Columbus Park Redevelopment

[flyingember]

8 years after the planning started, this project has money

http://m.bizjournals.com/kansascity/new ... g-for.html

Fortunately, the senior vice president with Zimmer Real Estate Services added, another word — “streetcar” — finally has helped partners involved in a $70 million Columbus Park redevelopment get financing to kick the project off.

“It really became a more feasible project with the streetcar,” which is scheduled to begin operating on Main Street between Third Street and Pershing Road in 2015, Musser said.

the streetcar is already helping projects 3-4 blocks away. proving that 2-3 blocks was conservative. this is a crazy good sign for downtown

Besides the financing hurdle that has delayed the project, Musser said, the developers have been waiting for $1.8 million in city financing for first-phase infrastructure improvements. That financing was recently approved. Musser expects a total of about $8 million in city infrastructure support during the course of the project.

I believe I saw that the city will end up paying around $8 million total for infrastructure. Just this phase in private money being $70 million makes it look like money well spent.

[FangKC]

This quote is just sad. Banks are part of the problem.

Especially when you have residential occupancy at 98 percent downtown BEFORE a streetcar gets built.

Dan Musser said there are three words that many commercial real estate lenders don’t like to hear in the same sentence: “urban,” “housing” and “loan.”

Streetcar helps attract financing for $70M Columbus Park project

Fortunately, the senior vice president with Zimmer Real Estate Services added, another word — “streetcar” — finally has helped partners involved in a $70 million Columbus Park redevelopment get financing to kick the project off.

...


“It really became a more feasible project with the streetcar,” which is scheduled to begin operating on Main Street between Third Street and Pershing Road in 2015, Musser said

http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/n ... 3&page=all

[Eon Blue]

Does anyone know if they plan to restore the street grid between Campbell and Troost as a part of this project?

[flyingember]

Does anyone know if they plan to restore the street grid between Campbell and Troost as a part of this project?

I saw a mention to restore Campbell to 3rd but I can't find the source

[taxi]

yes, that is the plan

[Demosthenes]

The article suggests that the townhouse phase of this project may be replaced with another type of use. This is supposedly due to a poor "for-sale urban multifamily market."

I hope this isn't so. The townhouses were a major part of this project and are (I think) essential. This is a row home neighborhood of houses with little setback. That is what this project should be. Fortunately the article mentions 24 zero lot line single family homes.

I hope the solution to this townhouse problem is to simply make them rentals.

[loftguy]

The article suggests that the townhouse phase of this project may be replaced with another type of use. This is supposedly due to a poor "for-sale urban multifamily market."

I hope this isn't so. The townhouses were a major part of this project and are (I think) essential. This is a row home neighborhood of houses with little setback. That is what this project should be. Fortunately the article mentions 24 zero lot line single family homes.

I hope the solution to this townhouse problem is to simply make them rentals.

There is not a poor "for-sale urban multifamily market"

What there is...is a terrible "condo loan market".

Lenders threw out condo lending with the downturn, as result of problems in hyperdeveloping markets like Las Vegas, Phoenix, Miami, etc... Condo lending has not recovered anywhere near that of single family homes.

Townhouses can take advantage of traditional single family lending. All the developer needs to do is develop them by platting as zero lot line properties, rather than as condos.

I agree that townhouse design should be a significant part of this project, for the good of the neighborhood and the city. A percentage of people want and need a chance to purchase and it should be a part of this large developments mix. This developer may be inclined to take the "safe" route with apartments, as the demand is clear. However, this project has the benefit of a tremendous amount of financial support from the city, and as such the city should get what is in the long term best interest of the community.

[FangKC]

I wish there was more row house, zero lot, housing instead of condos. Condo developments can be too problematic when created from scratch because of the lending requirements that they be already 50 percent owner occupied to get a loan.

Many people don't want to pay condo association fees that often can be too pricey for their needs.

[Pork Chop]

The article suggests that the townhouse phase of this project may be replaced with another type of use. This is supposedly due to a poor "for-sale urban multifamily market."

I hope this isn't so. The townhouses were a major part of this project and are (I think) essential. This is a row home neighborhood of houses with little setback. That is what this project should be. Fortunately the article mentions 24 zero lot line single family homes.

I hope the solution to this townhouse problem is to simply make them rentals.

There is not a poor "for-sale urban multifamily market"

What there is...is a terrible "condo loan market".

Lenders threw out condo lending with the downturn, as result of problems in hyperdeveloping markets like Las Vegas, Phoenix, Miami, etc... Condo lending has not recovered anywhere near that of single family homes.

Townhouses can take advantage of traditional single family lending. All the developer needs to do is develop them by platting as zero lot line properties, rather than as condos.

