Columbus Park Redevelopment

[pash]

.

[FangKC]

It's entirely possible that the existing neighborhood doesn't want any higher density than what's proposed. You can't ignore that.

You can ignore that. It's done all the time. City leaders do have an obligation to listen to constituents, but also to balance neighborhood wishes with the financial future of the City.

If you read my post, I conceded to the neighborhood that building heights should be stepped down from 3rd Street to 5th Street from a max of 10-stories to 3-stories. A 6-10 story building is not that big in the context of things--especially near downtown and a streetcar line. There are four 11-story apt. buildings on Quality Hill. There used to be six.

The question I would ask Columbus Park residents is why is it okay for Quality Hill residents to "endure" a 10-story building, and they must not?

Why is is okay to have an 8-story building at 3rd and Oak, and not 3rd and Cherry, or Holmes?

http://tinyurl.com/otswa65

Residents in houses on W. 49th Terrace on the Plaza pay a lot more property taxes than anyone in Columbus Park on their homes. Why must they endure an 18-story building in their neighborhood?

http://tinyurl.com/oo3lnat

I would wager that if you polled any resident in the City about building ANY building in their neighborhood, the vast majority would not want a three-story house build next to their house. Even though there are three-story houses already in their neighborhood. I would also wager that at least 60 percent of residents would never approve ANY type of house design being built on their block if they had veto power. The reason is because you are never going to please everyone.

In fact, I would also bet that Columbus Park residents would be perfectly happy if those parcels north of 5th Street were NEVER developed, and allowed to return to a bucolic, natural grassy meadow.

I don't get my way all the time. I often advocate for saving old buildings on this site, and with City officials, and I have been disappointed. I didn't want the Law Building torn down. I didn't want the Grand Opera House demolished. In the early days of the Power & Light District development, I advocated to preserve the TWA Training Building on 13th and Baltimore. I advocated to save several of the other older buildings in that district, and design around them. I advocated to save the Marion Green Restaurant Building near Oppenheimer Park. I advocated saving the Fire History Museum Building on Cherry between 10th and 11th streets. I didn't get my way.

Residents are always bitching about street and sidewalk maintenance, police protection, trash dumping, abandoned buildings that need demolished. However, they don't understand how one pays for these things. The math is urban density that provides tax revenue. It's that simple. It's the price we must now pay to be 315 square miles of city, and have the same population we had when the city was half that size.

Another simple truth is that single family houses don't cover the costs to run the City. Not by a long shot. The City is supported by multi-tenant apartment buildings, larger office buildings, retail buildings, vehicle sale taxes, tax revenues from hotels and car rentals, sales taxes on goods and services, and earnings taxes paid by KCMO residents, and non-KCMO workers living in other parts of the Metro.

Again, if we ever lose the earnings tax. The city is going to be in a world of hurt because of this density problem.

You can bet on one thing. If Cerner had wanted to erect a campus of several 20-story buildings along both sides of E. 3rd Street from Cherry to Guinotte, the wishes of Columbus Park residents wouldn't measure in the calculation. City leaders would approve it before the sun went down.

One intellectual exercise one might entertain is this. If all the single historic parcels in the Columbus Park Development were sold one-by-one to individual owners to build an urban townhouse, side-by-side, the neighborhood residents would have no say on what that individual built, or input into the decision as long as city zoning guidelines were met. No input. Nada.

Under this scenario, individuals might erect a Victorian townhouse next to a shotgun house next to a modern steel and glass rowhouse next to a spanish colonial house next to a hippy-dippy wookie house next to a stone hobbit house.

If I bought an individual lot say on the corner of Troost and E. 5th, I could build a townhouse made of glass, steel, and distressed iron metal facade, and the neighboring property owner would have no say in the matter as long as I met city guidelines for that lot (setbacks, etc.). The neighbor might be horrified by my choice, but would have no say.

[FangKC]

It's entirely possible that the existing neighborhood doesn't want any higher density than what's proposed. You can't ignore that.

Yes, and if the neighborhoods along the streetcar line all decreed they didn't want higher density along the streetcar line, the whole project will fail. If population goals aren't met, no one will ride the streetcar in enough numbers to support it.

