Neighborhood Prospects: Sustainable Communities by Design

NEIGHBORHOOD PROSPECTS

SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES BY DESIGN KANSAS CITY DESIGN CENTER 2018 UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS + KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY

3

This report documents the process and findings of the Neighborhood Prospects: Sustainable Communities by Design project, developed over the course of the 2017-2018 academic year. This publication was written and designed by the Kansas City Design Center, including Dr. Jason Brody, principal investigator, Joe Colistra, teaching faculty, Thom Allen, research and engagement fellow, Tessneem Elkhateeb, student intern, and particularly the students of Joe Colistra’s 5th year architecture studio at the University of Kansas.

The Kansas City Design Center is made possible by two generous support grants from the William T. Kemper Foundation and the Hall Family Foundations. This project was funded by the City of Kansas City, Missouri with additional support from the William T. Kemper Foundation.

This publication cannot be sold, duplicated, or published, electronically or otherwise, without the express written consent of the KCDC. The purpose of this publication is academic in nature and is intended to showcase the research, scholarship, design and engagement work of the students of the KCDC. Š Kansas City Design Center, 2018

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE 6-7

CHAPTER 1:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 8-9

CHAPTER 2:

A LEGACY OF DISINVESTMENT 10-45

CHAPTER 3:

PROSPECTS FOR SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION 46-55

CHAPTER 4:

COMMUNITY RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS 56-97

CHAPTER 5:

TWO APPROACHES FOR COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION 98-139

CHAPTER 6:

CONCLUSIONS 140-143

5

PREFACE

The Kansas City Design Center (KCDC) is a nationally recognized, nonprofit partnership among local civic leaders, professional designers, and colleges of architecture, planning and design at Kansas State University and the University of Kansas. KCDC’s mission is to promote excellence in the design of Kansas City’s built environment. This is accomplished in three ways:

•Education: KCDC engages university faculty and some of the region’s most talented architecture and planning students in a unique learning laboratory exploring real-world issues facing Kansas City’s future development. Educational programs are built around KCDC’s resident urban design studio. Faculty and students at the studio form partnerships with local client groups and stakeholders to develop design concepts and implementation proposals addressing local community challenges.

•Research: KCDC faculty conduct architectural and planning research addressing pressing issues in development of the contemporary urban region. Faculty draw upon the rich experience of Kansas City in their research.

This research activity contributes to and amplifies the impact of educational and public service initiatives within the region.

•Public Service: KCDC serves as an independent forum for critical dialogues about architecture and planning issues, and offers technical assistance to public agencies and local community organizations. This assistance ranges from hosting free lectures by internationally renowned archi-

6

tects to collaborating with local organizations and non-profits on projects that seek to improve Kansas City’s livability.

Neighborhood Prospects: Sustainable Communities by Design is an urban design study that seeks to build momentum in nascent revitalization efforts in Kansas City’s Key Coalition and Santa Fe neighborhoods. It builds upon a handful of prior KCDC projects, including the Independence Avenue Vision Study (2013), Scarritt Renaissance Vision Study (2017), and LISC Momentum Mapping (2014), where KCDC has developed an emerging body of expertise in (a) community engagement and participatory design and (b) investigations into architectural and development types that respond to context and catalyze community wide revitalization. Each of these projects provides a critical arena through which we train young students to be capable, ethical, critically engaged architecture and planning professionals. It is our hope that sustained engagement in critical topics in Kansas City communities will play a small role in the continued revitalization of Kansas City’s urban core.

Neighborhood Prospects: Sustainable Communities by Design has been funded through a grant from the City of Kansas City, Missouri with additional support from the William T. Kemper Foundation. The Key Coalition Neighborhood Association, led by Karen Slaughter, and Santa Fe Area Council, led by Marquita Taylor, acted as clients for Neighborhood Prospects and have contributed many hours towards development of the project in their own right. An advisory committee consisting of city, civic, and professional as well

as community residents and stakeholders provided critical guidance towards the project’s development; innumerable residents, stakeholders, and city staff also contributed time and advice through participation in public meetings and other conversations. We thank everyone who supported this effort, particularly Karen Slaughter and Marquita Taylor and Marquita Taylor without whom this project would not have been possible.

this Trojan horse of drawing residents, stakeholders, developers, and city policy makers together in frank discussion within the comparatively safe confines of an innocent academic project may be the greater outcome of this project.

Student-community service learning projects can be akin to Trojan horses. In throwing earnest and often naïve students into the thicket of community design we rely on a great number of residents and stakeholders and community officials to volunteer their perspectives. The student-community project is an opportunity for all to think big – not to abandon the constraints of a project but to hold decision making at bay while engaging students in a project’s greater ambitions. Advising students through the essentially academic exercise of inquiry, analysis, and creative design proposals is low risk for all, one that comes with the minor benefit of contributing to the education of the next generation. In this manner student-community projects can at their best draw stakeholders together in frank discussion that might not be possible when the stakes are higher.

As you will see in this report, Neighborhood Prospects: Sustainable Communities by Design generated two main outcomes in differing approaches to sustainable community revitalization, each of which encompasses a package of design, development, and policy strategies. Yet it may be that

7

CHAPTER 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Neighborhood Prospects: Sustainable Communities by Design is an urban design study that seeks to build momentum in nascent revitalization efforts in historic Kansas City neighborhoods. The study focuses on development of scenarios for a variety of types infill development that support community vitality and social, environmental and economic sustainability. The scenarios build upon community anchors like the Bluford Branch of the Kansas City Public Library as well as a range of public and civic initiatives currently unfolding in the study area.

This study was conducted by the students, faculty and staff of the Kansas City Design Center, in service of Key Coalition and Santa Fe neighborhoods and in consultation with staff at the City of Kansas City, Missouri as well as an advisory committee consisting of city, civic, and professional experts and community residents and stakeholders. Over the course of the project, the KCDC team investigated the history and current conditions of Key Coalition and Santa Fe, analyzed plans impacting the neighborhoods, researched precedents, designed scenarios for a variety of types of infill development, developed pro formas for those scenarios, and explored development models that might support implementation. We conducted five public meetings over the course of developing Neighborhood Prospects and had over one hundred meetings with individual residents and stakeholders to better understand their concerns, priorities and capacities to act in revitalizing Key Coalition and Santa Fe.

8

Vital communities offer a range of amenities, goods and services that allow residents to lead happy, healthy, prosperous lives. Community vitality depends not on any single element but a fruitful mix of things coming together – safe streets, everyday stores to serve resident needs, parks and playgrounds, businesses either in the neighborhoods or easily accessible nearby to provide jobs for residents. A minimal concentration of people within an area seems necessary to nurture community vitality. A greater concentration of people – sufficient to support multiple businesses and multiple community institutions – leads to community resilience as it allows individual entities to fail without critically impacting the vitality of a community as a whole.

Key Coalition and Santa Fe are great neighborhoods, with outstanding parks and open space and pockets of beautiful homes. They have also suffered from decades of disinvestment, with population declining by 71% since 1950. This has led to the loss of commercial businesses and abandonment of homes. Low property values have stymied development and provided an implicit disincentive to investment and upkeep. Nonetheless, both residents and the city care deeply about these historic neighborhoods, and a variety of recent efforts suggest potential for sustainable long-term community revitalization.

Neighborhood Prospects attempts to address three key dilemmas. First, community vitality needs a concentration of people, but for a variety of reasons context sensitive infill

than the original urban fabric of Key Coalition and Santa Fe: we therefore suggest that new development types developed in appropriate locations can support community vitality. Second, the market does not currently support independent private investment. Public incentives, alternative development models, and careful consideration of development types may be needed. Finally, a number of public, private, and civic development efforts are underway in Key Coalition and Santa Fe. The challenge here is to sort out what strategies hold the most promise and to sort out how these efforts can support each other rather than operate at cross purposes.

• • • •

•

Protect the Historic Fabric of Key Coalition and Santa Fe Neighborhoods Find opportunities for Self-Development Models to Empower Community Residents Improve Connectivity Support and Incentivize Transit Oriented Development Establish a Coordinated and Cohesive Vision for Prospect Avenue

Taking these dilemmas into consideration, Neighborhood Prospects suggests taking two approaches to community revitalization. The first, Preserving Historic Neighborhoods, involves an ownership-based development model including a variety of types of development to selectively rebuild density while reinforcing the existing residential character of Key Coalition and Santa Fe. The second, Capitalizing on Areas of Opportunity, proposes new types of higher density, mixed use, mixed income development along corridors whose futures are likely to be different from their past. Implementation of both Preserving Historic Neighborhoods and Capitalizing on Areas of Opportunity would involve a range of principles and strategies that span architectural design, real estate development and financing, and public policy. To implement both approaches we recommend five immediate next steps, including:

9

CHAPTER 2 A LEGACY OF DISINVESTMENT

10

11 IMAGES FROM MISSOURI VALLEY SPECIAL COLLECTIONS

FABRIC OF EARLY 20TH CENTURY NEIGHBORHOODS

Key Coalition and Santa Fe were platted in the late nineteenth and built out over the early twentieth centuries with a mix of land uses and building types set within a largely residential fabric. The Santa Fe Place subdivision which makes up the majority of the Santa Fe neighborhood was well laid out with comparatively stately homes well set back from the street, one of the finer residential neighborhoods in Kansas City prior to J.C. Nichols’ Country Club District.

The platting and build out of Key Coalition was somewhat less rigorous. Nonetheless, both were blessed with ample access to parks and transportation. As the following Kansas City, Missouri Board of Park Commissioners map from 1922 indicates, streetcar lines ran east-west along 31st St and (in Santa Fe) 27th St as well as north-south along Woodland, Brooklyn, Prospect, and Indiana Aves. Spring Valley Park is a prominent asset in the northwestern portion of Key Coalition, and Linwood and Benton Boulevards crisscross the communities.

to provide larger lots adjacent to Benton Blvd. The whole of the block was single family save for a church.

The following Sanborn fire insurance maps are indicative of the urban fabric of typical blocks in Key Coalition and Santa Fe, as well as along Prospect. The first in each pair depicts a block at roughly 1909 and the second at roughly 1951.

The 2900 block of Victor St. in Santa Fe Place was platted with 50’ lots, with the end block lots allotted extra width. At 150’, the lots were deep as well. The block was populated with two and one half story single family homes, most built of stone, all of which had porches facing Victor St. It was mostly but not completely built out by 1909. The three western most parcels on each side of the street were combined

Platted at the dawn of the twentieth century, neither Santa Fe nor Key Coalition were originally designed with much consideration for automobiles. The pairs of Sanborn maps from 1909 and 1951 are indicative of incremental adaptations to accommodate cars after neighborhoods were originally built. While almost no outbuildings were present along Victor St. in Santa Fe in 1909, the great majority of parcels had rear garages by 1951. Olive St. in Key Coalition was originally platted with alleys on either side of the street, and a handful of accessory buildings accessible by alley were present on the east side of the street in 1909. By 1951 the

12

Compared to Santa Fe Place, the 2900 block of Olive St. in Key Coalition is denser, more compact, and accommodated a wider range of residential types. Lot depths are closer to 120’ here, and the southwest corner of the block contains a handful of two story multifamily units. If the Sanborn maps are accurate, the platting and build out of this block was irregular, with multiple single family houses built across parcel lines. As a result, lot frontage on this block averages just 33’, with uncommon variability within the block.

The representative blocks of Key Coalition and Santa Fe show the range of density in residential neighborhoods along Prospect Ave., with the net density of the 2900 block of Olive at approx. 13 dwelling units / acre and the 2900 block of Victor at approximately 6 units / acre.

majority of lots on the west side of the street contained accessory buildings accessible by the alley. The east side of the street also had a number of accessory garages, yet the alley had been closed off. Importantly, the narrowness and irregularity of the lot widths along Olive St. made accommodation of automobiles problematic, and a number of houses still rely on on-street parking.

The 1909 and 1951 Sanborn Map pairs depicting for Prospect Ave, extending from Lockridge to 29th St., are indicative of the complexity of Prospect, and suggest some of the challenges Kansas City will face in setting its future. Located at the seam of two distinct neighborhoods, blocks are oriented differently on either side of Prospect and Lockridge, 28th, Victor and 29th Streets do not align. On the western, Key Coalition side of Prospect, the long side of blocks face Prospect, with relatively narrow 110’ lots that are backed with alley access. On the eastern, Santa Fe side the short ends of blocks but up against Prospect, with leads to some incongruous land uses for an arterial road. Prospect in 1909 was primarily residential, and fairly low density, with a mix of single family and flats along with a church. By 1951, Prospect Ave. shows signs of intensification, with rows of three story, twelve unit apartments lining the western side of Prospect and a spattering of commercial uses present, including a funeral home, filling station, auto repair shop, and clinic.

Even in this latter period, though, Prospect is much less of a commercially oriented arterial road that we seem to view it as today. It was more residential, and somewhat less dense, than Troost, for instance, at least up until the sixties.

13

14

1909 - MISSOURI VALLEY SPECIAL COLLECTIONS

1922- MISSOURI VALLEY SPECIAL COLLECTIONS

15

1909 - MISSOURI VALLEY SPECIAL COLLECTIONS

16

1951 - MISSOURI VALLEY SPECIAL COLLECTIONS

17 1909 - MISSOURI VALLEY SPECIAL COLLECTIONS

1951 - MISSOURI VALLEY SPECIAL COLLECTIONS

18 1909 - MISSOURI VALLEY SPECIAL COLLECTIONS

19 1951 - MISSOURI VALLEY SPECIAL COLLECTIONS

NEIGHBORHOOD DISINVESTMENT

Redlining and associated housing, policy, and financial practices ravaged Key Coalition and Santa Fe over the middle and latter decades of the twentieth century, driving investment out of the neighborhoods and causing depopulation that is still problematic today.

