Downtown Retail

[aknowledgeableperson]

"About 40 percent of KCMO housing units have only one person living in them. It isn't just apartments"

And what is the percentage for individual living spaces in the downtown area? Let's see. How many living spaces are coming online in the next two years? Say 2,000. And if there are 1.2 residents per space that would be 2,400 new residents. Percentage wise to the current population that may be a big jump but it wouldn't make that much of a difference number wise to add a lot more retail.

[pash]

.

[pash]

.

[Eon Blue]

Don't forget the need to support the retail we already have. Even if something is less than optimal, choosing that option now will show the demand that may lead something better to come.

[chingon]

KC's neighborhoods of single-family houses could support more than 6,000 people per square mile, a pretty decent density. But we don't have anywhere close to that.

That's actually a little less than the density of the RCP corridor as it exists now. Not that we are really disagreeing on the substance of the argument (that KC is not densely populated enough, almost anywhere in the city, including the core), and I'm simultaneously sensitive to your point about cherry-picking, but also aware enough that KC (and StL, as well) is one of the absolute most severe examples of the 2 downtowns phenomenon I can think of, they also both have more extensive industrial districts adjacent to downtown than many peers.

I remain convinced that KC's near term density/urbanity/walkability woes are best solved by extensive infill (primarily of single family homes) in decimated single family neighborhoods and a focus on multi family dwellings in the RCP corridor.

[pash]

.

[JBmidtown]

KC may very well never reach that level of density barring some miraculous explosion of employers moving to the center city and bringing workers with them. That may fuel demand for infill development both single family and multifamily. Even then I don't think it's likely we'll ever see KC's population top 12000 psm around the CBD and even that will probably not happen for awhile.

[chingon]

Again, I don't think we are disagreeing on the principle, and I but...those are weighed densities, right? Weighted densities do not include water. Fully 1/2 of the 3 mile radius around city hall is unpopulated land. Much of it is industrial, or floodplain, there's an airport, it includes a huge downtown park (can't remember if parkland is accounted for in weighted density or not), etc.

None of which is to say KC is as dense as Milwaukee (which quite apart from being any kind of "Midwestern paragon" is actually one of the densest cities in the Midwest and indeed, the nation) or Baltimore. But if 10,000 ppm is the initial goal, and it seems a fair one, for the RCP corridor, that's would mean adding about 45K residents to the corridor. It bears noting that even with all the vacancy and blight, much of inner KCK and Northeast are in the 8,000-9,000 ppm range, and they are both single family dominated neighborhoods. A combination of dense, or even KC-historic sized single family infill and concentrated multi family in the RCP corridor is a very, very viable way to accommodate that increase, though creating the demand will only happen with job creation or some kind of unlikely boom.

So I'm not sure what we are disagreeing about...

[pash]

.

[JBmidtown]

It would be interesting to

1) set up parameters for an urban core area set at the Missouri River in the north, 75th st to the south, state line to the west and Prospect to the east (or maybe further east).

And

2) collect all surface lots, empty lots, abandoned or under utilized property (like storage units and suburban type development like the car wash and car lots around Linwood, etc).

And

3) come up with a hypothetical median development for these lots. For example let's say each lot is filled with a multi family structure with an average of around 25-35 units.

If each unit in the hypothetical structure was filled with the average of 1.7 persons households how much would this impact the ppsm of density in the area? Would it be significant enough to increase demand for new retail in the urban core? Or would the concentration of single family still ofset any benefit of this multi family infill?

There's still a substantial stock of under utilized land that isn't occupied by single family structures. I'm just curious: if the neighborhood associations aren't moved to allow single to multi family conversions will development of these outlier lots would have a useful increase in population density on their own?

I would compile this information on my own but I dont know how to get the parcel viewer to work on my crap phone OR computer. So I guess this is a challenge.

[FangKC]

This is why I say it will be a struggle to increase population density to a level that make the City healthy enough to generate more revenue for maintenance and services, as well as retail. The demographics of so many single-living households living in mostly single-family houses, and the historic inexperience residents have with higher-density living, also make it very hard to establish that density.