One cannot have high density for only 10 blocks on the streetcar line and have it succeed. It's got to be the entire length of the line. If you want to see a catastrophic failure of the streetcar project, allow residents to maintain their low density neighborhoods near it.

If streetcar opponents have a weapon to kill the streetcar, it will be blocking attempts to increase zoning for higher density developments along the routes.

[Demosthenes]

Question: Has the Columbus Park neighborhood been against much density in this new redevelopment? Or is this merely speculation?

And it's a little surprising to hear you make such a statement Dave, with you being the Streetcar's daddy and all. But I'm sure you are just trying to stick up for the current resident's opinions. Because even though we don't have to listen to these residents, it is good not to make enemies of anyone. If anything, it would be best to try and get current residents to understand the benefits of high density development. This is of course assuming they are even against it to begin with. For all I know they might all be for building nothing but towers on these northern blocks.

Pash and Fang are correct though. Even if the residents are opposed to it, we must build density in this new neighborhood. To put it bluntly, eff them. If they don't like it, they probably shouldn't live a stone's throw away from downtown Kansas City... In a neighborhood that once housed 50,000 people per square mile!!

[aknowledgeableperson]

In a neighborhood that once housed 50,000 people per square mile!!

Don't forget many of those were kids and all lived in living quarters quite smaller compared to current housing sizes.

[DaveKCMO]

That's the first time I've been called the streetcar's daddy. So many others to thank...

My point was NOT to defend the anti-density voices but to say that it may explain why the developer is not going more vertical or addressing parking in the most progressive way.

[kboish]

Question: Has the Columbus Park neighborhood been against much density in this new redevelopment? Or is this merely speculation?

Not speculation. Many of the long time residents are against density in the development. Most of those people are pretty much against everything, though.

[Demosthenes]

That's the first time I've been called the streetcar's daddy. So many others to thank...

My point was NOT to defend the anti-density voices but to say that it may explain why the developer is not going more vertical or addressing parking in the most progressive way.

Well in many ways you are man. Sure there are many others who put a lot of work in getting the streetcar to where it is today, but it's your baby. If it weren't for your efforts, I'm not sure the streetcar would be this far along.

And I get your statement. That may have something to do with it, but I think it has more to do with what Pash had to say, especially point B. These developers don't know how to do a high density development. They don't even know how to do a moderate density development. I don't even think it has crossed their minds.

[FangKC]

Daddy has many other meanings Demo.

[FangKC]

Dave, you know we love you. I apologize for my intensity, but frequently I've just had too much coffee.

[FangKC]

kboish is right. I live in the Old Northeast. I get the Northeast News every week in my driveway. It's a free paper. Anyway, the publication has been among the most anti-streetcar voice in town.

And I will say, the Old Northeast neighborhood --as a majority--is pretty much anti-anything. They are anti-City Hall, anti-police, anti-development. You bring up anything, and chances are the people you will be talking with will be against it.

Now, there are some more progressive folks living in the neighborhood, but we are the minority.

It is not uncommon to pick up the Northeast News and read a letter to the editor that is a diatribe about something--and sometimes it borders on blatantly racist comments. Many here don't like Mexicans, Asians, or refugees who have been resettled here. They hate the poor and disenfranchised. Even though Mexicans are close to majority in some parts of this neighborhood. But there are also people who embrace the diversity and have chosen to live here for that very reason.

Granted, many of the negative Nancy's are among the older set, or Caucasians who grew up here, and resent that they don't know everyone on their block like the old days.

[taxi]

kboish is right. I live in the Old Northeast. I get the Northeast News every week in my driveway. It's a free paper. Anyway, the publication has been among the most anti-streetcar voice in town.

And I will say, the Old Northeast neighborhood --as a majority--is pretty much anti-anything. They are anti-City Hall, anti-police, anti-development. You bring up anything, and chances are the people you will be talking with will be against it.

Now, there are some more progressive folks living in the neighborhood, but we are the minority.

It is not uncommon to pick up the Northeast News and read a letter to the editor that is a diatribe about something--and sometimes it borders on blatantly racist comments. Many here don't like Mexicans, Asians, or refugees who have been resettled here. They hate the poor and disenfranchised. Even though Mexicans are close to majority in some parts of this neighborhood. But there are also people who embrace the diversity and have chosen to live here for that very reason.