Redlining emerged as a practice to manage risk in underwriting mortgages and other financial products in the housing industry. Originating as a standard industry practice in private insurance businesses early in the twentieth century, it was institutionalized into federal housing policy first through the Home Owners Loan Corporation and then the Federal Housing Administration during the Great Depression. Redlining involved the preparation of “residential security maps” that coded neighborhoods into one of four categories -- A. Best; B. Still Desirable; C. Definitely Declining; and D. Hazardous -- based on an assessment of the financial promise of the area. The assessment was based on a range of criteria - “relative economic stability” was given greatest weighting, with items like “protection from adverse influences”, “adequacy of transportation”, and “visual appeal” also considered. A key factor in assessing relative economic stability was consideration of the residents. A 1939 FHA underwriters manual argued that “if a neighborhood is to retain stability, it is necessary that properties shall continue to be occupied by the same social and racial classes”. Federal housing agencies and private financial institutions used residential security maps to determine whether neighborhoods would be good or bad bets for loans. As a result of this

20

standard practice, whole neighborhoods in the urban core had only negligible access to financial capital.

You can see how redlining impacted Key Coalition, Santa Fe, and other Kansas City neighborhoods in this archive: https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/redlining/#loc=14/39.0275/-94.4833&opacity=0.8&city=greater-kansas-city-mo. In 1939, Key Coalition was graded as a class D. Hazardous; the Santa Fe Place subdivision was class C. Definitely Declining. The assessment reports that accompany the residential security map explain some of the thinking. Santa Fe is described as one of Kansas City’s best neighborhoods thirty years prior (i.e. 1909) but one whose desirability had declined in face of the popularity of the Country Club District. Key Coalition was described as a “spotty section with many cheap bungalows”, “suffering from commercial encroachment”, an “intermediate fourth-grade district threatened with negro encroachment from the north”.

The irregular platting of Key Coalition factored into its negative assessment, but the greater concern was the potential of encroachment of communities of color, and both neighborhoods’ lack of restrictive covenants later implemented in communities like J. C. Nichols’ Country Club District south and west of the Plaza.

As Kansas City first developed in the latter part of the 19th century, African-American communities were concentrated in the blocks surrounding 18th and Vine to the north of Key Coalition and Santa Fe. Segregation at this time was

informal, a mix of social custom and threat of violence. With the emergence of communities like the Country Club District, segregation was institutionalized through covenants written into property deeds that prohibited selling properties to “Negros”. Underwriters invariably gave such restricted neighborhoods the best grades in redlining maps.

African-Americans were thus doubly hurt by twentieth century housing industry practices: race restrictive covenants in newer neighborhoods limited African Americans to older parts of Kansas City, and redlining limited access to mortgage financing in those communities.

Kansas City’s 1947 comprehensive plan further institutionalized segregation. George Kessler in his earlier plans for parks and boulevards had noted that Kansas City’s variegated topography led to a comparatively high degree of socio-economic diversity (if not racial integration) in its neighborhoods as the jumble of highlands, lowlands, and steep slopes encouraged different types and classes of housing in close proximity. The 1947 plan used the neighborhood concept to organize residential environments, but – noting the (perceived) desirability of communities of the same class and ethnic make up – it drew neighborhood boundaries in a way to create, where possible, homogenous neighborhoods out of a comparatively heterogeneous city. Note how the 1947 Master Plan uses the rhetorical trope of residential security maps to affect neighborhood units. It extended redlining, itself a financial practice, into the realm of housing and community development policy. Similar efforts were made

in the city’s segregated school district after World War II, with boundaries for local school catchment areas drawn and redrawn every few years in an ultimately futile attempt to maintain segregation as urban neighborhoods experienced dramatic demographic shifts.

Urban communities across the United States experienced upheaval in the decades after World War II as whites blessed with access to financing moved out to modern, deed restricted suburbs. Both Key Coalition and Santa Fe declined in this period, buffeted by a host of challenges as redlining restricted access to financing, newer more modern and auto oriented suburbs brought competition, and the prospect of demographic change brought fear and hysteria. African American Kansas Citians spread out from 18th and Vine; barred from most modern suburbs by restrictive covenants, they moved into neighborhoods like Key Coalition and Santa Fe. Barred by those restrictive covenants from neighborhoods deemed most stable and desirable by the financial industry, African Americans were restricted to neighborhoods that banks would not lend to. They bore the brunt of both public and private housing policy in the twentieth century.

21

22

1934 - MISSOURI VALLEY SPECIAL COLLECTIONS

1939 - Nelson, LaDale Winling, Richard Marciano, Nathan Connolly,et al., “Mapping Inequality,� American Panorama, ed.

23

PROPOSED

MASTER

I-NEEDING RESIDENTIAL

M

«■

REDEVELOPMENT

REHABILITATION

^^ mm

CZI ACTIVE CONSERVATION DEB CONTINUED PROTECTION

24

1947 - KCMO CITY MASTER PLAN

PLAN

AREAS

PROPOSED

NEIGHBORHOOD BOUNDARIES

COMMUNITY

BOUNDARIES

13

PROPOSED

3L-

P U

MASTER

BLIC

SCHOOLS

JR.

SCHOOLS HIGH

SCHOOLS

ELEMENTARY

SCHOOLS

1947 - KCMO CITY MASTER PLAN

TO BE PROPOSED ABANDONED

o •

EXISTING HIGH

PLAN

• •

m ®

x—

'

o>

O

25

CONSTRUCTION OF THE BRUCE R. WATKINS DRIVE

The fifty-five year odyssey to conceptualize, plan, litigate, and eventually construct what would become US-71 in Kansas City exacerbated disinvestment in neighborhoods like Key Coalition and Santa Fe that were on its route.

Acceptance of the automobile and expected expansion of suburban communities led the City of Kansas City in its 1947 Master Plan to propose a network of express highways as well as primary and secondary thoroughfares throughout the city. The express highways were intended in part to keep downtown connected to the residential population of the region. The plan would become the blueprint for the greatest number of interstate highway miles per capita of any major metropolitan area within the US. The 1947 Master Plan and subsequent planning documents called for construction of the South Midtown Freeway extending southeast from the downtown loop towards Lee’s Summit. By the 1960’s, the predecessor to the Missouri Department of Transportation began purchasing property and clearing land along the anticipated route, which ran between Garfield and Woodland Avenues on the western edge of Key Coalition. Initial plans called for an eight to ten lane limited access expressway with cloverleaf interchanges.

A grassroots coalition led by civil rights leaders organized to fight the South Midtown Freeway, plausibly arguing that construction of the expressway through existing urban neighborhoods would be damaging to communities that were disproportionately poor and black. Local Kansas

26

Citians engaged the NAACP to help fight the South Midtown Freeway in the courts. A 1975 injunction halted work on the expressway, putting the project in limbo for twelve years while legal matters were settled. Eventually the route was redesigned as a landscaped highway with finer connections to adjacent neighborhoods. First conceptualized in 1947, what would be named US-71 the Bruce R. Watkins Drive wouldn’t open until 2001.

US-71 destroyed houses and neighborhoods in a two-block swath through Kansas City’s historically disinvested east side, including along the western edge of Key Coalition.

Moreover the protracted uncertainty surrounding the highway as it moved from planning into a long legal fight blighted the neighborhoods by inhibiting investment in and adjacent to land slated for highway development. Little incentive existed for residents in the path of the highway to invest in the upkeep of homes that were at imminent risk of being acquired, even if that risk did not become reality for decades.

The construction of the current US-71 also had cascading effects on the network of interstate and non-limited access US highways throughout the city. From the creation of the US-highway systems in the 1910s, the pre-interstate, local highway designation of US-71 was applied to Troost and the Paseo leading into downtown from the south. In 1968 the pre-interstate designation was shifted to Prospect in anticipation of the acquisition and construction of the future interstate route. Prospect Ave. kept the local highway US-71 designation until the eventual 2001 opening of the US-71

Bruce R. Watkins Drive. The shift in designation of the old US-71 highway route on local roads from Troost to Prospect Avenue likely brought additional automobile traffic and may have impacted adjacent development patterns.

The eventual opening of US-71 Bruce R. Watkins Drive further shifted local automotive traffic patterns, likely absorbing most north-south through traffic in the area but also increasing secondary traffic along east-west routes – including 29th St., 31st St. and Linwood Blvd – with access points to the highway. We can see some evidence of this by comparing 1951 Sanborn and contemporary aerial maps of a swath of 31st and Linwood from Montgall St. to Wayne Avenue, where much of the earlier residential fabric along both streets is lost to vacancy and auto-oriented development.

27

PROPOSED

MASTER

PLAN

JE MAJOR THOROUGHFARES

L 28

x

PRIMARY

SECONDARY

PROPOSED

THOROUGHFARES' THOROUGHFARES

EXPRESS

1947 - KCMO CITY MASTER PLAN

EXISTING

HIGHWAYS

PROPOSED

1945 - MISSOURI VALLEY SPECIAL COLLECTIONS

29

HOOD

1.0 EINKING

AV.

4.2 N.E.

RD.

HARDESTY

BROOKLINE

RIDGE

RD.

RD.

LIBERTY

2.2

0.2

BIRMINGHAM RS

HUGHES

RD.

1.6

BRIGHTON

3.7

RANDOLPH

N.

RD.

AV.

MONROE ST.

WITHE

WILLIS

CHESTNUT

C CR AV.

AV.

1.6

STERLING

.

CRYSLER

ST.

66B

OFF CUT-

.

VD

BL GE RID

2.8

RD

ST.

BLUE RIDGE

UE

BL

59TH

ST.

TRFW

Y.

63RD

ST.

66A

LITTL

E

ON

BLVD.

BL

UE

RD.

75TH

RD.

79TH

83RD

RAYTOWN

5.2

RD RICKEY

ST.

ST.

FROST

RD.

N

ST.

. REED

87TH

ST.

ODS

350

RD.

RD .

GREGORY

BLUE

WO

67

61ST

RD.

AV.

ST.

55TH

BENNINGTON

TOPPING

.

51ST

66

1.7

67TH

69

71

RIVER N.

1.0 0.8

TRFWY. TER

MA NC HES

NT BRU

6.1

47TH

11

RD

65

ER

UE

ST. OOST

E

N.

3.8

BELMONT BLVD.

AV. BENTON PKWY.

SWOPE

AV. PROSPECT

BL

89TH

BLVD.

TRFWY.

AU

AVE. ARLINGTON

PROSPECT

ANTIOCH

N. RD. ANTIOCH

I

R

U SO

IS M 4.0

BROOKLYN

AV. PROSPECT AV.

AV.

THE PASEO

N

OZARK

PARK GOLF COURSE

THE ST.

.

Overland Park

91ST

AV.

1.5 FLINTLOCK

SAM RAY

RD.

N. INDIANA RD.

TROOST N.

2.8

OAK

TROOST

VAN

ST. BROADWAY

AV.

Y.

GOLF COURSE

ZOO

ST.

70

9

OW

TRFWY.

W

SWOPE

RIV

RD.

EASTWOOD

PK

ST.

HILLCREST

1.0 TRFWY.

RAINBOW

PKWY. WARD RD. LINE

MISSION

AV.

RD.

SWITZER

WORNALL

ROE

.

DR

QUIVIRA

STARLIGHT THEATRE

AR

I-A-B

SN

KANSAS CITY 63RD

STADIUM

YT

63C

BLUE

.

77TH

85TH

ST.

35TH

ST.

2002 - MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

ST.

BLVD.

NIEMAN

RD.

RD. PFLUMM

A

NT

SA

SOUTHWEST

BLVD.

.

DR

RD.

CKMAN

NNER

AIL

TR

87TH

4.1

39TH

M

Lenexa

ST.

BLVD.

PKWY

71

32ND

2.8

A DH

FE

1979 - MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

K

ST.

INDEPE

ST.

8A-B

DR.

RA

75TH

79TH

ST.

83RD

BLVD.

40

7B

OL

30

ST.

Village 79TH

EE

C.H

18TH

61

63A-B

VETERANS HOSPITAL

BLV

GREGORY

Prairie 75TH

ST.

ST.

79TH

ST.

MEYER

Mission Hills

WK

HA

MA

169

69

CR

INDEPENDENCE

78

31ST

HIGHWAY DEPT. DIST. 4

D.

TO

75TH

ST.

63RD

RD

ST.

35

ST.

.

AV.

RD.

63RD

69

Merriam 67TH

MIDLAND

1.9

ST. 7TH

Fairway

Countryside ST.

63RD

59TH

60

1.3

CLEVELAND

7TH

18TH

47TH

AW

Shawnee

ST.

LOOSE MEM. PARK

5C

ST.

SWOPE

UNIV. OF MO. AT K.C. ROCKHURST COLLEGE

BLUE VALLEY PARK HEART 7A AIRPORT

ST.

BLVD.

BRUSH

PKWY. 3.2

56

55TH

Mission Woods

DR.

JOHNSON

DR.