I agree that townhouse design should be a significant part of this project, for the good of the neighborhood and the city. A percentage of people want and need a chance to purchase and it should be a part of this large developments mix. This developer may be inclined to take the "safe" route with apartments, as the demand is clear. However, this project has the benefit of a tremendous amount of financial support from the city, and as such the city should get what is in the long term best interest of the community.

Personally, I would be more interested in this development if it included a lot more townhouses. I will be ready for an upgrade in a few years and I do not want to leave the greater downtown area.

[flyingember]

one notable hole downtown is above a 3-4 bedroom, no matter the format. four bedroom think 3+ office alternative

[DaveKCMO]

infrastructure work for this project is now out to bid.

[FangKC]

It just seems that these redevelopment projects move at an excruciatingly slow pace.

[loftguy]

infrastructure work for this project is now out to bid.

Is that bid request a city request, or the private developer?

[loftguy]

infrastructure work for this project is now out to bid.

Is that bid request a city offering, or that of the private developer?

edit: to maybe make sense of what I'm asking

[DaveKCMO]

published by EDC, so... city?

[flyingember]

what happened with this?

[Demosthenes]

what happened with this?

Yea I don't know if this is ever going to get built. It seemed like everything was set for groundbreaking and then... crickets.

Certainly isn't the first time this has happened. Disappointing.

[DaveKCMO]

it seems they lined up financing. isn't that always the tough part?

[FangKC]

Here is a picture of the map for the site. The circle on the left is where the two 16 unit apartment buildings are going. The circle on the right is where they will do apartments of retail.

With plans to 370 units. That would be a great boost for CP. I hope it doesn't turn out to look like tract housing as they add more buildings. Sometimes it works like great rowhouse infill I've seen in Cincy but if they cant pull that off, usually better to have a different design for every building to avoid looking like 'the projects'. Cincy rowhouse style would be a great fit for CP.

The rest of the 370 units is a long, long way from happening unfortunately. I'm sure it will change over time.

I recall they had their financing.

I wouldn't be too disappointed though if the development team fell apart. I've always felt this could be higher density than what I've seen in preliminary drawings. The primary goal of the City is to increase downtown population.

Get rid of the surface parking and put it underground in the basement. You have completely cleared city blocks, so that is the opportunity to put in underground parking, or interior block structured parking. You don't have to worry about demolishing existing historic building stock to build garages. Take the opportunity, because there aren't many situations like this in downtown--where one has entire blocks to work with.

The housing density they are planning isn't really much denser than one would find in big apartment complexes in the suburbs.

I'd also get rid of the single-family houses in the plan. No need for them in that location. There are plenty of single family houses in Kansas City. We need to be creating density in and around downtown--not wasting close-in parcels on single family houses with yards. There are other locations near downtown to be doing infill housing anyway.

I'm also not really excited about the designs, or "look," of the planned buildings. They just don't inspire me at all.

I wish we could attract some big moneybags developers that would be doing real quality high density housing in places like this. Like one sees in Denver, Dallas, and Houston.

[Demosthenes]

Fair points Fang, though I'm not sure I agree with this development becoming too high density. I agree that it should probably have a slightly higher density than this project has, and the parking definitely needs to be dealt with. This should be a very walkable area, just like the rest of the north end is.

I still think this development needs to fit in well with the rest of the neighborhood though. This is a classic urban neighborhood filled with a mixture of narrow single family homes, townhouses, small apartments, commercial buildings, churches, etc. and I think we need to keep it in this realm. Now I'm not suggesting we can't expand a bit. We can and definitely should. Some mid-rise apartment buildings would be nice, and a definite mix of uses is important. I'm not opposed to single family houses (though only with small yards at most. No yard is even better) and I think they could be built in a fashion much like the development at 5th and Oak across from Le Fou Frog, with a mix of houses and flats (though I am not necessarily advocating that style of architecture. The houses/ flats could look much different. And keeping with the theme of the neighborhood it would probably be best if there was a variety of styles). I especially like the narrow street in that development, along with the lack of yards. A neighborhood with blocks of houses/ flats like these, along with narrow streets and small blocks, would be quite a dense neighborhood.

I definitely don't think this is the best spot for high rise density or anything like that. Don't know if you are suggesting that. I think that would be best off more in the Paseo West neighborhood and East Village (even though they seem to want to go low to mid-rise, if any projects ever get off the ground). Now I don't suggest a height limit for the development or anything, but I think we should stick to buildings no taller than 5 or 6 floors. We can still get a lot of density out of that, but with buildings that interact with the street like the current neighborhood has.