Toellner Tells it

Chalk art promotes streetcar line

On my way to lunch today, I passed this new piece of chalk art on Main, just North of 18th Street. The art is an almost obvious set of rail tracks directing people to ourstreetcar.com. Instead of being a website with information about the downtown street car plan, the url takes you to a neighbor.ly url that is going to, eventually, try to crowd-source some of the funding necessary to build the street-car line.  

Personally I'm not sure how viable crowdsourcing this type of $$ is, but I do applaud their efforts. While the idea of a streetcar line in Kansas City has been very controversial, it seems very obvious to me that Kansas City NEEDS to develop a fixed transit line.

I realize that the initial cost of rail always seems to be more expensive than bus transit -- which, short term, is always a more efficient way to move people about in a city.

But the long-term impact of rail is much different than bus.

1) Fixed rail lines build density -- and have proven over and over again to do so. With the density comes increased tax revenue per square mile, more people, a more vibrant urban environment -- and yes, more people to ride public transit.

2) Once established, rail lines are less expensive to operate than buses -- meaning less need/opportunities to cut existing services every time the budget gets tight (which is currently happening now with our bus lines).

2) There has also been talk about adding commuter rail lines into the city. While commute times in Kansas City are relatively low, it's in part because our state and federal highway departments are spending hundreds of millions of dollars annually in rebuilding major highway interchanges -- such as at I-435 and I-70 near the sports complex, and the Grandview Triangle - -in recent years. Without commuter rail, major, and costly highway infastructure improvements will remain necessary.  However, commuter rail lines need to feed into something once they reach the central business district -- and that something needs to be permanent to justify the expense of the commuter rail lines.

3) While the initial streetcar proposal is very small - -we must start somewhere - -and this is a good, viable place for the streetcar line to begin. I would imagine additional lines would be in the works even before the starter line gets completed.

4) Good pulbictransit is too important for cities to ignore. It is excellent at building density, but also important at moving people from place to place, alleviating congestion on roads, and allowing low-income individuals without cars to move to and from jobs easily. Without viable transit (which now is very limiting), people without cars or very restricted on where they can find jobs - -which means the poor stay poor. There are exactly zero good case studies that I am aware of (even after looking) of cities with good public transit that are relying solely on buses. It just doesn't happen. There is no reason to believe Kansas City can succeed at it when others haven't.

So, go check out ourstreetcar.com -- and see how you can help.

KCMO issues downtown parking survey (& why the results likely won't highlight the solution)

Yesterday, the City of Kansas City issued an online survey to get people's opinions on parking downtown.

The questions are typical:

Do you live downtown?

Work downtown?

Is parking hard to find?

Do you have a dedicated parking space?

Do you look for on-street parking or park in a garage?

How far from your destination is too far away to park? 

Etc.

No matter how the survey comes back, I can't think of a single way that the city will recognize from the survey what one of the biggest problems with downtown parking is in this city.

First of all, I don't think there is a major problem with parking downtown for 90% of people, uses and destinations -- unless you're used to pulling up to a strip mall and parking right out front of your destination for free. But compared to most cities, Kansas City Parking is cake.  And cheap.

But if there is a problem, the problem isn't lack of parking spaces.

It's lack of access to those spaces.

Because of the city policy for the past 5 decades that has mandated a certain number of parking spots for downtown businesses, far too many parking spots have become single use lots. A business owns and maintains the lot, but those spaces can only be used by those businesses -- even if the business is not open.

Let's take the surface lot at 19th and McGee that encompasses the entire city block for an example. The lot is, I believe, owned by Children's Mercy Hospital.  They then drive shuttle buses from the lot to the hospital and back every day. At night, when the majority of their staff goes home, the entire city block of parking is chained off and not accessible. On a typical First Friday, there is a struggle for people to find parking spaces at the Crossroads -- and yet, this entire block of open parking spaces sits completely empty.

This same scenario plays out with various lots throughout downtown -- where a restaurant that relies almost solely on foot traffic during the day has empty spots, but then has a shortage of parking in the evening when people drive to their location -- and yet, the empty business lots around them are sitting empty. The Star has several lots exactly like this.

