Martini Corner near 31st/Gilham

[moderne]

This is a rare building that should be torn down. The site is large enough for a decent sized modern 4-5 floor stick built over concrete garage. This block of Gilham Plaza has a nice pedestrian ambiance. An actual boulevard in terms of very wide sidewalk set back from street with wide tree panting strip. Sorta wasted on what is there now.

[KCtoBrooklyn]

I get what you are saying, but I don't think it's economically feasible for a teardown. They are asking $6M for it, which is definitely worth more than the lot. It is a large, seemingly solid building that has value to someone.

There was this quote from Exact in a BizJournal article a while ago:

If we’re successful in acquiring and partnering on a few of the other large-format buildings, we think this could be a hub for music, live entertainment, indoor volleyball, pickleball and things like that,” Buland said. “What you’re going to see is there’s more energetic uses that come now that we’ve stabilized it and added a lot of housing. ...

I think this warehouse might be the "large-format" building they were discussing.

Perhaps the single-story section fronting Gillham Plaza could be demolished and replaced with something larger and nicer. Or maybe a couple additional stories could be added on top, or at the least a rooftop deck/amenities.

[FangKC]

Devoured Pizza Opening Permanent Spot in Martini Corner

Devoured Pizza, which began during the Covid pandemic as a backyard operation for friends and family, plans to open a permanent space in Martini Corner within the next six months.

Devoured plans to open a 20-seat place in the same building that houses Made in KC and Ludo’s at 325 E. 31st St.
...

https://cityscenekc.com/devoured-pizza- ... 244tl0VI7k

[FangKC]

Construction fences have been put up for the Levy project at 31st and Gillham. Good to see this taking the first visible step of progress.

The Velvet Freeze building is almost completely demolished now.

[herrfrank]

^ Just saw this

Why were the preservationists not interested in saving Velvet Freeze (northeast corner 31st/ Gillham)? That building stood for a full century, and was a contributing, historic structure, built right to the sidewalks.

[Sirius_Blue]

^ Just saw this

Why were the preservationists not interested in saving Velvet Freeze (northeast corner 31st/ Gillham)? That building stood for a full century, and was a contributing, historic structure, built right to the sidewalks.

I don't think it was kept up at all. Heard it was severely deteriorated inside.

[bspecht]

There is a proposal to build 18 townhomes (slated to be rentals) on the vacant lots on Oak St, between 31st and Linwood. This was most recently the shipping container staging area.

I noticed yesterday that these lots are being graded, so it looks like work is getting close to starting on these. Parcel Viewer has a flurry of activity on the lots recently; 31Oak is now being described as having 16 townhouses.

This project was quiet for a while, but has picked up some activity in the past few weeks. The project name has changed yet again to "Martini Flats" and while there aren't any renderings for this iteration of the project, the area will now be subdivided into only 12 lots.

Bunch basically shot this down in NPD complaining it wasn't the highest and best use of the property (vacant for 40 years), given the 10yr/100% abatement (to the buyers) – teamed up with MPH complaints that site is not blighted & homes will be ~$600K.

Advanced with Do Not Pass, tomorrow will be interesting.

KC's complete lack of development vision/guidelines strikes another developer in the urban core.

[CrossroadsUrbanApts]

Setting aside whether or not this is the highest and best use for the site, I agree that the lack of clarity on how projects will be evaluated continues to be a big impediment. This is a bit complicated because the committee did not reject the project but only the tax incentive request (developer could build the 12 homes by right). But that is splitting hairs because at this moment, there are few projects - especially small, infill projects - that can be built without tax incentives. So rejecting incentives is equivalent to rejecting the development, and the property stays vacant for years until someone else wants to take a swing at it. But what developer wants to spend the tens of thousands (or more) dollars to design a project that is then subject to the apparent whims of a few council members?

In this particular case, it may be the case that the developer did an exceptionally poor job of outreach to the council and explaining why incentives are justified. Or failed to generate enough community support to give the CMs reason to support it.

But I think there is a chilling effect on small developers who may want to take a chance on a small infill project when the rules of the development and incentive process are so discretionary as to make any given result a total guessing game. That leaves only the largest and most well-connected developers able to operate in the city.

[bspecht]

EDC was there to support at CPC and NPDC – seems like Bob Long might rub everyone on those committees the wrong way, deserved or not. Apparently there is no neighborhood for the parcel.

Bunch clearly sees a much different urban context than I do for this plat, which is surprising because he voted for the rezoning and area plan amendment to get to this density for the parcel last year. Now has he stated and tweeted at me this should be 100+ units, which I'd be in favor of, but I'm not sure that's a reality for this lot anytime soon.