Granted, many of the negative Nancy's are among the older set, or Caucasians who grew up here, and resent that they don't know everyone on their block like the old days.

This is very true of CP. It can be frustrating, especially since some of the residents that show such negativity and disdain are of the second generation of Italian immigrants who were in those same shoes less than 100 years ago.

[loftguy]

It's entirely possible that the existing neighborhood doesn't want any higher density than what's proposed. You can't ignore that.

You can ignore that. It's done all the time. City leaders do have an obligation to listen to constituents, but also to balance neighborhood wishes with the financial future of the City.

If you read my post, I conceded to the neighborhood that building heights should be stepped down from 3rd Street to 5th Street from a max of 10-stories to 3-stories. A 6-10 story building is not that big in the context of things--especially near downtown and a streetcar line. There are four 11-story apt. buildings on Quality Hill. There used to be six.

The question I would ask Columbus Park residents is why is it okay for Quality Hill residents to "endure" a 10-story building, and they must not?

Why is is okay to have an 8-story building at 3rd and Oak, and not 3rd and Cherry, or Holmes?

http://tinyurl.com/otswa65

Residents in houses on W. 49th Terrace on the Plaza pay a lot more property taxes than anyone in Columbus Park on their homes. Why must they endure an 18-story building in their neighborhood?

http://tinyurl.com/oo3lnat

I would wager that if you polled any resident in the City about building ANY building in their neighborhood, the vast majority would not want a three-story house build next to their house. Even though there are three-story houses already in their neighborhood. I would also wager that at least 60 percent of residents would never approve ANY type of house design being built on their block if they had veto power. The reason is because you are never going to please everyone.

In fact, I would also bet that Columbus Park residents would be perfectly happy if those parcels north of 5th Street were NEVER developed, and allowed to return to a bucolic, natural grassy meadow.

I don't get my way all the time. I often advocate for saving old buildings on this site, and with City officials, and I have been disappointed. I didn't want the Law Building torn down. I didn't want the Grand Opera House demolished. In the early days of the Power & Light District development, I advocated to preserve the TWA Training Building on 13th and Baltimore. I advocated to save several of the other older buildings in that district, and design around them. I advocated to save the Marion Green Restaurant Building near Oppenheimer Park. I advocated saving the Fire History Museum Building on Cherry between 10th and 11th streets. I didn't get my way.

Residents are always bitching about street and sidewalk maintenance, police protection, trash dumping, abandoned buildings that need demolished. However, they don't understand how one pays for these things. The math is urban density that provides tax revenue. It's that simple. It's the price we must now pay to be 315 square miles of city, and have the same population we had when the city was half that size.

Another simple truth is that single family houses don't cover the costs to run the City. Not by a long shot. The City is supported by multi-tenant apartment buildings, larger office buildings, retail buildings, vehicle sale taxes, tax revenues from hotels and car rentals, sales taxes on goods and services, and earnings taxes paid by KCMO residents, and non-KCMO workers living in other parts of the Metro.

Again, if we ever lose the earnings tax. The city is going to be in a world of hurt because of this density problem.

You can bet on one thing. If Cerner had wanted to erect a campus of several 20-story buildings along both sides of E. 3rd Street from Cherry to Guinotte, the wishes of Columbus Park residents wouldn't measure in the calculation. City leaders would approve it before the sun went down.

One intellectual exercise one might entertain is this. If all the single historic parcels in the Columbus Park Development were sold one-by-one to individual owners to build an urban townhouse, side-by-side, the neighborhood residents would have no say on what that individual built, or input into the decision as long as city zoning guidelines were met. No input. Nada.

Under this scenario, individuals might erect a Victorian townhouse next to a shotgun house next to a modern steel and glass rowhouse next to a spanish colonial house next to a hippy-dippy wookie house next to a stone hobbit house.

If I bought an individual lot say on the corner of Troost and E. 5th, I could build a townhouse made of glass, steel, and distressed iron metal facade, and the neighboring property owner would have no say in the matter as long as I met city guidelines for that lot (setbacks, etc.). The neighbor might be horrified by my choice, but would have no say.