39TH

WARD

Westwood Hills

169

Mission JOHNSON

RD.

RD.

435

BLVD.

27TH

6

ST.

6.3

.

69

LINWOOD

PENN

23RD

5B

31ST

METROPOLITAN COM. COLLEGE KANSAS CITY

Westwood

Roeland Park

JOHNSON CO.

Lake Quivira

0.5

ST.

ST. H 38T ST.

BLVD. 42ND

WOODLAND

ST. E NE

THW

SOU

BENTON HOME

3.4

5A

R

12

ST.

18TH

NE

RD.

4C

WOODLAND

ST.

ST. 47TH ST. 55TH

SH

RD.

35

EST

4A

WIN

59

ST.

4B

THE PASEO

ST.

ST.

27TH

34TH

51ST

55TH

59TH AV .

ST. 59TH

65TH

LINE

COUNTY

UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS MEDICAL CENTER

0.7

PENN VALLEY PARK

ARMOUR

24

KENTUCKY

RD

WYANDOTTE CO.

UTE

.

ST

49YH

ST.

ST.

ST.

ST. 67TH ST. 64TH ST.

To Lawrence, KS

H

169

D.

BLV

12TH TRUMAN

DOWNTOWN INSET

VALLEY COM. COLL.

AV.

4.6

3C

3B

1A-B

THOMAS HART

Sugar Creek

WILSON AV.

.

69

1G-H 3A

0.4

2C-D

435

RD

ID

L OL

P.O.

R

GA

SU

ON

KS JAC

M

RD.

DR.

0.2

2B-C

AY

CL

57

NORTH TERRACE PARK

INDEPENDENCE

SEE

2U-V

235

GIBBS

GROVE

4A 1E-F

ST.

IU

OAK

DR.

AV.

AD

.

DR

AY

ER

RIV

29 35

1.0

1C

.

1A-B AV.

AV.

635

PASEO BR.

1C

FRONT

GARDNER

ST

K

.

RD

R

AS

S AN

32

D

AN

INL

E

1.2

KANSAS

METROPOLITAN

VROOMAN

RD

W

55A

E

DR

KA

1A-B-C 2W

.

.

Edwardsville

BROADWAY P BR.

40

ER

D

OR

DF

E LEV

4B

L AV

RIV

32

210

Birmingham

Randolph

FRONT

CHOUTEAU BR.

6B

BE

5A

0.7

CEN

E

55B

Y. FW

24

70

IV

DR

55A

210

ST.

5A

LEWIS AND CLARK VIADUCT

TRA

KANSAS

ING BIRM

TR

GATE

RD. HAM

Kansas

5B

16TH

9

K.C. DOWNTOWN AIRPORT

5

AV.

TURNPIKE

KANSAS

70

40TH

54

AU

TOLL

RD.

PARVIN

TE

40

.

54

ST.

OU

24

ARO

AV.

ST.

6A-B

OUR

CITY, KANSAS

5

QUIND

AV.

WOOD STATE

Avondale

71

SEV

RR

IV

AV.

TE

269

1

R

INDEPEN

Claycomo

ST.

53RD

11

CH

AV.

North

69

52A

KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1968 - MISSOURI City 169 ARM

GEORGIA PARALLEL

FAIRFAX BR.

13

R

LEAVENWORTH

8A

Glenaire

14

1.7

1.4

69

CHO

0.4

635

ST.

41ST

12A

52B

48TH

1.2

32ND

PLATTE PURCHASE BR. TOLL

35

1.4

35

8B

283

2.0

1955 - MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 5

TOPPING AV.

WOODLAND

ST. TRFWY. ST.

BROADWAY

OAK

1.5

PLATTE MATTOX

42ND

9

NT

1.8

9

8C

1A

1.5

KANSAS

14

Pleasant Valley RD.

1.7

RD.

1C-D 1B

W.

DR.

ST.

76TH

51 VALLEY

10

29

0.5

1D-E

0.6

10

0.5

RD.

2.5

Northmoor

Riverside

1E VIVION

2.1

.

L

N

N.E.

RD

MIL

.E.

ASA

PLE

69

2A-B

69

635

11A-B

RIVER

DICKINSON

435

1.7

AA

NASHUA

152

RD.

3A 3B

.

DO

AN

WY

AS

CO.

I

KANS

Oaks

RD.

ENGLEWOOD

CO

TE

TTE

ST.

3C

12A-B

AT

PL

Oakwood Park Oakwood

Houston Lake

PARK COLL.

OUR

4.3

4

9

MISS

RD.

RD.

Parkville

FF

VALLEY

.

RD.

56TH

N.W.

Oakview

PASEO

2.5

D

.

HODGE PARK

RD.

ST.

1.7

KE

RD

435

16

1

GLADSTONE

N.

169 1.9

92ND ST.

N

ER

ND

ME

EN

GL

17

N.E. BARRY RD

72ND

DR.

OO

CR

71

RD.

MAIN

N MADISO ST.

45

1.9

49A-B

GOWE

64TH

CORUM

R

2.9

N.W.

20

A

ST.

MAPLE WOOD COM. COLLEGE

ST.

ST.

5

RD

RI U SO IS M

WALDRON

AV .

GREEN HILLS RD.

68TH

ROOSTERVILLE AIRPORT

47

HIGHLAND

HILLS GREEN

0.1

CHILDRESS

1.5

AV. CONGRESS

Lake Waukomis

RD

RD.

EL

80TH

ST.

72ND

6

9

AP

RD.

BARRY

MIS KO

CROOKED

UNION CH

N.

RD. 96TH

WABASH

152 88TH ST.

ST.

PROSPECT

CH

U WA

Platte Woods

AIR

.

ST.

OA

N. AV.

N.W.

BL

45

4.9

BAUGHAMM RD.

RD.

EC

100TH

N.E.

ST.

N.E. 96TH

.

9A-B

8

76TH

96TH

N.W.

RD

RD.

Weatherby Lake

S N.

ROBIN

SKYVIEW

AG

152

RD. FOX N.W.

K

22

To Lawrence, KS

N.

AV.

ST

ST.

106TH

100TH

N.W.

N.W.

AMITY

N HAM PTO

HILLSBORO

D

120TH

ST.

112TH

N.E.

ST.

108TH

2.5

To Beverly

CONGRESS

AV.

RD. N.

RD.

4.7

SPRINGS

N.

5

108TH

OL

T

24

40

EY

10

152

MEYER

To Leavenworth, KS

AV.

RD. BRIGHTWELL

4.4

LANTER LA.

29

TIFFANY

A

45

DR.

46

N.W.

N

45

37

COOKINGHAM

AL ST

RD.

3.5

291

12

FARLEY

42

ST.

112TH

435

-

1.3

36

.

4.1

435

13

N.E

41A-B

N.W.

.

RD

KANSAS CITY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

VILLAGE CIRCLE RD.

ES

N.W.

N.

D

29

JON

124TH ST.

C

Ferrelview D

N.

1.3

MEXICO CIT

RU

RD.

ST.

120TH

D

N MA ER SH

N.W.

2.0

N CABLE BRIDGE

RD.

PK

WY

V

02/19

➤

09/1991

N 900 ft

Image U.S. Geological Survey Image U.S. Geological Survey

1991 - GOOGLE EARTH

900 ft

Image U.S. Geological Survey Image U.S. Geological Survey

1996 - GOOGLE EARTH

07/20

➤

03/1997

N 900 ft

Image U.S. Geological Survey Image U.S. Geological Survey

1997 - GOOGLE EARTH

900 ft

Image © 2018 DigitalGlobe Image © 2018 DigitalGlobe

2002 - GOOGLE EARTH

31

1951 - MISSOURI VALLEY SPECIAL COLLECTIONS

32

2018 - GOOGLE EARTH

33

RETAINING COMMUNITY ANCHORS

The fate of successive entities on the southwest corner of 31st and Prospect that have been viewed as community anchors is indicative of the challenges of retaining commercial businesses in older depopulating neighborhoods.

Prior to development of the Linwood Shopping Center this corner was the site of Saint Joseph’s hospital. St. Josephs in its time was seen as an asset to adjacent neighborhoods.

Built in 1917, the hospital was modern for its time, a six story building with 250 rooms for patients, designed so that each had a window offering access to light and air. Like many neighborhood hospitals, St. Joseph’s was hemmed in by the surrounding residential community and had to wrestle with whether to expand by building up, moving out to a larger site, or continuing with existing and aging facilities. In the 1960s, St. Joseph’s parent organization began to develop what would become Avila University south of I-435. The local riots that took place after the 1968 assassination of Martin Luther King damaged the hospital building, nudging it towards an eventual closure and consolidation with facilities on the Avila campus. The St. Josephs hospital building along Prospect was abandoned in 1977.

By the early 80’s the site of the future Linwood Shopping Center was purchased for $1 under the leadership of Don Maxwell. The construction began in 1985 according to Maxwell and finished with the new Country Fresh grocery store 1986. Leasing started 1987 and the shopping center began to flourish. By the early 2000s however, the store began to struggle and would eventually close in 2007 due to misman-

34

agement. Ten years later in 2017, the city spent $950,000 to purchase the property through selling bonds.

The final development cost totaled $13 million and the new Sun Fresh Grocery Store opened in June of 2018. The newest version of business at 31st and Prospect has brought cautious optimism for the future vibrancy of commercial activity along Prospect Ave. Sun Fresh essentially replaces a prior grocery store that failed and has been built in much the same manner however. It remains to be seen whether the area as currently constituated can sustain a grocery store over the long haul.

1987 - IMAGE PROVIDED BY PROSPECT BUSINESS ASSOCIATION

35

1954 - MISSOURI VALLEY SPECIAL COLLECTIONS

36

1954 - MISSOURI VALLEY SPECIAL COLLECTIONS

37

CURRENT CONDITIONS

The combination of physical planning, transportation planning, and housing policy led to widespread disinvestment in Key Coalition and Santa Fe over the latter half of the 20th century, including depopulation and challenges of retaining commercial businesses. Poor people and communities of color bore the brunt of this change and endured many hardships as a result.

Both total population and number of residential dwelling units for each of the neighborhoods would peak in 1950 and then rapidly decline. The historic fabric of Santa Fe place helped stem some of the decline; Key Coalition’s irregular platting and proximity to the route of the Bruce R. Watkins Dr. exacerbated disinvestment. From 5,436 people and 1,872 dwelling units present in Santa Fe in 1950, 2,078 people and 808 dwelling units remained by 2010. In Key Coalition the figures were 4,728 people and 1,545 dwelling units at its 1950 peak and 886 people and 374 dwelling units in 2010. Combined the two neighborhoods have lost 65% of their dwelling units and 71% of their population from their peak.

Equally profound was the shift from largely white to predominantly African American population, a transition that took place almost entirely between 1940 and 1970. Just 160 African Americans lived in Key Coalition and Santa Fe in 1940, compared to 14,255 whites. In 1950, 2,087 African Americans and 13,157 Whites lived in the neighborhoods, a transition that would accelerate in the fifties and sixties such that by 1970 11,042 African Americans lived in the neighborhoods vs just Whites. (The data for this paragraph is larger

38

than the previous because our sources for this information covered a somewhat larger geographic boundary).

This disinvestment in the community rippled through the community creating more vacancies and housing loss. Today, 647 vacant parcels dot both neighborhoods. The most recent data from 2011-2015 provided by the American Community survey points out 137 or 31.7% of the total housing units in Key Coalition were vacant. Santa Fe at had 300 vacant units and totaling 27.6% total units of the housing stock at the time of the survey. The Kansas City Missouri Homesteading Authority and the Land Bank of Kansas City Missouri have served as a holder for many of the vacant and abandoned properties in the community. Currently, a total of 160 parcels and properties are available through these agencies as they work with future homeowners and developers to restore homes and bring in new development.

The assessed land value map illustrates low land value for parcels with the neighborhoods where single family homes and vacant lots are located. Of the 2033 assessed parcels, the mean for the improvement value is $5,316.82 and the mean land value is $1,067.42. Viewing recent sales on the reality website Zillow, the three most recent single family homes sold in each neighborhood from before 05/30/2018 show numbers that are sporadic depicting an unstable market, and listed the following: 1. 3344 Michigan Avenue is a 1,465sf 3 bedroom, 1.5 bathroom house and sold for $34,000 on 04/13/2018.

2. 2704 Brooklyn Avenue is a 2,448sf 5 Bedroom 3 Bathroom house and sold for $68,500 on 04/06/2018.

3. 2846 Wabash Avenue is a 2,846 sf 5 bedroom, 3 bathroom single family house and sold for $150,000 on 02/01/2018.

4. 3022 Bellefontaine Avenue is a 1,925 sf, 3 bedroom 1 bathroom house and sold for $15,000 on 08/29/2017.

5. 3034 East 32nd Street is a 1,478sf 2 bedroom, 1 bathroom house and sold for $4,200 on 02/13/2018.

6. 3226 Lockridge Avenue is a 5 bedroom, 2.5 bathroom, 1,925sf house and sold for $70,000 on 10/03/2017.

There are a number of private landowners with the largest being Metropolitan Missionary Baptist church, holding 34 parcels, followed by the Ivanhoe Neighborhood Council having 24 parcels under ownership. Institutional developers have and will continue to play a key role in developing the area. On 27th and Prospect Avenue for instance, Morningstar Missionary Baptist church has completed a youth and family life center and will soon complete senior housing adjacent to the center.