Residents don't equate this with lack of revenue for city maintenance and services. No one wants their property taxes raised but they also don't want to allow higher density that could make up some revenue, and keep their property taxes as they are now.

Yet, at the same time, they complain about lack of retail, vacant houses, overgrow lots, dumping, lack of snow removal, lack of code enforcement, repairing streets and sewers, etc., while at the same time doing everything possible to prevent apartment buildings from being constructed, or even a new single family house on a vacant lot that isn't to their taste.

It almost begs the question if the City should put something on a ballot for voters to pick: Do you want to have your property taxes raised significantly, or do you want to allow for denser urban development that increases population density? I really don't know what they would pick.

The City's earnings tax has sort of allowed this question to remain unanswered for many years, because if the earning tax were ever to go away, this would eventually become the choice KCMO would face.

I don't think people realize how much better if would be for the City to have some neighborhoods that were primarily rowhouses with shared walls, with a small back courtyard. There are many people that would realize how much easier their lives would be. Many people don't like doing yard work, or that don't have the time for it. Many seniors have to hire it done when they can no longer do it. Rowhouses also have less maintenance cost if they have two shared walls that don't require painting or tucking. A two-or three-story rowhouse would probably have a much smaller roof surface to maintain compared to a single family ranch house, so it would would be cheaper to install a new roof for that property owner.

The other approach that could be taken is how rowhouses, townhouses, or condos are assessed for property taxes. Let say the same sq. footage and resale value of those units would be taxed significantly less than a single family home with a yard. There would be built in tax savings if one opted to live in a housing unit that was in a higher density situation. A $200,000 rowhouse would be taxed significantly less than a $200,000 single family house with a yard. This alone might encourage retired seniors to move out of large single family houses into a rowhouse, townhouse, or condo--especially ones on fixed incomes.

Kansas City has a lot of unproductive space. It's not just parking lots, wooded areas, and flood plains with industrial buildings where there is no housing. Many parts of the City and Metro have house lots with huge yards--both front and back. Even considering those households with children, how many of those do you actually see kids out playing in the yard? Kids today stay inside and watch TV and play video games. I would wager that if you hired people to sit and audit yard usage in our Metro, you would find that yards are actually not used much at all. My neighbor never uses his back yard. I never see him out there except when he mows it. He has a wife and daughter living with him, and two sons who are out of the house. One son has a child. When my neighbor has a family get together, they sit on their driveway and front porch. I have never seen his family using the back yard in the 8 years I've lived here.

I don't really "use" my backyard either. I have a small garden out back, and otherwise I just mow it. I could have a lot half the size and still have my house, driveway, front and back deck, and if the house was pushed closer to the street still have room for a garden out back. In fact, since I've lived here, I have been doing landscaping projects simply to reduce the amount of yard I mow. If I didn't have so many utility lines criss-crossing my yard, I'd turn the back half of it into a wooded area.

I know that my house lot and yard are too big. I certainly don't enjoy mowing it each week. I could get by with a lot less yard, or even no yard--thus rowhouse.

I have a 1025 sq. foot one-story house with one car garage. Two-bedrooms, one bath, utility room. No basement. My lot is 6,969 sq. feet.

I could easily take the same footprint of my one-story house, and have three houses on my lot and still have room for each house to have a one-car garage, some yard, and a small deck or patio. I could also have no shared walls, and private fenced space. I also don't have the largest of lots. There are many house lots in KCMO that are larger.

If I had the same sq. footage house, but it was two-stories instead of one, my lot could handle attached five rowhouses or townhouses -- each with a one-car garage and still have private outdoor space and a small yard. The sq. footage could be even larger if the houses had a small basement.

Now I am not advocating that all of KCMO be this way, or even a majority of it. There is room to still have single family houses with yards. I am just saying that we could devote some portion of our city to higher density housing, and that housing could still provide people with amenities like a private garage for their car, a small place to garden or have landscaping, and also an outdoor patio or deck. You could even have a fenced yard for your dog to roam.