In many ways, Kansas City's parking space mandates have CREATED a parking shortage downtown. In other cities, it has become financially viable for a private person to own parking garages that cater to business workers during the day, but are easily accessible for events/restaurants/night life at night. They're mixed use garages.  We have very few of those in Kansas City (there is one on the 1700 block of Main between the old TWA building and the old Retro Inferno building - -so there are some) because of the city's parking laws. 

It's my hope that the city actualy takes a deep dive into the city's downtown parking situation -- and doesn't just look at a survey to conclude that "Parking is fine" or "We need more parking". 

The answer isn't that cut and dried. We need more mixed use parking spaces -- that have uses both in the day and then different uses in the evening. We don't necessarily need MORE parking -- just more and better access on more occassions.

HGTV's Househunters comes to Kansas City

On June 27, at 8:30 pm CST, HGTV's House Hunters will be showing an episode in Kansas City. The episode will center around a 24 year old nurse who is seeking to move out of her parents' 7000 square foot historical home (um, wow) and is seeking to buy a traditional-style condo in the trendy parts of Kansas City.

It should be an interesting show -- as it shows a young professional (the type that is very interested in out downtown renaissance) looking for condos -- which fits right into the advertising campaign living in downtown KC has been doing.

It will be interesting to see what neighborhoods pop up (River Market, Downtown, Plaza), and what issues end up being problems (crime, public transit, parking?) and what good things are mentioned (entertainment?). 

Thanks to the Hyde Park neighborhood email list for the tip.

Ideas for improving downtown walkability

A frequent conversation at city hall is about improving neighborhood and downtown walkability. Walkability is good on a lot of fronts -- it increases foot traffic in front of retail locations (which should increase traffic within these retail locations), it decreases the amount of auto traffic on the roadways and it gives the city a vibrant energy with a lot of people walking about.

However, as someone who works downtown and walks regularly, it is not uncommon to be nearly hit by someone in a car who completely pulls into your crosswalk space.

One simple idea to improving the safety of walking is from Fast Company design - -where they have proposed the idea of redesigning crosswalk space to fit the way pedestrians really use it.   A side benefit just might be that the new design -- which is wider on the sides -- would also help slow down auto traffic that seems to frequently blow through crosswalks because they are seeking to turn right on red lights and don't slow down through the crosswalk areas (and are too busy looking for oncoming traffic to pay attention to pedestrians).

This is simple, and would cost the city virtually nothing to implement (they have to paint the crosswalk lines anyway).  And would likely help improve downtown walkability and the safety of doing so.

h/t: Good

Personal note: sorry for the long time between posts. A crazy-busy work schedule followed by a personal vacation caused me to not spend much time posting here recently. I'm back and will increase posting over the next few months.

Chatham receives approval for MHDC Funding

According to a release by the Broadway/Westport Council, the owners of the Chatham apartments received approval for full MHCD Funding -- including tax incentives and gap funding.

Redevelopment of the building will likely begin before the end of the year. The building's end use will be for affordable senior housing.

I'm not going to pretend that I know all of the details of the deal financially, but I will say that I pretty much approve of renovating historic buildings and keeping our historic structures and approve of filling empty buildings with people.

People spend money at local businesses. Empty buildings tend to be eyesores on neighborhoods, and house people who are involved in illegal activities creating safety issues in neighborhoods.

This should be a huge help to a neighborhood that is on the cusp of some real improvements.

The Cosby Hotel Survives

The Pitch Blog is reporting that the Cosby Hotel is going to be saved from demolition.  

A couple of weeks ago, the city had planned to simply demolish the building at a cost of $115,000 - -but after public outcry, the city reconsidered.

Now the city has decided to spend just $4,000 to stabilize the building instead of the $115,000 to destroy it (the bill in either case would have been sent to building owner Rick Powell).

I can only ask, why was this not the city's first option to spend only 3% of the money and actually SAVE the building?

It also looks like developer Adam Jones may still be buying the building -- and the price has dropped from an unreasonable $500,000 to $150,000.