So NPDC gets to make up their own rules on a weekly basis – another empty parcel for all! Who needs more homeownership in the core anyways?
___

Also, tons of talk about how this area/Union Hill is doing so great with development in the meetings – can they really not see the 80%+ of the land still needs to be redeveloped? Treating all development land in the urban core like it's precious is a joke right now.

Give people clear paths to build and maybe you won't have to abate them all the time, not this development black box of a City Hall.

[Jblanco]

Bunch basically shot this down in NPD complaining it wasn't the highest and best use of the property (vacant for 40 years), given the 10yr/100% abatement (to the buyers) – teamed up with MPH complaints that site is not blighted & homes will be ~$600K.

Advanced with Do Not Pass, tomorrow will be interesting.

KC's complete lack of development vision/guidelines strikes another developer in the urban core.

Vacant eyesore lots for 40 years earning the city NOTHING except for BLIGHT and crime!
But bringing in 18 home-owning, tax paying families is evil because they make too much money!
Bunch is looking to get paid off under the table. These sick Democrat degenerates will use every single scam they can.

[bspecht]

Please take politics to the thread for it, Jblanco.

Council voted down 13-0 the blight designation without any debate, I guess we'll see if it gets built without abatement. Developer lives right across the street in Union Hill fwiw.

[moderne]

Any post with "sick degenerates" in it automatically makes me want to disregard it. It is hard to call this level clear land "blighted" when there has been so much private and public investment all around it. If some thing cannot get built by it's own merit here, something is really wrong with how the economics work.

[TheSmokinPun]

Please take politics to the thread for it, Jblanco.

Council voted down 13-0 the blight designation without any debate, I guess we'll see if it gets built without abatement. Developer lives right across the street in Union Hill fwiw.

He's only ever political. It's gotten quite annoying.

[Chris Stritzel]

I tend to agree that this isn't the highest and best use of land, but if the land as been vacant for 40+ years, why even be opposed to for-sale townhomes? With interest rates and material costs, it's a wonder that this was even creeping forward.

If the market conditions proved that for-sale townhouses would work, they should be built. But if they want a higher usage for this land, then it might be a while longer. If I were the developer pushed into this situation, I'd sit on the land until Exact's project is completed nearby and the Levy building is complete. Depending on the success of those, I would only then consider proposing something of higher density on this land. If home sales are strong, I might consider a condo building (or a few smaller ones) on the land.

The problem lies solely with a bloated bureaucracy that prevents progress when necessary. Rules need to be changed to allow by-right developments. The Planning Commission, if they approve of a project, should allow it to be immediately approved without needing to go to Council.

[Critical_Mass]

To be clear: the townhouses were scrapped. This project is now 12 detached single family houses on 35 to 40 foot lots. A rezone from manufacturing to R-1.5 was already approved and they have approval on the preliminary plat for 12 lots. They can build this by-right. Only a blight designation was denied which was needed for another rezone to UR to get the tax abatement (100% / 10yr). The abatement does not make the houses cheaper to build. They would only be a nice perk transferred to buyers where they'd save the ~$5k (?) annually on their property taxes for a decade. Are SFHs a tough sell in the city right now where we'd want to incentivize them for buyers?

[Highlander]

To be clear: the townhouses were scrapped. This project is now 12 detached single family houses on 35 to 40 foot lots. A rezone from manufacturing to R-1.5 was already approved and they have approval on the preliminary plat for 12 lots. They can build this by-right. Only a blight designation was denied which was needed for another rezone to UR to get the tax abatement (100% / 10yr). The abatement does not make the houses cheaper to build. They would only be a nice perk transferred to buyers where they'd save the ~$5k (?) annually on their property taxes for a decade. Are SFHs a tough sell in the city right now where we'd want to incentivize them for buyers?

Is this the location?

If so, not sure I'd bite given the high per foot cost of new construction juxtaposed against the ugly backside of a building just across the street.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Maywe ... ?entry=ttu

[Critical_Mass]

That is the location. I agree the property across the street does not make this location an easy sell, nor does the pawn shop, 7-11, and other junk on Linwood. Does that make this land blighted? I don't know, but I don't think a tax abatement moves the needle much in attracting buyers.

[moderne]

Everyone should like this: the SFHs will have garage entrances via rear alley. No curb cuts on Oak. I think they will have no trouble selling. The little neighborhood tucked in to the west has seen quite an appreciable raise in value and desirability in the past years.

[bspecht]

Rear alley was not in original plans but required by City Planning (good). Full alley reconstruction was to be paid for by developer, guess we'll see if it happens.

[swid]

It looks like the first steps of re-making Martini Corner may be starting. An application for the rooftop deck at Sol Cantina has been submitted:

https://compasskc.kcmo.org/EnerGov_Prod ... b=moreinfo

This project is back again for the Barrio building addition portion; there will be a public meeting for it next Thursday.