OFFICIAL: East Village downtown neighborhood

[lock+load]

The Law Building was demolished a couple years ago.  Sorry for the confusion.  Obviously, the city had been after it for a while.

[FangKC]

Just shows how stupid some City leaders have been in the past.  Four of those five buildings on that list have been redeveloped and reused in the six years since the clearing of those other buildings. Three for needed housing.

Demolishing the larger hotel buildings on those blocks, and the YMCA, was foolish in my opinion. And for what?  A strip of mall few people use or occupy except the homeless.  That mall generates no revenue. It doesn't even supply underground parking with a deck mall on top.

The City should have just purchased those buildings and placed some of them on the National Register. Then it could have packaged them for a developer with state and federal historic tax credits (45% of renovation costs), a limited HUD component (say 10 percent of apartments), and also TIFed renovation of those buildings. Even though the City would have had reduced or no revenue for a number of years, at least additional housing would have been created with residents there paying sales taxes, and the parcels would eventually have come back on the tax rolls.

[moderne]

The Cherry St Inn is coming down now on the south side.  As I recall the Davis Mall was demanded by the Federal Court for locating in the area.  Otherwise the Whitaker Courthouse might be elsewhere, not in the loop.

[FangKC]

Did the City even suggest renovating the buildings there instead of tearing them down?  I can't see the Federal Courts demanding a grassy mall just because.  If it was just unsightly buildings, drug use and vagrants, that could have been remedied with a neighborhood renovation project.

Had I been the mayor, I would have simply replied to them: "Are you advocating that we tear down ALL the buildings around you just to please you?  Especially in light of the fact that we already have an abundance of surface parking lots to build the courthouse on?"

As mayor, I would have been more than willing to assemble the properties on those blocks--using eminent domain--for the purpose of finding developers to renovate them, and lobbied hard for the money to do it.

The next thing I would have done is put a call into our Congressional delegation, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (which oversees the federal courts), and suggested they either need to put a rein on the Federal Courts administration and GSA bureaucrats (if involved) for demanding anti-urban demolition policies, or the Feds should cough up some money for neighborhood rejuvenation projects to help please the Federal Courthouse people.

Then I would have gone on television and played a little public hardball by telling Kansas Citians that the federal courts are pressuring us into more urban demolition land clearance schemes even though history has shown they have hurt urban business districts, eradicated housing, and that plenty of existing cleared land exists downtown already. I would have asked residents to contact their congressional leaders and asked them to intervene.

Then I would have publically asked the Federal Courts administration people to explain why it was in the interest of Kansas City to clear more land when plenty of  cleared surface parking lots existed downtown; explained why it was important to preserve building stock and renovate it; and why it was important for the federal courts to remain in the downtown business district and choose an existing site there. I would have also asked residents to complain about federal agencies using blackmail threats of moving elsewhere to hurt cities instead of helping to rebuild them. That it was bad public policy.

The whole purpose of doing this would be to have built up a public backlash to the federal courts requiring demolition instead of reuse of existing buildings, and against the practice of these agencies threatening to move outside the business district when it's in the public's interest for them to stay there. I would have explained how this is hurting cities more than helping them.

[aknowledgeableperson]

The city had unofficial plans for that park that went back to the early 90's.  The courthouse was just the thing to get it off the back burner.

[knucklehead]

Personnally, I supported tearing down the old buildings to make Illus Davis Park. The area was very spotty and dotted with surface parking to begin with.

[moderne]

I and my neighbors use this park quite often.  It is well used at lunchtimes, with people exercising and playing soccer.  I believe when East Village is up and running it will be the playground for thousands. I love how the architects for Whitaker tried to bookend the architecture of City Hall on the other end.  One of my favorite views of downtown is from the park at 10th and locust.  Here there is a great cluster of density and you can see how Kansas City Place incorporates both the architectural profiles of City Hall and the Bryant building.

[NDgravy]

Looks like the GSA is leaning heavily towards the East Village.  With another major office on the East side of downtown, the area really should be coming along.

On another note, before the article, does anyone know start dates for the East Village project?  How long before incentives will be doled out so that development starts?  It would be nice to get this on line after the P&L District starts creating a lot of buzz in the community, so in the fall of '08 and spring '09 seem like a good time for condos and townhomes to be coming on the market.

East Village is the leader as federal building site
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/business/16839941.htm


By KEVIN COLLISON
The Kansas City Star

Whatever horse race there might have been over where a new federal office building may go downtown appears to be all but over.

Supporters of a proposed East Village site have enlisted powerful endorsements, and both finalists in the mayoral campaign support that location vs. building on the riverfront.