Good news for the city, for history buffs and for downtown -- and even for the taxpayers who could have been out the cash if Powell didn't pay his bill.

More over at the Star.

Another historic building potentially lost

On Friday, the Star reported that it seemed likely that the Hotel Cosby at 9th and Baltimore would be likely be torn down -- potentially as quickly as this weekend.

According to the city, there are concerns over bricks falling off the building that may endanger pedestrians. Instead of looking at possible solutions to secure the building, the city is looking at paying $115,000 to tear it down.

The Hotel Cosby was built in 1881 and sits almost in the center of our city's downtown. It sits jus a block from the newly renovated public library, from hundreds of loft units and offices and within a short walk of the Power & Light entertainment district and the River Market.  In this case, the city has already provided Tax Increment Financing to SAVE the building.

And yet, somehow this building has set empty for the past 15 years and is now set to be torn down.

If you care about Kansas City keeping its historic buildings at all, then call your city council person and the mayor TODAY to be sure they know how you feel about the city's decision.

Then, let's ask ourselves (or, the city), how our incentive structure works to cause this to happen.

The story of this building is the same story that has plagued this city for far too long.

Owner owns building and leaves it to sit unoccupied for decades.

Building is near colapse. Is called blighted. The city provides TIF incentives for them to repair the blight that they helped create by allowing the building to sit empty for decades. 

And throughout the metro, dozens of building sit empty, abandoned by owners waiting for the city to give them tax breaks to clean up the mess they've created. The city's codes department does little to anything to mandate the building's upkeep. And it falls in disrepair.

And if it can happen in the heart of our revitalized downtown, think about how often it happens in less desireable areas along Troost, on the East side, and in the Northeast Neighborhoods.

It's a complete failure by the city, on all fronts to allow a builidng to just crumble before its eyes.

Here's an idea. Tax abandoned buildings differently than those that are occupied. All buildings in the city require a certain amount of public infastructure to support. But abandoned buildings don't generate the same type of tax revenue that inhabited ones do. Inhabited buildings have residents who buy taxable items and earn taxable salaries. Commercial spaces generate sales tax revenue, or have workers in them who buy lunches out, or generate income tax revenue.

Abandoned buildings cost the city money. So let's tax them that way. If a building is sitting empty, it should get taxed at a higher rate than one that is at full occupancy. This will encourage people to to fill up empty store fronts or apartments by lowering rents. It will help incent people to DO SOMETHING with their buildings vs incenting them to do nothing and allowing the building to fall in dis-repair.

It is my understanding that Iowa City, IA has such a policy (I can't find how the bylaw is written and thus can't verify this, but it's where I got the idea) and there are almost no empty store-fronts or apartments in Iowa City -- because people are not incentivized to just sit on empty, rotting buildings.

Here, we incent the wrong things. We don't enforce basic bylaws. And yet another piece of our city's history remains destined to be another surface parking lot in the middle of our downtown. Tragic.

More on the Hotel Cosby at BlogKC and Hyperglobal.

Union Station Celebrates being open 10 years

 This week marks the 10 year mark of when Union Station initially re-opened for use.

It seems like it was much longer ago.

While I think it's easy, and common, for people when they think about Union Station, to comment on its financial woes, the struggles of Science City, etc. But I don't. I think in amazement of what that area of the city was like 10 years ago before it opened.

Prior to Union Station opening, the area around it, and the Crossroads, were virtually abandoned with the exception of Crown Center. The Liberty Memorial sat virtually empty, instead of having a world class museum. The Western Auto Building -- empty. The Freighthouse Building -- empty (it now boasts three incredible restaurants). Dozens of other warehouse buildings - empty. The TWA Building -- empty. The Federal Reserve -- not even there. The IRS Headquarters?  A beautiful, but under-used post office.

It's amazing to think that 12 years ago when we voted to restore Union Station, that the alternative was to tear it down. Yes, destroyed. Razed. Gone. It now sits as a center point of our growing downtown, a destination for tourists, and a showpiece for the city. It is one of only a dozen or so museums in the country that get traveling Smithsonian exhibits like the 911 Exhibit, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the current Warhol Exhibit. Penn Valley Park ? A place little used by anyone other than prostitutes.