Repair Program, landlords do not and receive low rental rates in the area. The Kansas City Missouri Parcel Viewer data shows 22.7% of owners live out of state. Community members have noted that absentee landowners are a major issues and has created delinquencies in maintenance for rental properties with low rent values.

Attracting new community members in these conditions is difficult. Unemployment rates from the American Community Survey from 2011-2015 show 16.5% unemployment for Key Coalition and 18.6% unemployment for Santa Fe. Educational opportunities have also been limited making it difficult to attract families. Those with high school degrees or less is 52.1% in Santa Fe and 58% in Key Coalition. There is a clear struggle for access to quality jobs and education.

As new developments unfold, existing community members face challenges of home maintenance. Many people living in poverty tend to live in rentals, adding to the complications of upkeep. Survey data from the American Community Survey from 2011-2015 shows nearly twice the amount of housing units are occupied as rentals over owned units in Key Coalition and Santa Fe. With little incentive to perform upkeep on the homes as tenants, the home maintenance falls to the landlords. While owners have the benefit of the City Home

39

Santa Fe Number of People and Housing Units 6,000

2,000 1,600 1,400

Number of People

4,000

1,200

3,000

1,000 800

2,000

600 400

1,000 0

Number of Housing Units

1,800

5,000

200 1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

0

Year

5,000

1,800

4,500

1,600

4,000

1,400

Number of People

3,500

1,200

3,000

1,000

2,500

800

2,000

600

1,500 1,000

400

500

200

0

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

Year

40

Source: 1940 through 2010 Censuses Source: 1940 through 2010 Censuses

2000

2010

0

Number of Housing Units

Key Coalition Number of People and Housing Units

Change in Demographics for Key Coalition and Santa Fe

1940 1940

1950 1950

White

1960

1960

1970 1970

African American

41

VACANT PARCELS

42

2018 GIS DATA - PROVIDED BY CITY OF KANSAS CITY MISSOURI

MAJOR LANDOWNERS KCMO Land Bank KCMO Homesteading Authority

2018 GIS DATA - PROVIDED BY CITY OF KANSAS CITY MISSOURI

43

2 6

3

4

5

ASSESSED LAND VALUE (from low to high)

1

44

0 - $2,963 $2,964 - $10,982 $10,983 - $23,767 $23,768 - $49,723 $49,724 - $100,264

2018 GIS DATA - PROVIDED BY CITY OF KANSAS CITY MISSOURI

45

CHAPTER 3 PROSPECTS FOR SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION

46

47

PROSPECTS FOR SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION

The City of Kansas City, Missouri has employed a number of tools and initiatives in an effort to revitalize Key Coalition and Santa Fe, and most recent development in the study area relies on one or more forms of public support. Significantly, the breadth of recent public and civic interest in the area is cause for cautious optimism – despite many headwinds – that Key Coalition and Santa Fe might be building momentum towards attracting independently financed private development and, more importantly, truly sustainable long-term community revitalization.

A handful of agencies within the city play active roles in community revitalization in the study area. The Department of Planning and Development leads long range planning for the city as well as coordinating specific planning initiatives like the Prosperity Playbook that impact neighborhoods and communities. The Department of Neighborhood and Housing Services handles a range of action including administering local implementation of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funded programs to develop affordable rental housing, construct limited numbers of new infill housing units, and assist homeowners in maintenance and minor home repair. The Economic Development Corporation of Kansas City along with the Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority provide tools including tax abatement to support redevelopment in three urban renewal areas (Linwood-Prospect, Santa Fe, and more recently Key Coalition) within this study boundary. Kansas City’s Land Bank and Homesteading Authority together assemble vacant proper-

48

ties in an attempt to turn them back to productive private use.

Kansas City’s FOCUS Comprehensive Plan and Heart of the City Area Plan provide broad policy goals for Key Coalition and Santa Fe, including emphasis on compact mixeduse development along transit corridors and a priority of repopulating urban neighborhoods through stabilization, redevelopment, and maintenance strategies. The Prospect Corridor Initiative applied FOCUS’s policy goals to Prospect Ave. while advancing a cycles of change model to address problems of blight. More detailed physical planning is addressed through work the Santa Fe Neighborhood Action Plan and the Key Coalition URA Target Area Neighborhood Design Plan. Kansas City’s Prosperity Playbook Blueprint linked the city’s affirmatively furthering fair housing initiative to broader neighborhood services and economic mobility priorities. The city’s recently enacted TOD policy advances coordination between the city’s land use planning and KCATA investments in transit corridors including the planned Prospect Ave MAX bus rapid transit, targeting dense, mixed use development within these corridors designed to be walkable and to leverage transit amenities. The city partnered with Smart Growth America to study application of the TOD policy within the Prospect Ave. corridor. The Prospect Ave. corridor was also one of four focus areas the Kansas City Catalytic Urban Redevelopment initiative, a collaborative civic/public study to address challenges to successful long term investment and neighborhood transformation in

Kansas City’s east side. Key Coalition and Santa Fe do not lack for plans. Although additional steps could be taken to advance plans through policy, and the zoning ordinance or other regulatory action, substantial consensus exists around efforts to stabilize neighborhoods, application of higher density mixed-use development where appropriate, and addressing implementation including the need for gap financing and community driven development models.

A handful of developments in and adjacent to the study area also suggest momentum for community revitalization. The $74 million East Patrol Station at 27th and Prospect and the $15 million renovation of the Linwood Shopping Center promise to bring stability and commercial activity to Prospect Ave., although neither were completed without controversy.

The recently established Prospect Business Association, drawn initially from developers and businesses within the Linwood and Linwood Square shopping centers, may help coordinate commercial revitalization along Prospect. The PBA has discussed establishing a Prospect Ave Community Improvement District, which could fund services and public realm improvements similar to those found in other CIDs throughout the city – although some neighborhood leaders are concerned that the costs of a CID would effectively be passed through to residents. Kansas City has recently received federal funding that will cover the bulk of costs to implement MAX bus rapid transit along Prospect Ave, which will bring significant improvements to frequency and performance of transit service and is expected to stimulate

development interest adjacent to station stops. In addition, the recently passed Central City Economic Development Sales Tax should provide $8-10 million per year to incentivize development along the corridor.

There has been a lot of recent interest in Key Coalition and Santa Fe, including both planning and nascent development activity. Such activity has spanned housing, transportation, commercial development and civic enterprise. While the City of Kansas City has long led many of these efforts public and civic entities are now showing interest. In some respects greater strategy or coordination could be constructive within this stream of activity. Interests are often aligned but in are in many cases less than fully coordinated. In other cases differing interests and planning and development activity operate at cross-purposes, something we can see in the specific site examples discussed in the following section.

49

EXPLORING CURRENT PROSPECTS

We can begin to understand how a variety of public, private and civic initiatives come into play in community revitalization by examining two specific examples within the study area.

27th and Prospect Ave: Transit improvements offer the potential to drive community development Improved transit service along Prospect holds the promise of catalyzing adjacent community development. Both the City of Kansas City and the Kansas City Area Transportation Authority (KCATA) are investigating the feasibility of Transit Oriented Development (TOD) along Prospect in anticipation of starting Prospect MAX in 2020.

When completed, Prospect MAX will be Kansas City’s third Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line, offering faster, more frequent service compared to conventional bus transit. Prospect Max will include fixed station infrastructure spaced along proposed route to maximize efficiency for ridership. KCATA is working to build partnerships to pursue Transit Oriented Development along the Prospect Corridor in order to support ridership along the line as well as maximize the value of MAX service to surrounding communities. Planned stops include both 27th and Prospect and 31st/Linwood and Prospect.

At the 27th and Prospect stop, the current state of the southeast corner of the intersection holds particular promise for catalytic transit oriented development. Nearly the whole south side of 27th St from Prospect to Benton lies vacant,

50

with, from west to east, a vacant one story commercial structure at the corner of 27th and Prospect, then nine houses at varying states of occupancy and repair, then seven fully vacant lots, followed by a single apartment building at the corner of 27th and Benton. Concentrated vacancy has led to endemic drug use and prostitution on the block.

The Santa Fe Area Council has identified the area as a key priority for clean up and development. They support the location of a MAX transit stop at 27th and Prospect, and hope to see a two to three story mixed use building at the corner with office and meeting space for themselves and other businesses and non-profits as well as ground floor retail.

Although KCATA favors TOD adjacent to station stops and extending further into 27th St., the Santa Fe Area Council favors somewhat lower density mixed use development at the intersection of 27th and Prospect only, with the rest of 27th St. infilled with single family homes or multifamily buildings containing no more than four units.

Although KCATA prioritizes building density and commercial opportunities along the Prospect Ave. corridor and particularly at station nodes, the Santa Fe Area Council is concerned that future development preserves the historic fabric of the community and does not greatly exceed present densities.

31st and Prospect Ave: As a neighborhood works with the city on community revitalization, development proposals prove controversial

The intersection of 31st and Prospect has seen increased planning and development activity, beginning with designation of the Key Coalition Urban Renewal Area and then the subsequent Target Area Neighborhood Design Plan and KC-CUR. These plans aimed for a mix of housing types as well as walkable neighborhood commercial uses at major intersections. Part of the Target Area Neighborhood Design Plan involves expansion of parking and outdoor functional uses for the Lucile H. Bluford Branch of the Kansas City Public Library. The Bluford branch library at the northwest corner of 31st and Prospect is a community anchor, well valued by a range of stakeholders. Tentative library plans involve development of outdoor play spaces to support learning and healthy living, along with expansion of a surface parking lot currently over capacity during peak hours.

A private group led by Sheryl Vickers and Rev. Ron Lindsay have advanced a separate development proposal for the block adjacent to the Bluford branch library, one that proposes higher intensity development than what was called for in earlier city-led planning efforts. Vickers and Rev. Lindsay’s proposal builds on the momentum from construction of the new Sunfresh Grocery in the Linwood Shopping Center.

It involves higher density mixed use buildings along Prospect with ground floor retail as well as office and residential uses, including roughly two hundred rental apartment units.

An initial version of the proposal included a multistory parking structure along Wabash Ave.; responding to community concerns this part of the proposal was removed and a recent iteration of the proposal included rehabilitation and / or infill

construction of twenty single family homes west of the initial development site.

The Key Coalition Neighborhood Association (KCNA) has long been an active participant in community planning, supporting development of the FOCUS comprehensive plan, Heart of the City Area Plan, Vine St. Economic Development plan, Prospect Corridor Initiative, and KCURA Target Area Neighborhood Design Plan. Successes include securing funding for improvements to Spring Valley Park. KCNA is happy for the arrival of the new Sunfresh Grocery store and generally welcomes new business into the area. However, it wants to use the Target Area Neighborhood Design Plan as a template for development at 31st and Prospect adjacent to the Bluford branch library, and it is keen on being involved in the planning phases of future development projects. KCNA is concerned that the Vickers and Rev. Lindsay proposals have been out of step with what was envisioned in the Target Area Neighborhood Design Plan – a plan that they emphasize was developed with community support.

The Target Area Neighborhood Design Plan notes that the gap between development costs and market values in Key Coalition is currently something like 50%, a substantial hurdle to generating private-led development. KCNA would therefore look to any private proposal with at least some interest. The Vickers and Rev. Lindsay proposal promises roughly $60 million in private investment as well as local jobs in retail and property management, but it depends on the assembly of a number of lots into a combined develop-

51

ment parcel and in all likelihood one or more forms of public subsidy. The project would be a candidate for support via the Central City Economic Development sales tax if it garners community support and advances towards a likelihood of development, but community discomfort with the proposal concepts present a hurdle that the proposal has not yet overcome.

The City of Kansas City has a package of tools available to support development and a willingness to use those tools, demonstrated in redevelopment of the Linwood Shopping Center, creation of the KC URA, development of the Target Area Neighborhood Design Plan, and construction of demonstration residential infill projects in the broader Key Coalition neighborhood, the latter funded in part through CDBG grants. The City hopes to attract private investment into sites like the northwest corner of 31st and Prospect.

However, city officials are keen that such investment is applied towards development that is supported by community residents. This is particularly the case for development proposals that will require one or more forms of public assistance, whether direct subsidy or assistance in land assembly through the use of eminent domain.

Despite recent development activity and prospective activity, many challenges remain to cultivating a healthy, sustainable development climate in Key Coalition. Sustained, focused, collaborative efforts are needed, including a shared

52

vision and initiative amongst city, community, private and civic actors in order to make community development work in the current climate.

53

THREE KEY DILEMMAS

Key Coalition and Santa Fe face both a host of challenges and a complicated set of potential opportunities in fostering community revitalization. In developing this report, KCDC saw three dilemmas as critical to community revitalization that will be sustainable in the long term.

likely lead to lower density than its historical precedent. To recapture historic population levels that supported community vitality in Key Coalition and Santa Fe, it may therefore be necessary to introduce new types of infill development that support higher densities where appropriate.

First, a concentration of people are needed to make all of the interdependent the social and economic functions of a community in its schools, parks, shops and restaurants, truly work. Populations in Key Coalition and Santa Fe have declined by 81 and 62 percent respectively from their peak after World War II. The neighborhoods are burdened by a vicious cycle in which businesses and schools close due to the decline in the residential population that supports them, which contributes to further population decline as the communities have fewer amenities to attract residents. Key Coalition and Santa Fe need new residents, yet rebuilding their urban fabric in the manner in which they were first constructed is unlikely to be sufficient. Household sizes are smaller than they were when the neighborhoods were first platted.