Some background: The General Services Administration wants to relocate remaining agencies from the Bannister Federal Complex and consolidate them with other federal workers in a new downtown facility. The building could be as big as 700,000 square feet and accommodate up to 2,000 workers.

It’s a smaller version of the $370 million deal that brought the new Internal Revenue Service Processing Center to a site near Union Station. That 1.1 million-square-foot facility opened last fall and employs up to 6,000 workers in tax season.

The Downtown Council and the Kansas City Area Transportation Authority recently approved resolutions supporting an East Village site. The East Village, a 12-block redevelopment plan that includes the new headquarters of J.E. Dunn Construction Co. and up to 800 residences, has set aside a two-block site between Cherry and Charlotte streets from 10th to 12th streets for the fed project.

The ATA and Downtown Council believe an East Village site will increase employment density in the downtown loop to help other major investments succeed like the Power & Light District, and also be much better served by mass transit.

The ATA said it is planning a second bus rapid transit route along Troost Avenue to directly serve the East Village. The authority currently has no bus route that serves Berkley Riverfront Park. The Port Authority of Kansas City has pitched a site next to the park for the proposed federal facility.

Brad Scott, GSA regional director, said things should be heating up on planning for a potential office building come April. Scott said the resolutions from the Downtown Council and ATA are keys.

“They’re important and influential organizations with a strong constituency,” he said.

Vincent Gauthier, the Port Authority executive director, is still fighting for the riverfront.

“We’re trying to get the message out there … about our sustainable riverfront development approach, and the federal project would be appropriate for it,” he said.

Both Alvin Brooks and Mark Funkhouser told a recent forum they would support an East Village location. The mayoral candidates parted company, however, in how hungry they would be to attract the facility.

As with the IRS deal, it would be a private development that would lease the building to the GSA. The IRS project required $120 million in state and city tax increment financing.

A similar, albeit smaller, incentive commitment will likely be required, Scott said.

“We’re anxious to work with the incoming mayor because this is something that will require city support,” he said.

Brooks expressed city support without reservations for the potential building.

Funkhouser said that any deal would have to meet an incentive formula that would calculate the overall impact to the city economy.

[chrizow]

sounds great.  i still wish they could put more than 800 residents in a 12-block area, but whatever.

[KC ROO]

There are a few other potential amendments to the East Village plan which could include the construction of another skyscraper, studies are currently being conducted to determine if the market could support this potential building and what would inhabit it.

[lock+load]

Am I the only one disturbed by the four whole blocks they plan to use for this GSA facility?  Talk about neighborhood killer.

[voltopt]

So the 700,000 sf GSA building would take up four square blocks?  Does that mean they would close 11th street?  Because that would be bad for connection to future development further east, amongst other things.

Where is the actual "East Village"

ie:

[KCTigerFan]

Just a guess here, but I would think that if it really is four blocks that would include parking garage(s) as well.  I don't think they would cut off access to 11th, but I could see them cutting off Holmes for a blokc to accomodate the office complex itself.  If it really is going to sprawl over four blocks that wouldn't give it much height would it?   

[LenexatoKCMO]

Am I the only one disturbed by the four whole blocks they plan to use for this GSA facility?  Talk about neighborhood killer.

Four blocks that will be completely dead for all but eight hours of the day just like everything else there now.  What a let down - so much for the idea of the east side of the loop developing residential and other after 5:00 uses.  There ought to be room left for what - about a block of apartments?  I hope the folks moving in enjoy the peace, quiet, and undetterred drug addicts. 

[ComandanteCero]

I don't like how this is shaping up at all.  It's strange Collison said it was a two block site, but then described a four block site.  Eyeballing it via google maps, four blocks is pretty close to what the IRS building takes up, and the GSA is supposed to have 25% less office space (not to mention the IRS site also has that swathe of green space along its western side).  This sounds like a low rise monster superblock.

Ideal plan?  High rise on roughly half a block, with underground parking.  Probability: yeah right.  But if built it would probably be around the same height as the HR Block HQ, which would be a nice highlight in the skyline in that area, and also not be overwhelming for surrounding lower buildings.  The East Village developers could also try to look to the P+L site plan for an idea of how to integrate some retail and residential in and around the building on that same block.

Compromise?   Mid rise on a full block, with parking on an adjacent block (not continuous, i.e there is a street between the two), building would probably look something like the Federal Reserve, in terms of bulk/height.  The parking garage could have some ground level retail, and serve area residents at night.

Unacceptable? Present plan spanning four blocks.... ok i know it's early to just blast it without any renderings or site plan.  But it seems silly to take up four blocks of what we hope to be prime real estate, on one office building project. 

[ComandanteCero]

no one is arguing against the GSA locating downtown.  It's pretty strange how whenever anyone makes a design criticism, people pull out the "well it's better than nothing!" argument.  It's a tired argument that only works to sustain and perpetuate mediocrity.