Forumers: If you are new to urban planning, be sure to read this in full. Thanks Fang.

[loftguy]

"If I'd listened to customers, I'd have given them a faster horse. -Henry Ford"

[flyingember]

it's not the scale, it's the scope that matters

look at the class NYC street scene. it's residential above commercial, even when that residential is only 2-3 stories worth. street-level is where the quality of a project is at.

like there's nothing wrong with having short single family a private garage if done right. The homes at 5th and Oak aren't wonderful but they have their front door at street level and the garage is hidden behind on an alley

[pash]

.

[taxi]

I'd like to invite those forumers who would like to voice their opinions on such matters to the CP neighborhood meeting.
This Wednesday- January 28 at 7:00 PM at the Don Bosco Sr. Center (580 Campbell Street.)
On the agenda:
The Columbus Park Developers (the development site at 5th and Charlotte) will present their upcoming construction schedule.

[smh]

So what's a person to do when the City has all sorts of property zoned B1-1 or B1-2, etc.? This type of zoning by its terms limits the density of mixed-use buildings. Such limits require either relatively low density projects (depending on lot size, I suppose) or a trip to BZA to begin the variance process, at which point you've opened yourself to the NIMBYs.

[taxi]

Almost every new development receives incentives and in order to get those, the City requires (blackmails?) them into rezoning for their specified usage. It used to be called URD (Urban Redevlopment District) but I think it now has a new name. Same deal, though.

This entire area of roughly 20 acres has been rezoned as to its development plan and requires an amendment if there are any significant changes.

After so many years of empty promises, combined with a poor economy, the CP residents are excited to see something finally happen.

[FangKC]

smh, the only thing one can do is to contact city leaders, or appear at meetings, and discuss changing zoning and density levels. The major argument is that density levels that are too low are actually working against the stated goals of the City--to increase population in greater downtown to encourage retail, employers, and vibrancy to return.

The other basic argument to make with city leaders is the math argument I stated about how we pay for things in our city, and how we currently cannot provide the city services and infrastructure maintenance that residents complain about--or that they might prefer. I would also continue to explain to them that the reason so many retail operations fail in our city, and we are left with empty shopping plazas that the city then has to give incentives to redevelop, is because of our low density levels. That there is not enough population close by to support the business.

If you have the proper density levels in a neighborhood, you don't have to give incentives to keep the retail spots filled. Business will take care of that on their own. If the business fails because it was the wrong concept for the space, or was badly mismanaged, the space will get filled in a short time on its' own. The landlord and/or tenant will pay to renovate the space for the new function.

I really do believe that many of the people who serve in elected City leadership don't understand urban planning principles, and don't take the time to educate themselves on their own. They don't understand how to maximize city revenue per square mile, and how higher density levels in one part of the city support lower density neighborhoods that don't pay their own way.

This is why you are seeing towns like Raytown, Merriam, Roeland Park and Mission in the place they are/were in. They were primarily suburban residential suburbs with single family houses. The SFHs don't provide enough revenue to support services. That is why Mission is so screwed right now with the lack of progress of the Mission Gateway development. No revenue is coming from that site.

It's also why Roeland Park will be in trouble when the Wal-Mart moves to Mission Gateway. They will lose a major source of revenue that they will have to figure out how to replace. They can't expand their borders like KC has done in the past to pull in revenue from new development. But even if you can expand your borders, it's only a short-term solution. You are just adding more infrastructure and city services (police, fire) costs to the budget that are not covered by SFH property tax revenues. The density levels in the Northland (at Antioch Mall and Metro North Mall), and in South Kansas City (at Bannister Mall), were not dense enough to support those malls. Now the city is giving subsidies to redevelop those sites--even though there is still a lot of raw land around them, and they weren't that old when compared to other parts of the city.

It's not a good way to run a city in the long run.

I must also repeat my concern about losing the city earnings tax. We have to vote on that every few years now. If that happened, it would be very hard for the city to make up the revenue loss. We would be in trouble. It would probably force a raise in taxes of all kinds on current residents and businesses. That would be a disaster for the city because it would place us at even more a competitive disadvantage to suburban areas--and especially Kansas now that they have dropped their tax rates.