Further a handful of trends -- residents tend to desire single family housing in neighborhoods even where historically they may have incorporated more of a mix of uses; single family houses built today tend to be larger on larger lots than what was built in previous years; and the economics of land development lead to land assembly and replatting to wider, larger parcels -- converge together such that even where communities and developers come together to support a vision for context sensitive development, that vision will

Second, the market does not generally support private development in the neighborhoods. Pervasive vacancy, particularly in Key Coalition, leads to lower property values throughout the community. In the Key Coalition Target Area Neighborhood Design Plan DRAW Architects estimate that there is a gap of 50% between what new development costs and what it will sell for. This gap is problematic for existing homeownership as well as new development because it acts as an implicit disincentive to home maintenance, repair, and general upkeep. Although redlining is now illegal and is no longer practiced overtly, there is anecdotal evidence that the neighborhoods continue to struggle to get private financing for housing as generally low property values generate too little margin to make underwriting home loans feasible and the standard practice of using of local comparisons creates a negative feedback loop amplifying perceived risk of individual mortgages. Viable infill development in the short term will likely need to rely on direct subsidy or other forms of public assistance. Careful consideration of per unit costs of different types of infill development may also help close the financing gap, and alternative models of development that rely less exclusively on private development and financing may be worth considering.

54

Finally, a number of disparate public, private, and civic initiatives to revitalize Key Coalition, Santa Fe, and similar communities in Kansas City’s urban core are underway. This holds tremendous promise, but it also means that shared visions for development, coordination amongst actors and activities, and cogent strategy to marshall disparate efforts and maximize their impact are all significant parts of the equation.

Efforts like Neighborhood Prospects: Sustainable Communities by Design need to address these dilemmas, supporting and building upon the full range of efforts that precede and follow them.

55

CHAPTER 4 COMMUNITY RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS

The Kansas City Design Center is a joint collaboration between the College of Architecture, Planning and Design at Kansas State University and the School of Architecture and Design and the University of Kansas. KCDC engaged a 5th-year Master of Architecture design studio in developing design strategies as a part of this Neighborhood Prospects Revitalization Study. Students engaged community stakeholders, business leaders, developers, and City agencies in order to understand the dilemmas of a community that has suffered from decades of disinvestment but is also on the cusp of revitalization.

The work presented here was driven by five public community meetings as well as advisory committee meetings and numerous discussions with neighborhood stakeholders. The Neighborhood Prospects team has held more than one hundred such meetings with individual neighborhood leaders, City staff, planning professionals, and additional stakeholders concerning the project and related initiatives within the project study area.

This interaction allowed the students to become aware of what stakeholders valued in their neighborhoods.

They were able to experience first-hand, the stories and struggles of community members advocating for their community. The story they heard was consistent: long-time residents love their historic neighborhood and want to see it protected.

56

Several investment opportunities have now presented themselves to the community. From sidewalk repair to the $53 million Prospect MAX transit infrastructure project and everything in between. We hope this report can provide community members some of the tools needed to evaluate, prioritize, and coordinate these investments.

57

EXISTING CONDITIONS - CHARACTER AND IDENTITY

The Key Coalition and Santa Fe Neighborhoods are rich in history and character. We value such neighborhoods not only for their finely detailed individual structures but also for how the structures work together to form a fabric that is distinct. One must study and understand the character of these neighborhoods in order to construct sensitive infill projects that reinforce the historic fabric while responding to the market forces of today.

Key to understanding the character of a neighborhood is the ability to identify distinct patterns of form, mass, and scale. These characteristics include such elements as: • • • • • • • • •

building height roof form proportion fenestration porch configuration setbacks location of parking materials configuration of non-building areas (streetscape,

landscape, and open space)

A clear identification of these characteristics across all the various housing typologies (single family, duplex, multifamily, etc.) is necessary for both stabilizing dilapidated housing stock and also introducing new housing prototypes that can contribute the cohesive identity of a neighborhood.

58

Ultimately, successful infill developments should not simply mimic the established character of a place but rather, must find a compatibility. Contemporary buildings should not be confused with their historic context. They must be clearly recognized as current construction.

Compatibility is particularly important when real estate market forces or zoning changes support structures much larger than the surrounding context. For example, a new building that is wider than was historically typical should incorporate design features that divide it into smaller modules to suggest the underlying lot pattern, changes in height, materials, and offsets to allow a larger building to fit into the surrounding historic context.

IDENTITY & CHARACTER IDENTITY & CHARACTER

values in comparison to to ehousing low housing values in comparison

ER 50% 0% houses in Key

n Key on and Santa Santa re built in the

BUILT YEARYEAR BUILT

1990 Census Source:Source: 1990 Census

1940-491940-49 Period of Construction

Period of Construction

Pre-1940 Pre-1940

1950-591950-59 1960-69 1960-69 1970-79 1970-79

Prospect Corridor Percent of Housing Units Prospect Corridor Percent of Housing Units Metro Area Metro Area

over 25% over of the25% houses in Key

of the houses in and Key Santa Coalition Coalition and built Santa Fe were between

59

60%

60% 50%

50% 40%

40% 30%

30% 20%

20% 10%

10% 0%

0%

1980-90 1980-90

EXISTING CONDITIONS - NEIGHBORHOOD FABRIC

Studying the historic fabric of the neighborhood and its evolution provides insights to the use of streets,sidewalks, front yard, and alleys. These configurations and the resulting lot widths and development patterns are some of the most important defining characteristics of neighborhoods.

These patterns must be preserved and reinforced as new development patterns are introduced. Adaptations such as the enlargement of a carriage house to fit a modern vehicle or the improvements to side streets to allow emergency vehicle access are necessary. However, such interventions should be sensitive to preserve the integrity of historically defining characteristics.

The Sanborn insurance maps are one of the most valuable resources we have today in understanding the historic patterning of land parcels. They provide the blueprint for understanding the structure upon which an historic neighborhood evolved.

This is particularly important to neighborhoods like Key Coalition and Santa Fe where depopulation and disinvestment has led to the deterioration and eventual removal of historic structures.

These maps also provide clues for understanding how density might be reintroduced to the neighborhood. The historic neighborhood pattern reveals that density, typically

60

measured in dwelling units per acre, consistently increases as one moves towards Prospect Avenue. Larger homes on larger lots typically occur on corner parcels. And, consistent setbacks provide a uniform buffer area separating the sidewalks from front porches.

Students kept these patterns in mind as they developed infill prototypes that attempt to fit comfortably within the constraints of historic blocks. The increased density that occurs towards Prospect is also significant in supporting the notion of Transit Oriented Development patterns along the planned Prospect MAX development.

60’

60’

60’

60’

60’

60’

60’

60’

60’

IDENTITY & CHARACTER IDENTITY & CHARACTER IDENTITY & CHARACTER

15’

15’

15’

15’

60’

60’

15’

15’

60’ 15’

15’

15’ 60’

15’

60’

15’

15’

15’

15’

15’

60’

15’

60’

15’

60’

15’

60’ 8.25’

8.25’

8.25’ 8.25’

8.25’

8.25’

8.25’

8.25’

8.25’

Typical parcel size

Typical parcel size 120’

1909 Sanborn Map

OVEROVER 50% 50% OVER 50% of the historic of thehomes historic homes

of the historic homes were lost in the Key were lost in the Key were lost inand the Key Fe Coalition and Santa FeSanta Coalition Coalition and Santa Fe neighborhoods neighborhoods neighborhoods

25% 25% 25% of the land is now of the land is now

120’

30’

120’

120’ 40’

40’

90’

90’

90’

40’

50’

50’

2017 ArcGIS 2017Map ArcGIS Map 2017 ArcGIS Map

30’

. Shapefiles provided by theprovid Kans . Shapefiles Missouri Office Missouri of Planning andof Development Office Planning and Development . Shapefiles provided by

Missouri Office of Planning and Development

of the land is now vacant in the Key vacant in the Key vacant in and theFeKey Coalition and Santa Coalition Santa Fe Coalitionneighborhoods and Santa Fe neighborhoods neighborhoods

120’

120’ 30’

2900th Block of Park Ave

Typical parcel size

50’

50’

50’

Sanborn 1909-1951 Sanborn 1909-1951 2900th Block of Park Ave Sanborn 1909-1951 1909-1951 Sanborn Map

2900th Block of Park Ave 2900th Block of Park Ave

90’

90’

90’ 50’

2900th Block of Park Ave

50’

50’

2900th Block of Park Ave 2900th Block of Park Ave 2900th Block of Park Ave

90’

90’

90’ 50’

Sanborn 1909 Sanborn 2900th Block1909 of Park Ave Sanborn 1909

Typical parcel size

2900th Block of Park Ave

Typical parcel size Typical parcel size

61

EXISTING CONDITIONS - DEMOGRAPHICS/ZONING

The students next looked at demographic trends and zoning to understand whether shifts in development patterns has had a negative effect on the historic fabric seen in the Sanborn maps. For the most part, the historic patterning of single family homes is largely in-tact. Even on many blocks where homes have been demolished, the traces of consistent tree lawn and sidewalk remain even if in disrepair.

The most telling result of studying the demographics of the area is the steep decline in owner-occupied housing. As families have moved out of the neighborhoods, there has not been a market demand for new housing. This has led to the numerous tear-downs that result when housing is left uninhabited and not maintained. The result is that empty lots spot the neighborhood where it doesn’t make sense to rebuild where a new structure may not command the sales price or rent needed for the project to be viable.

Diagrams and analysis were also conducted to better understand the street hierarchy. Prospect Avenue remains the primary thoroughfare connecting the neighborhood to the Central Business District.

Understanding the secondary and tertiary transportation routes helped the students to prioritize infill parcels that, if developed, could begin connecting neighborhood nodes to the Prospect MAX transit. This connectivity allows neighborhoods to increase their walkability and livability.

62

Understanding the zoning, demographic, and ownership patterns also allowed the studio to be more precise in selecting parcels for infill development that may have the most impact. Owner-occupied homes that have become dilapidated may be better candidates for rehabilitation grant funding while parcels owned by the City may be better suited for demolition and redevelopment.





















LOW

POPULATION DENSITY HIGH

63























  



















64 HISTORIC DISTRICTS























27TH ST

28TH ST

VICTOR ST

29TH ST

30TH ST

31ST ST

LINWOOD BLVD

33RD ST

ZONING 34TH ST

65

INDIANA AVE

WALROND AVE

BENTON BLVD

PROSPECT AVE

WABASH AVE

OLIVE ST

PARK AVE

BROOKLYN AVE

GARFIELD AVE

EUCLID AVE



















































































Defining main streets within the neighborhoods to allow for more density.

66











































Choosing lots in both neighborhoods which would allow for more options.





Understanding density of certain demographics within the neighborhoods: Children





























































































































 



Understanding density of certain demographics within the neighborhoods: College

Understanding density of certain demographics within the neighborhoods: Aged in their 20’s

Understanding density of certain demographics within the neighborhoods: Aged from 30s to 60s

67

Well-maintained single family homes with front porches contribute to a walkable neighborhood.

Curb cuts are a barrier to walkable streets and should be minimized where there is no alley-access for parking and services.

Even with various roof forms and architectural styles, homes with similar site placement and setbacks contribute to the historic fabric of the neighborhood.

68

INFILL PROTOTYPING STUDIES

The studio then investigated a range of infill development scenarios for a range of vacant or underutilized parcels within the study area.

We first assessed vacant parcels, based on a variety of factors, in order to identify parcels within the study area that have the most promise in terms of infill development supporting broader community revitalization. The graphic to the right represents a number of these factors, from proximity to key transit corridors to historic property status.

They are graphically represented by an adjustable dial to indicate that the weighting of individual features can be changed and adjusted based on community input. Using these characteristics to inform site selection for infill development scenarios allows us to prioritize potential for impact over individual parcels most in need of help. This should help ensure that infill development and investment in broader revitalization can have a catalytic effect.

We then created a number of infill development prototypes for selected parcels across the neighborhood. Students identified sixteen parcels to be studied further. Prototypes included designs for single family, duplex, fourplex, and multifamily housing models. Several of these designs are presented here. Each prototype uses the form, mass, scale and articulation of the surrounding context to inform infill design. Prototypes use contemporary construction materials and techniques while blending sensitively into neighborhood fabric and context. Each of the following

prototype designs includes an address, unit type, and square footage. Most indicate potential for accessory dwelling units, where zoning allows, as a way of increasing the density and broadening choices of available housing types while reinforcing historic neighborhood fabric.

