Page 1 of 1
Why tear down a functioning well occupied office building?
Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2021 9:12 pm
by GRID
I don't understand.
https://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/ ... 7#cxrecs_s
The developer wants to tear down a six story 100,000 sq ft office that is 95% occupied and replace it with a six story affordable housing apartment building.
I would assume there are very few large functioning office buildings on KCMO's east side. What in the world would be the point of tearing it down and chasing all the tenants out of the area?
There has to be a million places to build this development within a mile of this site without tearing down such a structure. Blows my mind.
Re: Why tear down a functioning well occupied office building?
Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2021 11:12 pm
by normalthings
GRID wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 9:12 pm
I don't understand.
https://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/ ... 7#cxrecs_s
The developer wants to tear down a six story 100,000 sq ft office that is 95% occupied and replace it with a six story affordable housing apartment building.
I would assume there are very few large functioning office buildings on KCMO's east side. What in the world would be the point of tearing it down and chasing all the tenants out of the area?
There has to be a million places to build this development within a mile of this site without tearing down such a structure. Blows my mind.
Class C office space in a high vacancy market. Likely has not been taken care of (evidence of such on Google Earth). Real value of this parcel is the existing parking garage.
Ton of land to the east of this project owned by KCMO and TIF. Anyone know what all that is for?
Re: Why tear down a functioning well occupied office building?
Posted: Tue Apr 06, 2021 8:19 am
by DaveKCMO
City was working with Urban America. I believe they received Central City sales tax for pre-development work. $180-190 million project.
http://cityclerk.kcmo.org/LiveWeb/Docum ... bDGg%3D%3D
There was also a separate KCDC planning project for the space:
http://www.kcdesigncenter.org/prospect- ... odal-study
Re: Why tear down a functioning well occupied office building?
Posted: Tue Apr 06, 2021 5:47 pm
by FangKC
Why don't they just convert the existing building to housing?
Again, these types of projects aren't helpful in the battle against climate change. This is a bad practice. Tearing down a concrete and steel structure, that has materials in its' construction that put carbon into the atmosphere years ago, that are likely still up there.
I just believe the mindset is still "it's easier to tear it down" that figure out a re-use plan. We've got to stop doing this, or humanity will be increasingly imperiled.
Re: Why tear down a functioning well occupied office building?
Posted: Fri Apr 23, 2021 11:18 am
by kcexpress
Hate to say this, but good riddance to that building. I've delivered inside that building many times. While I admit that it displaces the occupants in there, access is horrible...even with the parking garage in the back.
Re: Why tear down a functioning well occupied office building?
Posted: Fri Apr 23, 2021 12:53 pm
by normalthings
Still happening or did it die?
Re: Why tear down a functioning well occupied office building?
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2021 9:48 am
by alejandro46
I read another article about this in the KCBJ trying to say that "150" black-owned businesses would be displaced by this renovation.
https://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/ ... amily.html
I sympathize with the business owners, but I would also be surprised if there are really 150 business inside of this medium sized building and someone determined every single one is black owned? Even if they are all single or shared offices and it says above that this building is only 60% or less occupied that seems like a number that is just a guesstimate.
Re: Why tear down a functioning well occupied office building?
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2021 4:04 pm
by chaglang
Maybe call the Biz Journal and ask them about their reporting. Nobody here can answer those questions.
Re: Why tear down a functioning well occupied office building?
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2021 6:02 pm
by FangKC
I guess it's possible. If the building is filled with one-office businesses, I calculate 26-28 offices per floor based on window counts (assuming two windows per office minimum) x 6 floors = 156 to 168.
The other calculus is that some offices might have more than one business operating from each space. For example, a real estate company might have one registered office as a realtor, another as a real estate management company, and another as a real estate developer.
The building has served as a business incubator for black-owned businesses.
Re: Why tear down a functioning well occupied office building?
Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2021 10:59 am
by flyingember
FangKC wrote: ↑Mon Apr 26, 2021 6:02 pm
I guess it's possible. If the building is filled with one-office businesses, I calculate 26-28 offices per floor based on window counts (assuming two windows per office minimum) x 6 floors = 156 to 168.
The other calculus is that some offices might have more than one business operating from each space. For example, a real estate company might have one registered office as a realtor, another as a real estate management company, and another as a real estate developer.
The building has served as a business incubator for black-owned businesses.
This exactly.
If they copied the Wework shared space model the number of businesses could be far greater than the square footage
Re: Why tear down a functioning well occupied office building?
Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2021 7:06 pm
by FangKC
The benefit of these shared spaces as an incubator for black businesses is that the proximity of varied skills helps all. They share information. This is a much better environment than if they are isolated in a small office somewhere alone.