[Highlander]

Dead? Like east loop surface lot "dead"?
Or 9th & Walnut "dead"?
Or maybe 16th & Main "dead"?

700,000 sq. ft... that's bigger than City Center Square and H&R Block - GREAT!
Does everyone really expect that every single corner of downtown KC will ever be retail and residential vibrant? I don't think it's possible here. We need thousands of more workers and residents downtown. GSA/East Village will do both, now let's keep the momentum going and fill up the hundreds of OTHER surface lots downtown instead of complaining about this great investment.

When I drive through Quality Hill I don't see dense vibrancy nor do I see alot of retail. The retail is to the east, the further west you walk it's all residential. Why are people expecting the East Village to become the next Grenwich Village?

If you do, you are fooling yourself. GSA's 2000 workers will eat, play (P&L) and entertain at Sprint Center after work. I'd rather have them here than anywhere else. Also, this project will definitely make the residential design density of the East Village to go upward.

Hopefully a percentage of the 2000 workers will choose to live downtown near thier work. Isn't that really what we should be hoping for rather than a huge downtown that has a little struggling, sprawled retail here and there? GSA increases the amount of people in the East Village and those people will go to P&L and Sprint Center - IMO that's exactly what we need.

Agreed.  I'd rather have the GSA go upwards on a smaller footprint but if its a choice of relatively low density or nothing, I'd take the lower density.  I just ask for something with a good design unlike the IRS complex....this is a far more visible location.

What people don't realize is that we could be trying for the next 20 years to accumulate 2000 additional workers downtown, why would you not want this project.  Downtown has great momentum right now but it's almost all publically funded with a few residential projects thrown in to boot.  DT needs workers and needs them badly, I'd rather have Microsoft HQ's than the GSA but you got to take advantage of what is available.  There is no shortage of undeveloped space downtown, we have unfortunately decades in front of us until that is a problem.    

[LenexatoKCMO]

Agreed.  I'd rather have the GSA go upwards on a smaller footprint but if its a choice of relatively low density or nothing,

Yeah but the choice isn't "or nothing".  The original plan was to add a major amount of residential and after 5 activity to a part of town that currently has virtually zero residential or after five activity and has suffered badly because of it.  I would have no problem with the GSA being added to the project if it had minimal impact on the residential and other uses part of the project which are desperately needed- but its effect is apparently going to gut those uses.  When I say I am upset by the direction this has taken, its not because I wanted things to stay surface lots like it is presently - its because I wanted someone to be over in that part of town past 6PM that isn't looking to score some smack or sell their snatch - apparently that was too much to hope for. 

[lock+load]

I come right out and say I'd rather see no GSA at all downtown if it is going to be a four block monstrosity.  The east loop is prime space for redevelopment.  If we blow it with some asshat four block suburban government bunker, that space is no longer available for redevelopment for possibly 50+ years.   Come on people, let's think a little further out than the next 6 months to a year.  If this comes to fruition as described today, the East Village will be a complete failure.   More employees downtown is great, but alone will not do much to increase the vibrancy or downtown.  I'd venture to guess that each new resident has 5-10 times as much impact on downtown as every new office worker, commuting from the suburbs by himself and requiring a parking spot from 8-5.  The GSA would be a great addition, but thy need to contain it to one block maximum, parking and office space.

[NDgravy]

I think that the important thing to think about, before everyone gets their panties in a wad, is that we are almost all completely speculating on the end design here.  Who says that there won't be a lot of ground level retail?  I currently work in downtown Chicago and there are several buildings with nicer restaurants and even a few bars in the Loop that are part of the first floor of major office complexes.  There are nicer retail options and many some of the nice restaurants are full at night (which is partly due to the downtown theater scene - cue the Sprint Center and other downtown coming attractions for this part).  Yes, most of the offices here in Chicago go straight up into the sky and are not sprawling, but who says that there won't at least be ground level retail on 50% of the ground level.  Also, some worker's do hang out in their surrounding area at the end of the work day to catch dinner or a drink.  They also grab coffee in the morning and lunch at noon.  That is 3 times a day that will give the area better retail appeal.  800 people can't support that on their own.  having the extra 2000 workers downtown will allow businesses to open while those 800 people are also at work (unless they are all going to be unemployed, which means the neighborhood might struggle just a bit anyway).  I am reserving judgement on the design until after I see something.  And I am also going to wait until it is actually announced before I pounce on the GSA and developers of the area (this is just an artiicle by Collison claiming that the GSA is all but wrapped up to end up in the East Village).

Anyway... Here is hoping that the design is to everyone's liking, when it finally comes out.