NOT CONSIDERED HEAVILY CONSIDERED

PROXIMITY TO KEY TRANSIT CORRIDORS

NOT CONSIDERED HEAVILY CONSIDERED

SITE + PROGRAMATIC OPPORTUNITIES

NOT CONSIDERED HEAVILY CONSIDERED

EXISTING INVESTMENT / IMPROVEMENT ACTIVITY

NOT CONSIDERED HEAVILY CONSIDERED

ACCESS TO PARKING

NOT CONSIDERED HEAVILY CONSIDERED

SPEED OF ADJACENT STREETS

NOT CONSIDERED HEAVILY CONSIDERED

COMMUNITY SUPPORT + CAPACITY

NOT CONSIDERED HEAVILY CONSIDERED

SCALE OF SURROUNDING BUILDINGS

NOT CONSIDERED HEAVILY CONSIDERED

STATE OF EXISTING FOUNDATION

NOT CONSIDERED HEAVILY CONSIDERED

SAFETY OF SURROUNDING AREA

NOT CONSIDERED HEAVILY CONSIDERED

PROXIMITY TO PUBLIC GREEN SPACE

NOT CONSIDERED HEAVILY CONSIDERED

OWNER OF PROPERTY

NOT CONSIDERED HEAVILY CONSIDERED

HISTORIC PROPERTY STATUS

SITE SELECTION PARAMETERS

69

3034 WABASH AVE, 1 UNIT, 3 BED/2.5 BATH, 1,728 SF DESIGNER: PERRY WEBER

105' - 0" 64' - 0"

16' - 0"

WABASH AVENUE

27' - 0" 4' - 0"

35' - 0"

4' - 0"

25' - 0"

SITE PLAN

EXISTING CONDITION

70

1

3D View

PROPOSED RENDERING

SECOND FLOOR PLAN 1

2nd Floor 1/8" = 1'-0"

FIRST FLOOR PLAN 1

Ground Floor 1/8" = 1'-0"

71

PA ARK AVENUE

5' - 0"

52' - 0"

42' - 0"

5' - 0"

2820 PARK AVE, 2 UNITS, 2 BED/1.5 BATH, 1,000 SF DESIGNER: SPENCER REED

25' - 0"

81' - 0"

19' - 0"

125' - 0"

SITE PLAN

28 820 PARK AVE

EXISTING CONDITION

72

PROPOSED RENDERING

DN

SECOND FLOOR PLAN 2

Level 2 1/8" = 1'-0" DN

DN

UP

WH

UP

WH

FIRST FLOOR PLAN

73 1

Level 1 1/8" = 1'-0"

2750 OLIVE ST, 4 UNITS, 2-3 BED/2 BATH, 1,300-1,500 SF DESIGNER: JEREMY WEILAND

138 ' - 0 " 1 9' - 0 "

107 ' - 0 "

6 ' - 0"

12' - 0"

'

6 '- 0 "

OLIVE STREET

98' - 0"

110 ' - 0 "

'

SITE PLAN

2750 OLIVE ST

EXISTING CONDITION

74

PROPOSED RENDERING

FIRST FLOOR PLAN

SECOND FLOOR PLAN

FRONT ELEVATION

75

2111 E 33RD ST, 12 UNITS, 2 BED/3.5 BATH, 1,900 SF DESIGNER: ALEX TACKES

130' - 0"

85' - 0"

20' - 0"

252' - 0"

8' - 0"

BROOKLYN AVENUE

224' - 0"

20' - 0

"

25' - 0"

SITE PLAN

2111 E 33 STREET

EXISTING CONDITION

76

PROPOSED RENDERING

FIRST FLOOR PLAN

SECOND FLOOR PLAN

FRONT ELEVATION

77

3029 BENTON BLVD, 1 UNIT, 4 BED/2 BATH, 1,300 SF DESIGNER: TESSNEEM ELKHATEEB

135' - 0"

32' - 0"

4' - 0"

20' - 0"

40' - 0"

81' - 0"

4' - 0"

BENTON BOULEVARD

34' - 0"

SITE PLAN

3029 Benton Blvd

EXISTING CONDITION

78

PROPOSED RENDERING

vel 1 Copy 1 = 10'-0"

REF.

UP

DN

1

Level 1 Copy 1 1" = 10'-0"

UP

REF.

DN

DN

FIRST FLOOR PLAN

2

Level 2 1" = 10'-0"

SECOND FLOOR PLAN

DN

vel 2 = 10'-0"

WEST ELEVATION

SOUTH ELEVATION

79

3016 INDIANA AVE, 2 UNITS, 3 BED/3 BATH, 1,280 SF DESIGNER: BENJAMIN JENSEN

130' - 0" 62' - 0"

32' - 6"

INDIANA AVENUE

50' - 0"

5' - 0"

40' - 0"

5' - 0"

35' - 6"

SITE PLAN 3016 INDIANA AVE

EXISTING CONDITION

80

PROPOSED RENDERING

DN

DN

DW

REF.

SECOND FLOOR PLAN

D

UP

UP

REF.

DW

D

WH W

REF.

DW

WH

WH W

FIRST FLOOR PLAN

FRONT ELEVATION

SECTION

81

3016 INDIANA AVE, 4 UNITS, 2 BED/2 BATH, 930SF DESIGNER: BETH CAMPANELLA

130' - 0" 62' - 0"

32' - 6"

INDIANA AVENUE

50' - 0"

5' - 0"

40' - 0"

5' - 0"

35' - 6"

SITE PLAN 3016 INDIANA AVE

EXISTING CONDITION

82

PROPOSED RENDERING

UP

DN

DN

UP

FIRST FLOOR PLAN

SECOND FLOOR PLAN

FRONT ELEVATION

83

Blvd

2801 BENTON BLVD, 8 UNITS, 2 BED/2 BATH, 1,400 SF DESIGNER: NOAH MEDIAVILLA

BENTON BOULEVARD

185' - 0" 10' - 0" 165' - 0"

10' - 0"

EAST 28 STREET

15' - 0" 90' - 0"

54' - 0" 21' - 0"

30' - 0"

60' - 0"

SITE PLAN

EXISTING CONDITION

84

PROPOSED RENDERING

SECOND FLOOR PLAN

FIRST FLOOR PLAN

1

FRONT Section 2 1/16" = 1'-0"

ELEVATION

85

3100 E LINWOOD BLVD, 1 UNIT, 2 BED/1 BATH, 967 SF DESIGNER: KELLY COLE

50' - 0" 40' - 0"

50' - 0" 5' 5'

40' - 0"

5' - 0"

140' - 0"

21' - 0"

94' - 0"

25' - 0"

5' - 0"

SITE PLAN EAST LINWOOD BOULEVARD

3100 E LINWOOD BLVD

EXISTING CONDITION

86

PROPOSED RENDERING

A

B

A

B

SECOND FLOOR PLAN

FIRST FLOOR PLAN

FRONT ELEVATION

87

2702 E LINWOOD BLVD, 2 UNITS, 2 BED/1 BATH, 1,040 SF DESIGNER: MCKENZIE SAMP

50 ' - 0 " 40 ' - 0 "

5' - 0 "

85' - 0" 40' - 0"

150' - 0"

25' - 0"

5' - 0 "

SITE PLAN EAST LINWOOD BOULEVARD

2702 E LINWOOD BLVD

EXISTING CONDITION

88

PROPOSED RENDERING

34' - 0"

PANTRY

3' - 0"

17' - 0"

3'PANTRY - 6"

PANTRY

DN

DN

4' - 0"

4' - 0"

FIRST FLOOR PLAN

17' - 0"

30' - 6"

PANTRY

3' - 0"

34' - 0"

17' - 0"

30' - 6"

17' - 0"

SECOND FLOOR PLAN

FRONT ELEVATION

89

2201 E LINWOOD BLVD, 16 UNITS, 2 BED/1 BATH, 1,200 SF DESIGNER: MONICA MONG

EAST LINWOOD BOULEVARD

15' - 0"

270' - 0" 240' - 0"

195' - 0" 25' - 0"

3100 E LINWOOD D BLVD

SITE PLAN

EXISTING CONDITION

90

240' - 0"

20' - 0"

15' - 0"

3100 E LINWOOD D BLVD

3100 E LINWOOD D BLVD

WH

WH

WH WH

WH WH

EAST LINWOOD BOULEVARD

WH

WH WH

EAST LINWOOD BOULEVARD

WH

WH WH

WH WH

WH WH

ELEVATION North FRONT 1/16" = 1'-0" 1

SECOND FLOOR PLAN FIRST FLOOR PLAN

91

2831 WABASH AVE, 2 UNITS, 2 BED/1.5 BATH, 1,200 SF DESIGNER: HOLLY HASSLER

12 5' - 0"

34' - 0"

8' - 0"

25 ' - 0 "

50' - 0"

81 ' - 3 "

8' - 0"

WABA ASH AVENUE

18 ' - 9 "

SITE PLAN 2831 Wabash Ave

EXISTING CONDITION

92

PROPOSED RENDERING

DN

UP

UP

DN

FIRST FLOOR PLAN

SECOND FLOOR PLAN

FRONT ELEVATION

93

2900-2904 PROSPECT AVE, 4 UNITS, 2 BED/2 BATH, 1,500 SF DESIGNER: SIERRA DUBIS

125' - 0" 3 0' - 0"

90' - 0"

PROSPECT AVENUE

9 5' - 0"

SITE PLAN

29 900 0 + 2904 Prospect Ave

EXISTING CONDITION

94

1

3D View 2

PROPOSED RENDERING

DN DN

SECOND FLOOR PLAN

FIRST FLOOR PLAN

FRONT ELEVATION

95

HISTORIC AREAS VS. AREAS OF OPPORTUNITY

While the previous prototype infill development scenarios reinforce the historic fabric of the neighborhoods, they will not alone provide the affordable housing options nor the density to capitalize on the reinvestment potential of the Prospect MAX project. Increased connectivity to downtown and walkability will allow Prospect Avenue to develop into a vibrant mixed-use urban street.

Protecting the historic fabric of the neighborhoods ought to be accompanied by mixed-use development along transit corridors designed according to principles of Transit Oriented Development. These two approaches work together. They maintain the cherished character of Key Coalition and Santa Fe while incentivizing development along designated transit corridors.�

As the graphic on the right indicates, a TOD district boundary may diagrammatically be drawn to simply include the adjacent block along the transit line. Within this boundary is where Prospect MAX-funded improvements will take place.

Right-of-way improvements such as traffic signals, crosswalks, curb and sidewalk repair, and other streetscape improvements will be prioritized within this TOD district zone. However, right-of-way improvements off Prospect and within the neighborhoods will also need to happen in order to provide safe and walkable connections to the bus line.

96

Neighborhood stakeholders must find ways to advocate for this conceptual TOD district boundary to be pushed and pulled in order to provide opportunities for investments to be made that allow critical neighborhood pedestrian connections to be safer and more cohesive.

Vacant lot clearing, tree trimming, root removal, sidewalk repair, lighting enhancements, curb and gutter paving all provide the signs of safe and walkable connections that lead to transit.

These two seemingly disparate development strategies: historic neighborhood infill and TOD zones must be pursued in conjunction with one another.

Areas of densification might include: • • • •

Higher crime Vacant buildings Major intersections Transit hubs

Areas of preservation might include: • • •

Hard-edge TOD Boundary

Historic buildings Historical marker Owner occupied properties

Transitional TOD Boundary

97

CHAPTER 5 TWO APPROACHES FOR COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION PRESERVING HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOODS

Can infill development preserve historic neighborhoods?

We believe it can. Done sensitively, infill development can provide opportunities to bring residents back to neighborhoods that have suffered from decades of depopulation.

One of the things that community members love most about their neighborhoods is the consistency of architectural types that allow buildings on parcels and parcels along streets to be read as a fabric.

The historic fabric that exists in the Key Coalition and Santa Fe neighborhoods is primarily single-family homes.

The preservation of historic homes is a critical component to revitalization and the City offers a variety of home repair programs such as the City Home Repair Program, Targeted Home Repair, and the Paint Program.

While single family homes may have served the needs of the neighborhoods in the early part of the last century, there is the need for more housing options in order to grow the neighborhoods to meet the needs of today’s communities.

Infill development, the new construction of housing within historic neighborhoods, can provide more varied housing types that older homes may be able to accommodate. For example, thoughtfully designed four- or six-unit structures that match the form, mass and scale of the historic homes may provide access to a larger demographic of new residents while complementing the existing fabric.

98

It is important to note that many historic district guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic Preservation are extremely clear about the aesthetics of infill development. New buildings should not be built to look like they are historic, rather, they should call themselves out as new.

Many of the materials, products, and even craftsmanship that contribute to the character of historic homes simply no longer exist. Thus, new buildings should reflect the time period in which they are built. They should be configured to be harmonious with the form, mass, and scale of the surrounding fabric but also celebrate contemporary materials and building construction standards.

This nuanced approach to infill development is difficult to achieve, however, when done well it creates neighborhoods that endure and are loved.

Home Value $20-50K

Lot Value $250-1,000

Housing in disrepair causing decline in property values in the neighborhood

99

DEVELOPMENT CASE STUDY: CHAMPA TERRACE, CURTIS PARK, DENVER

In order to explore an alternative development model that leverages resources from within the community, a self-development case study from Denver is presented here.

developer. They soon realized that through neighborhood crowd sourcing they could assemble the resources and expertise to develop the project themselves.

The Curtis Park Neighborhood is an historic neighborhood near downtown Denver. The housing stock dates from the 1890’s to 1910’s and includes several historic districts.

Because zoning allows for development much more dense than neighbors believe is compatible with this context, they self-organized to develop the type of housing they felt to be more congruent with the neighborhood structures.

The core group of investors were able to recruit 15 more families interesting in developing the project. A total of 23 families bought shares of the LLC with the intention of investing in their neighborhood. By putting their own homes up for collateral, the group was able to close on a $1 million construction loan.

When neighbors became concerned when they learned of a development plan to build 24 units on a parcel between two historic single-family homes. This “slot-home” development, as it is referred to, would be four stories tall with front doors facing an interior patio. The long narrow building would have no street presence or porches and the majority of the ground floor would be taken up by parking.