And it continues to get mentioned as the obvious hub for eventual commuter and light rail proposals as we seek to improve the public transit in our city.

Sure it's easy to criticize its financial struggles of the building, but I can't help but wonder if any of this would have happened without a vote by the residents on both sides of the state line to save a major part of our city's history, and declare that the area was important to us.

P&L District Then and Now

Last week's post sparked a bit of conversation as I noted that in spite of the tax shortfalls in the P&L district in downtown KCMO, that the city is much better off with the district than with the abandoned area of town that preceded it  that was little more than multiple blocks of surface parking. Some kind readers sent me a couple of photos to help prove my point.

The first is an arial view from Google Maps of the area now occupied by the P&L

It's mostly just a bunch of surface lots. Meanwhile, here's a view from 14th and McGee looking Westward -- you can see the Empire Theater (which was abandoned at the time).  By the way, this photo is very copywrited -- so if you want to use it you're going to have to contact some folks at city hall to get usage rights. 

There actualy were 4 or 5 pretty cool buildings in this 5-6 square block area.

Meanwhile, I went down to the P&L and tried to take the exact same picture from the same angle today. I'm not in the exact same spot -- because the exact spot is somewhere inside the Sprint Center.  But this is about the right angle.

Note -- I took this at about 9:30 on Saturday morning -- thus the few people that were out and about. But regardless, it seems really obvious to me which area would be more appealing to a new company looking to relocate to Kansas City.

It certainly isn't perfect...but I think it's a huge improvement over where we were in 2003 in that part of downtown.

Kansas City Economic Growth

Earlier this week, Blog KC pointed me toward a report from Kevin Collison at the Star on the growth of economic development in downtown Kansas City. 

According to numbers from the Downtown council, since 2001, the "downtown" economy has grown 45% since 2001 vs 33% growth metro-wide.  By category:

Business License Tax - +49.7%

Restaurant Tax - +97.1%

Hotel Tax - +92.3%

Sales Tax - + 22.4%

Earnings tax - +121.8%

The Downtown Council argues that this increase is great for the city and that the massive investment in the downtown infastructure (much through TIF financing) is paying off with large growth in downtown.

Critics have stated much of the movement has been within the city -- attracting businesses, jobs and entertainment dollars from the suburbs so that it's more displacement revenue than real revenue growth -- and that projects like the Sprint Center and Power & Light District have been very costly to the city and taxpayers.

However, it should be noted that the metropolitan area's total growth compares pretty favorably to the nation as a whole. 

The reality is every major metropolitan area is investing significantly in rebuilding their downtowns...including most of the cities with the largest growth (Portland, Omaha, Dallas, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, Charlotte, and Denver) investing in things like new arenas/sports stadiums and light rail services in their downtowns. What KC is doing is necessary just to stay in competition with these cities.

Meanwhile, I saw an interesting article from out of Columbus this week. Columbus taxpayers are going to be forced to make a decision soon on whether they are going to provide funding for the upkeep of Nationwide Arena - -which was responsible for bringing Columbus an NHL Franchise, a renovated Arena District, billions of dollars in additional investments in the area and $850 million in visitor spending in the past 10 years.

In spite of the increased cost to taxpayers, the author argues that the city is in much better shape now than before the Arena and Arena district in Columbus were complete.

It's hard to read the article and not see the similarities between the Columbus Arena District and our Power & Light District. While the financials on our P&L District have yet to pay out - -and maybe never officially will -- it is really hard to argue that Kansas City is in a much better position for long term growth in terms of tourism, new companies, and new residents, with a new arena and entertainment district in the South Loop area vs multiple blocks of surface parking, a drive in bank and an abandoned old movie theater that resided there before.

But the next step is to continue to use these taxpayer-funded initiatives to spur growth in private investments.

(Note: I couldn't find a picture of the P&L area prior to the new district being built. But this picture pretty accurately portrays how I remember it looking).