There are areas where this type of density could be implemented--like Paseo West and neighborhoods east of it on both sides of I-70. My preference is that Beacon Hill would have been zoned that way as well instead of allowing new single family houses. The location of that neighborhood would have made it ideal.

The goal of having more of the City be higher density housing is that it would in essence subsidize more of the cost of low-density neighborhoods. Having areas of higher density housing spread out among neighborhoods all over the City would also increase the likelihood that retail could be supported within that neighborhood to a greater extent.

There are corridors where even higher density apartment buildings -- like along Armour Boulevard are warranted. It would make sense to zone parts of 18th Street, Main, Broadway, Linwood, 31st Street, Troost, Independence Avenue, and stretches of Paseo in this manner. There are small areas like along Southwest Trafficway where it would make sense as well--like south of Penn Valley Community College. Doing this would also allow us to run streetcar lines on those corridors.

Example:

[beautyfromashes]

^^^ I'd take the tax increase.

[beautyfromashes]

While density is important to revitalization of the city, I think that the changing demographic of the typical urban resident will also allow for more development. With increasing house values and more families seeing the urban core as a viable place to raise a family there will be more disposable income for retail development and this will draw new shopping opportunities. Of course, at some point, we will start to hear about the cost of living in the city becoming too expensive for lower income and older residents.

[earthling]

While density is important to revitalization of the city, I think that the changing demographic of the typical urban resident will also allow for more development. With increasing house values and more families seeing the urban core as a viable place to raise a family there will be more disposable income for retail development and this will draw new shopping opportunities. Of course, at some point, we will start to hear about the cost of living in the city becoming too expensive for lower income and older residents.

Typically single/dink professionals have the most disposable income. A healthy downtown needs a mix of all demographics but if it needs to get kickstarted by any one demographic, singles/dinks with disposable incomes maybe should be the first target. OTOH, families tend to spend more on clothing/household goods and can help broaden retail options. Downtown KC has pretty good residential momentum but still needs at least another 10K of mixed demos to draw a wide range of retail. The downtown school is a major score for attracting families and needs to expand.

[beautyfromashes]

I would think families with High School aged kids would be the demographic that spends the most, not perhaps individually but as a unit.

[pash]

.

[flyingember]

Thinking backwards the sweet spot of the late 1800s and into the early 1900s was the multi family unit. You had apartment buildings like along Admiral and collonades setup as four-plexes.

The single family home worked well when sprawl was less. If 75% of customers can reach the plaza or downtown via car for their regular shopping things still work. The streetcar system hitting the suburbs helped with this too.

It was the sprawl of retail that let people live even further out has hurt retail. Metcalf South is a good example of a retail center that in retrospect was doomed because of lack of density.

Add in the lowering family size even compared to the 1950s, which as already a drastic decrease from 1880 or before, and that compounded things.

[aknowledgeableperson]

"If I had the same sq. footage house, but it was two-stories instead of one, my lot could handle attached five rowhouses or townhouses -- each with a one-car garage and still have private outdoor space and a small yard. The sq. footage could be even larger if the houses had a small basement."

One problem with this approach is the "two stories". As the population gets older, either single or married, the preference of many appear to be one story.
One other thing about density. I have friends in St. Louis who are rehabbing older homes in south StL. They have mainly purchased top/bottom duplexes, each having one bedroom and very small bathrooms (he calls them shotgun units). After the first few they have converted those following duplexes into single living units. Why? It was next to impossible to rent the lower unit. Nobody wanted to live below another person. I know some older neighborhoods have this type of duplexes. Are rehabbers here converting also?

[flyingember]

You can do single family homes with good density, see Northgate Village in NKC. Some are two story but many are one story homes. The garage is on the rear of the unit from alley access with a tiny patio/yard in the back. We looked at them, though not what we need they're very well done.

It's denser than much of the infill housing in the urban core and more urban than some of it.