Neighborhood leaders did not feel this development trend would protect the neighborhood character.

A core group of 8 neighbors formed a Limited Liability Company and purchased the property for $40,000. They called the organization Curtis Park Investors Group, LLC. They engaged an architect and began to explore housing development options that they felt to be more congruent with the neighborhood. The original intention was to sell the property with the conceptual plans to an experienced

100

The four-unit project sold out within 6 weeks of completion and neighbors realized a 65% return on their investment over two years. Unlike most gentrification where profit tends to leave the neighborhood, all profits from the project stayed within blocks of the development.

Community Groundbreaking

Champa Terrace, Denver

101

DEVELOPMENT CASE STUDY: MERCHANTS ROW, CURTIS PARK, DENVER

Upon the completion of the first neighborhood development project, neighbors began to grow concerned about another nearby parcel that was being eyed by developers for a large apartment building.

Neighbors felt a townhome project with affordable garden-level accessory dwelling units fit more contextually into the block. Several in the original investment group rolled over their profits to a purchase the property.

The group formed a second LLC called CPIG II. The group began soliciting neighborhood investors for the second project and response was overwhelming. More than 42 families were willing to buy into the project. The project was designed as 6 townhomes above 6 affordable accessory dwelling units.

The project was so overcollateralized by neighbors willing to put their homes up to guarantee the loan that the LLC was reorganized into Guarantors and non-Guarantors. The group was able to close on a $2.5million construction loan.

The project sold out quickly and the return on investment over two years was 50 - 75% depending on one’s collateral contribution.

102

Merchants Row, Denver

103

A SELF-DEVELOPMENT MODEL FOR KANSAS CITY

The direct application of the Denver self-development model to the study area poses several challenges. Input from local lending institutions advised that the equity requirements would be at least 20% of the loan. Also, residents offering their primary residences as collateral would not be acceptable.

The pro forma was further developed to demonstrate the viability of a self-development model for the 6-unit townhome project. The East Side 1/8-cent tax was utilized to meet a portion of both the equity and collateral requirements.

Ultimately, under this plan, 20 residents willing to invest in their neighborhood could accomplish the project. In this scenario, each family able to make an initial investment of roughly $4,000 would be paid out approximately $5,000 at the completion of the project.

Not only does the project provide a return on investment, but the sales begin to raise property values. The relatively quick turnaround of such a project makes it repeatable and able to adjust to various land assemblages or alternative housing options.

An assemblage of vacant land was selected at 2721 E. 27th Street in order to test infill development alternatives.

This particular parcel assemblage is an ideal location to test opportunities for various housing types for a number of

104

factors: its proximity to a key transit corridor and a future transit node identified at E. 27th and Prospect, as well as the East Side Crime Lab redevelopment. The site is also located between several city-owned lots that could be easily acquired.

Potential Bus Stop/KCATA Location

Hicks Joe T Sr 2640 2614

PROSPECT AVE.

Double 2604 Double Ace Ace Inc Inc 2608

Franklin Lawrence

Smith Lemino 2611 &JB

Sanders Ronald 2717 Henry Bridgette 2600

Hamilton Elaine T & Bruner Charles L 2604

Jackson 2607 Joseph Stewart 2603 Debra

Akanuligo Ifeyinwa

Land Bank of

2643 Kansas City

Land Bank Smocks Smocks Arthur A of Kansas Arthur City 2618 Missouri

2607

2701

Address Matches Owner- Relocate?

2615

2617

2619

Missouri

2700

2621

2701

Equity Trust

Williams Co Fbo Lemuel G Roberta

Jelovachan

Caldwell Julia C & Martin Laurice C

2610 Reyes Ramon

Wells Fargo Bank Na-Trustee 2611

Potential Mixed Use?

2618 2614

2615

2622

Igow Cummings Amina & Abdi Michael Abukar

Csma Blt LLC 2619

2623 Carr Bertha L

2704 2706

2623

2710

Odis

Greater Revelations Church

2703

Billings Cleophes & Anita Phillips Richard E

2630

2631

2635

2719

Johnson Louis & Gretchen

Greater Revelations Church

Silinzy Ricky

Nelson R&G

2639

SL Developers LLC

Powell Thequita

2646

2650

2654

2645

Potential Land Assemblage?

Moten 2649 Darren D Sr

2700 2704

Mitchell Herbert L& Spann Albert

Sasha Investments LLC Rroland Leshyeka D Boyd Carolyn A II CC& 2718 E LLC 2708

2658

2642 2638

Kansas City MO Homesteading Authority

2761

2721 Wilkins Willie

Payne John F & Wanda F

Townsend Winnie L& Bennie L

2757

2709

2634

2627

LLC

2714

2720

Land Bank of Kansas Land Bank Smocks City of Kansas Tamala K Missouri City Missouri

2626

2643 Stone Kendrick Smith 2642 2645 Morgan Derrick Monecia R & Rubye Morgan Morgan Derrick 2647 L G & Rubye N Derrick L G 2818 & Rubye N

Maxwell Maxwell 2718 M&S Jacqueline JacquelineInvestorsMyrick Marie &

2707

West Quentin

Diaz Marco

2702

City Owned - Easy to Aquire

CC&E LLC

CC& E LLC 2660

2720 CC&E 2724 LLC

St Augustines 2732 Episcopal Church

Multi-Family Housing

Site Selection, analysis of lots for Kansas City self-development

105

FORMATION OF AN LLC DEVELOPMENT COMPANY

The community self-development model imagined here depends on a group of neighbors bringing their own resources and expertise to bear on the project. The original model explored the possibility of identifying 20 property owners within the Key Coalition and Santa Fe neighborhoods willing to place a primary residence worth $80,000 - $150,000 up for collateral in order to close on a development loan.

We then looked at splitting the equity requirement between residents and the Central City Economic Development Sales Tax funds.

The Limited Liability Company would be make up of resident investors. Members and Managing Members of the LLC would organize to make all decisions regarding the financing, design, and development of the project.

Members would buy into shares of the LLC with voting privileges for each share. This grassroots community activism would allow residents to directly benefit from the project selection process within the Central City Economic Development Sales Tax District. This process would allow residents willing to invest in themselves and in their neighborhoods to take pride in seeing a project built with their own ideas and resources.

106

SITE

Limited Liability Company Potential participants in a self-development project

107

MODELING FOR HIGHEST AND BEST USE

The process for establishing the highest and best use for the assembled land is not an exact science. We began by configuring various layouts that worked within the existing zoning and parking requirements. The first scheme shown here, four (4) single family homes works well with the site.

However, the sales price would need to be higher than $300,000 per unit and there are no construction efficiencies realized in costs.

The second scheme shown, four (4) duplexes still fits nicely into a block of historic homes, however there is still not much construction cost savings realized from the configuration.

The third scheme maintains appropriate setbacks, porch location, parking and the inclusion of six (6) townhome units realizes a certain construction efficiency that works well in bringing project costs down. The slightly smaller sizes also bring the cost and thus the sales price down.

The fourth scheme shows twelve (12) units. This would come close to maximizing the number of units allowable under the parking requirements and provides great construction efficiency, however, the need to sell twelve units that are all similar in layout and price range gives us pause.

108

The decision was made to further develop the six (6) unit pro forma in order to test its viability. This financial model ultimately became the project that the studio more fully designed and tested.

BENTON BLVD

27TH STREET

FOUR (4) SINGLE FAMILY HOMES OPTION This configuration shows four (4) single family homes with setbacks that are compatible with the surrounding context. Each has a front porch facing the street with detached garages accessed by a curb cut.

109

4 Duplexes (8 units)

260’-0”

BENTON BLVD

160’-0”

27TH STREET

FOUR (4) DUPLEXES OPTION This configuration shows four (4) duplexes (8 total units) with setbacks that are compatible with the surrounding context. Each has a porch facing the street parking is accessed from the rear by a one-way drive aisle requiring only two curb cuts.

110

BENTON BLVD

27TH STREET

SIX (6) TOWNHOUSE UNITS OPTION This configuration shows a 6ix (6) unit townhouse building with setbacks that are compatible with the surrounding context.

Each has a front porch facing the street. Parking is accessed from the rear by a one-way drive aisle requiring only two curb cuts.

111

BENTON BLVD

27TH STREET

TWELVE (12) TOWNHOUSE UNITS OPTION This configuration shows a twelve (12) unit townhouse building with setbacks that are compatible with the surrounding context. Each has a front porch facing the street. Parking is accessed from the rear by a one-way drive aisle requiring only two curb cuts.

112

DENSITY AND AFFORDABILITY

Various solutions were tested to arrive at a viable development model. The back-of-napkin financial analysis utilized construction costs that were provided by a local contractor.

The single-family homes were estimated to cost in the range of $140/sf while the efficiencies of a multifamily structure brought the cost down to about $110/sf.

Medium Income of $22,000 could comfortably maintain these anticipated mortgage payments.

All examples were market-driven and assumed at least 10% profit. This resulted in the required sales price for single-family homes to be approximately $330,000 while townhomes would need to yield a sales price of $170,000.

This difference is significant. Not only is a home price above $300,000 not compatible with comparable prices in the neighborhood, homes in this price range would exclusively be marketed to buyers from outside the community.

Units for sale at $170,000 could be afforded by home buyers within the community.

We’re hopeful that a $170,000 mortgage would result in a monthly payment of $750 to $850.

This is well within the range of apartment rental rates within the neighborhood. The goal of creating affordable housing is elusive in a neighborhood that has suffered disinvestment that has resulted in depressed property values.

Typically, affordable housing can be defined as being able to afford housing at no more than 30% of one’s income.

Using this standard, a two-income family earning the Area

113

INITIAL FINANCIAL MODELING

The initial schematic pro forma outlined here for four (4) Single-Family homes did not yield a viable solution. The studio modeled four (4) 1,500 sf units at $140/sf. The addition of land costs, soft costs (professional fees, permit, legal expenses, survey, taxes), financing, contingency, closing costs, real estate commission, and a models 10% profit brought the sales price for each home to approximately $330,000. The multifamily option was pursued in greater detail.

114

S

FOUR (4) SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES OPTION

SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE >ĂŶĚ ŽƐƚ

ŽƐƚƐ

^ŽĨƚ ŽƐƚƐ

>ĂŶĚ ŽƐƚ

ϲϬϬϬ ϭϰϬ Ψ ϴϰϬ͕ϬϬϬ͘ϬϬ й ŽĨ ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ ϭϴ Ψ ϭϱϭ͕ϮϬϬ͘ϬϬ

,ĂƌĚ ŽƐƚ

ϱй ŽĨ dŽƚĂů

Ψ ϱϬ͕ϮϯϬ͘ϬϬ

&ŝŶĂŶĐŝŶŐ

Ϯй ^ŽĨƚ Θ ϰй ,ĂƌĚ

Ψ ϯϲ͕ϲϮϰ͘ϬϬ

ŽŶƚŝŶŐĞŶĐLJ

&ŝŶĂŶĐŝŶŐ ŽŶƚŝŶŐĞŶĐLJ

'ƌŽƐƐ ^ĂůĞƐ

ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚ WƌŽĨŝƚ

ŽƐƚƐ

Ψ ϭϯ͕ϰϬϬ͘ϬϬ

^͘&͘

,ĂƌĚ ŽƐƚ

TWELVE (12) TOWNHOUSE UNITS OPTION

MULTIFAMILY HOUSE

Ψͬ^͘&͘

dŽƚĂů džƉĞŶƐĞƐ hŶŝƚƐ ^͘&͘ ϰ ϭϱϬϬ

Ψ ϭ͕Ϭϵϭ͕ϰϱϰ͘ϬϬ Ψͬ^͘&͘ ^Ƶŵ ΨϮϮϬ Ψ ϭ͕ϯϮϬ͕ϬϬϬ͘ϬϬ

>ĞƐƐ ZĞĂů ƐƚĂƚĞ ŽŵŵŝƐŝŽŶ ;ϱйͿ >ĞƐƐ ůŽƐŝŶŐ ŽƐƚƐ ;ϭйͿ EĞƚ /ŶĐŽŵĞ EĞƚ /ŶĐŽŵĞͲdŽƚĂů džƉĞŶƐĞƐ

hŶŝƚ ŽƐƚ

Ψ ϲϲ͕ϬϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭϯ͕ϮϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭ͕ϮϰϬ͕ϴϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭϰϵ͕ϯϰϲ͘ϬϬ

ΨϯϯϬ͕ϬϬϬ

^͘&͘

ϭϮϬϬϬ ϭϭϬ Ψ ϭ͕ϯϮϬ͕ϬϬϬ͘ϬϬ й ŽĨ ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ ϭϴ Ψ Ϯϯϳ͕ϲϬϬ͘ϬϬ

^ŽĨƚ ŽƐƚƐ

'ƌŽƐƐ ^ĂůĞƐ

ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚ WƌŽĨŝƚ

Ψ ϭϯ͕ϰϬϬ͘ϬϬ

Ψͬ^͘&͘

ϱй ŽĨ dŽƚĂů

Ψ ϳϴ͕ϱϱϬ͘ϬϬ

Ϯй ^ŽĨƚ Θ ϰй ,ĂƌĚ

Ψ ϱϳ͕ϱϱϮ͘ϬϬ

dŽƚĂů džƉĞŶƐĞƐ hŶŝƚƐ ^͘&͘ ϭϮ ϭϬϬϬ

Ψ ϭ͕ϳϬϳ͕ϭϬϮ͘ϬϬ Ψͬ^͘&͘ ^Ƶŵ ΨϭϳϬ Ψ Ϯ͕ϬϰϬ͕ϬϬϬ͘ϬϬ

>ĞƐƐ ZĞĂů ƐƚĂƚĞ ŽŵŵŝƐŝŽŶ ;ϱйͿ >ĞƐƐ ůŽƐŝŶŐ ŽƐƚƐ ;ϭйͿ EĞƚ /ŶĐŽŵĞ EĞƚ /ŶĐŽŵĞͲdŽƚĂů džƉĞŶƐĞƐ

hŶŝƚ ŽƐƚ

Ψ ϭϬϮ͕ϬϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϮϬ͕ϰϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϭ͕ϵϭϳ͕ϲϬϬ͘ϬϬ Ψ ϮϭϬ͕ϰϵϴ͘ϬϬ

ΨϭϳϬ͕ϬϬϬ

ŽůůĂƚĞƌĂů ŽƐƚ

Ψ ϭ͕ϲϯϳ͕ϭϴϭ͘ϬϬ

ŽůůĂƚĞƌĂů ŽƐƚ

Ψ Ϯ͕ϱϲϬ͕ϲϱϯ͘ϬϬ

ϱй ŽǁŶ

Ψ ϱϰ͕ϱϳϮ͘ϳϬ

ϱй ŽǁŶ

Ψ ϴϱ͕ϯϱϱ͘ϭϬ

117

115

DEVELOPED SIX (6) TOWNHOUSE UNIT PROPOSAL

The multifamily project that was further explored was a six (6) townhouse unit project. The project utilizes approximately half the parcel assemblage with the potential to develop additional lots at a later date. Land acquisition is assumed to be at nearly zero cost. Six (6) units approximately 900 1,200sf and a projected construction cost of $110/sf were designed to fit on the site at an anticipated hard construction cost of $660,000.

