is a no brainer, go for the higher density. Wonder if river market has NIMBYs that would complain about a taller building there.

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 11:52 am Garage access should be on independence only.

A non-ingress route into the RM via a garage directly off Indy is a great idea and something I have tried to also talk about to whoever will listen. Lot is there, others have agreed, just need some visibility and city initiative. This should be a requirement of the next RFP for the lot south of 5th. Tougher deal with the old massive sewer line bisecting this parcel, but solvable.

normalthings wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 11:48 am

ToDactivist wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 11:35 am

normalthings wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 10:20 am

240 spaces for 300 units is one of the lower parking ratios we’ve seen right? Wish they could move a lot of that to an Independence Ave accessible garage.

I think its worse than that...~160 of the 240 is required replacement for the City Market merchants displaced. Thus this is more like a true ToD ratio and good to see. Banks hold on tight...

The larger project is 400 spaces. So 160 for the city and 240 for the 300 units.

The smaller proposal has 160 for the city and 100 for 90 units.

right, thanks...

normalthings wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 10:20 am

DaveKCMO wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 9:43 am I'll take the larger project with less parking, please. All parking in/out should be on a restored Main Street between 3rd and 5th.

240 spaces for 300 units is one of the lower parking ratios we’ve seen right? Wish they could move a lot of that to an Independence Ave accessible garage.

One of, perhaps, but not the lowest. And it's right on the streetcar line. The city continually makes these rookie mistakes by subsidizing dedicated parking for a development. If any project deserves a fully shared (and low) parking situation, it would be one on a lot the city controls!

DaveKCMO wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 9:43 am I'll take the larger project with less parking, please. All parking in/out should be on a restored Main Street between 3rd and 5th.

I don't see a restored Main Street in either proposal. It looks like both will keep the 1980's pedestrian alley we have now.

Rabble wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 1:51 pm

DaveKCMO wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 9:43 am I'll take the larger project with less parking, please. All parking in/out should be on a restored Main Street between 3rd and 5th.

I don't see a restored Main Street in either proposal. It looks like both will keep the 1980's pedestrian alley we have now.

I seek some cars hiding in the ally on the 12 floor proposal