Soft costs, contingency, and financing bring development costs to $855,549. We have proposed an equity requirement of $163,273 to be split between the Central City Sales tax proceeds and resident investors.

Assuming twenty investors, this results in residents being able to participate in real estate development within their own neighborhood for a $4,082 buy-in. At a sales cost of $170,000 and a profit of 12%, each investor will receive a $1,081 payout per share.

We hope this return on investment could be rolled over to additional real estate improvement projects in the community.

116

Costs

Land Cost

$1,000

Hard Cost (6 units @ 1,000 sf = 6,000 sf) 6,000 sf x

110 /sf =

$660,000

Soft Cost (18% of Hard Costs) 0.18 Contingency

$118,800

(5% hard 3% soft) $660,000 $118,800

x x

0.05 0.03

$33,000 $3,564

Subtotal Expenses

$816,364

Financing

(assume interest/fees at 6% and 20% down) Loan Amount

$653,091.20

x

0.06

=

Total Expenses

$39,185

$855,549

Collateral Requirements

Assume 150% of Loan Amount (1/8 cent tax + property values)

=

$979,637

Equity Requirement (20%) $816,364.00

x

0.2

x

$163,273

$163,273 $163,273

x x

0.5 0.5

x x

$81,636.40 $81,636.40

1/8 cent tax Resident investors Assume 20 participants Initial Buy-in Requirement

Income

Gross Sales

$4,081.82

(6 units @ $170,000 ea.)

6

x

170,000

Less Real Estate Commission (5%) Less Closing Costs (1%)

Total Income

=

$1,020,000

= =

$51,000 $10,200

=

$958,800

=

12%

Profit $103,251

Profit (less initial buy-in)

Profit

$103,251

-

$81,636

=

$21,614.13

Payout per share

$21,614.13

/

20

=

$1,080.71

For an initial investment of

$4,081.82

Each participants is paid out

$5,162.53

117

2709-2721 E 27TH ST, 12 UNITS, 2 BED/1.5 BATH, 1,250 SF DESIGNER: TANNER HYLAND

SITE PLAN

PROPOSED RENDERING

118

EXISTING CONDITION

FIRST FLOOR PLAN

SECOND FLOOR PLAN

THIRD FLOOR PLAN

FRONT ELEVATION

119

SELF-DEVELOPMENT: NEXT STEPS

This report provides community stakeholders with some of the tools required for the Central City Economic Development Sales Tax funding. The Central City Economic Development Sales Tax Board is soliciting submissions of proposals for economic development projects within the area bounded by Indiana Avenue on the east, The Paseo on the west, 9th Street on the north and Gregory Boulevard on the south, known as the Central City Economic Development Sales Tax District.

This Request for Proposals is geared towards traditional developers and organized groups with interest in profiting from the development within Kansas City’s underserved neighborhoods. It is our hope that material contained within this report might be utilized by community members to prepare a submission for this funding program.

Some of the required information for submission includes: •

•

• • •

120

Project description including site location, neighborhood, unique characteristics, number of units, type of units (LIHTC/market/mixed use or income).

Background of team and experience; including experience of any non‐profit partner organizations; brief description of prior experience.

Proposed outcomes; number/type of units; matrix of outcomes.

Summary of budget and financing resources including leveraged funds.

List any community benefits and/or impact.

• •

• • •

Budget of the project including a detailed breakdown of hard and soft costs.

Complete list of sources and uses of funds (indicate if you have received tax credits, historic credits, bonding, CDBG, HOME, PIAC or other leverage financing).

Please provide letters of financing agreements secured or other evidence of commitment of funding.

Include a 10 year pro forma statement.

Explain the need for this project, if applicable.

Explain how this project meets the priorities of the CCED District

121

CAPITALIZING ON AREAS OF OPPORTUNITY TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT (TOD)

The context-sensitive urban infill developments proposed for the historic Santa Fe and Key Coalition Neighborhoods provide examples of new construction models that maintain the form, mass, and scale. They have been designed to fit into the fabric of the block while also providing opportunities for more affordable housing models and opportunities for bringing more density to the neighborhoods. Some designs appear to be single-family homes but are actually two, three, or four units. Other proposals are configured with Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) that provide additional housing options to the area.

These strategies will help in repopulating the area, however, this low-density growth will not result in the vibrant and bustling pedestrian neighborhoods we associate with thriving communities today. A development strategy is also needed along Prospect that can leverage the planned transit improvements.

The studio studied several plans and white papers that look at best practices in Transit Oriented Development including the Kansas City Transit Oriented Development Policy approved by the City Plan Commission in 2016 and City Council in 2017 by Resolution 160361.

This document defines Transit Oriented Development (TOD) as, “…a development strategy that focuses development along existing and planned transit infrastructure. TOD ensures an appropriate density and focuses transit supportive activities in order to encourage and

122

sustain transit ridership. TOD also seeks to maximize access to transit by providing adequate housing choices, connection and mobility options. And TOD design guidance ensures that both the public and private realm are thoughtfully designed.”

Existing Conditions

Proposed rendering

123

Suburban Single Family DU/AC: 1-5

Townhomes DU/AC: 15-30

124

Urban Single Family DU/AC: 5-15

Mixed-Use DU/AC: 30-60

CONTEXT SENSITIVE INFILL DEVELOPMENT

Key to TOD success is the establishment of various zones along the corridor that allow for mixed-uses and multiple modes of transit to occur. TOD also protects historic neighborhoods by incentivizing denser development along transit corridors and encouraging massing that steps down to traditional neighborhood fabric.

neighborhood. They will also result in a more pleasant and safe walk to the Prospect Avenue bus line and businesses.

Neighborhood stakeholders should prioritize these improvements and lobby that a portion of the recently passed 1/8 cent tax for inner city improvements be utilized for implementation.

We also investigated various densities to understand the highest and best use of parcels within TOD zones. It is important to understand that the neighborhood fabric shown in historic Sanborn insurance maps show approximately 12 dwelling units per acre with some multifamily projects throughout the neighborhood approaching 15 – 20 dwelling units per acre. Examples of vibrant TOD projects adjacent to historic neighborhoods such as Key Coalition and Santa Fe exist in the 30-60 dwelling unit per acre range.

These higher densities are supported by walkable transit-rich corridors. This density supports busy vibrant streets and provides retail catchment areas that make ground floor active retail uses viable.

The Prospect MAX station area plans developed by the City will identify sidewalk, crosswalk, and other right-ofway improvements along Prospect. There is also the need for such improvements off Prospect that allow for safe and accessible connections into the neighborhood. These right-of-way improvements benefit everyone in the

125

PROSPECT MAX PROJECT, KCATA

The Kansas City Area Transportation Authority’s (KCATA) Prospect MAX transit expansion along nine miles of Prospect Avenue provides the community with a unique opportunity. This $53 million infrastructure improvement project will strengthen the connectivity to downtown Kansas City.

It makes mobility to downtown jobs and amenities easier for those wanting to live closer to where they work but unable to afford downtown loft prices. It also welcomes those from outside the neighborhood by providing convenient transit to future developments.

This improved transit also provides better connectivity to neighborhood residents who may not own cars or may be discouraged from driving downtown due to the cost and relative inconvenience of having to find parking.

Communication was held throughout the semester with project managers and engineers from the KCATA. In addition to improvements in transit, the project will bring numerous other benefits to the community such as improved streetscape and bus stop structures along Prospect. The plan will also provide funding for increased security presence and sensors that will monitor safety.

Another result of improved transit will be decreased traffic and need for parking.

Finally, the dedication of public resources to an infrastructure project of this magnitude will provide predict-

126

ability and stability to the Prospect corridor. Business owners and developers can be confident that the project is part of a larger strategic and networked plan for transit improvement. The Prospect Max project will in itself attract economic development and re-population of the corridor.

Planned bus stop design

Prospect MAX route

127

TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT INFILL SCENARIOS

Transit Oriented Development accommodates multi-modal transportation: cars, bicycles, transit, and pedestrians.

It also provides a cohesive streetscape that allows users of all these transportation modes to navigate safely and easily. The physical configuration well-designed TOD corridors allow for the bustling yet comfortable interaction of humans living, working, and playing in the urban core of a city.

down comfortably to the many historic homes adjacent to the Prospect corridor.

TOD infill supports this urban vibrancy by supporting a diverse mix of uses. The mix of residential and commercial uses allow people to live and work in the same place.

24-hour neighborhoods and eyes-on-the-street create places where one can feel safe while connecting to various parts of a city.

Stepping buildings down, the use of screening, buffering, and landscaping are all strategies for sensitively transitioning from medium density TOD to historic neighborhoods.

Successful TOD corridors support compact dense development that underpin activity at the ground floor of buildings. Residential and commercial spaces above retail is a common model that leads to vibrant streets. Along Prospect Avenue, buildings could easily reach a height of four stories without creating a building wall that is uncomfortable or out of scale with the pedestrian zone.

It will be important that the transition from TOD zoning to historic residential fabric as exists in Key Coalition and Santa Fe be done sensitively. As station area plans are developed by the City with input by residents, stakeholders will need to advocate for mixed-use buildings that step

128

As we have seen these two forms of urban development, mixed-use TOD and historic neighborhoods are codependent actors in creating healthy livable cities.

Diverse housing options, increased ridership, and thriving businesses depend on both for success.

Transit Oriented Development along Prospect Avenue

129

Transit Oriented Development along Prospect Avenue

130

STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS

It is important to identify corridors with both pedestrian and transit traffic that can be prioritized for right-of-way improvements. These are the corridors that serve to support a mobility network and can catalyze neighborhood-wide connectivity. The intention is to identify those streets that will have immediate and meaningful impact in reinforcing walkability and connectivity.

The preliminary focus has been on the primary thoroughfares of Prospect and Linwood with Wabash and Benton serving as secondary connectors.

Potential improvements include: • • • • • • • • • • •

Installation/replacement of street trees signage lighting sidewalk repair tree root and stump removal crosswalks/traffic calming strategies parking reconfigurations bulbouts at bus stops trashcans map directories/kiosks accessible ADA-compliant curb cuts

•

bioswale strategies at tree lawn

131

NEIGHBORHOOD RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS

Just as improvements to the streetscape and right-ofway along the Transit Oriented Development corridor will be necessary to develop safe and coordinated modes of transit, such improvements will also be necessary within the fabric of historic blocks.

TOD is not intended to be a stand-alone self-supporting district. It serves to knit neighborhoods together by increasing connectivity and mobility. We associate TOD with busy tree-lined mixed-use streets with cafe seating, perforated storefronts, and activity.

While the Prospect MAX project will fund right-of-way improvements within the district, streets only a block off Prospect may not be prioritized for repairs. In consultation with local contractors and past planning documents for the area, we have assembled a check list of common needs throughout the area. We have also tried to summarize estimates of cost that may be useful for the neighborhood groups to further study their needs on a block-by-block basis and prioritizing those repairs that would be impactful.

The sidewalk demand map included in this report indicates that blocks withing the study area are some of the most in need of funding. Damaged sidewalks, inadequate lighting, and the lack of eyes-on-the-street can have an extremely isolating effect on neighborhoods.

132

In addition to new ridership, TOD development relies on residents within walking distance of stations to be able to access improved transit infrastructure.

KCATA, the Prospect Business Association, and City planning staff will all need to assist neighborhood stakeholders in prioritizing neighborhood walkability.

Neighborhood Improvement Cost Estimates

133

SITE PLAN

STREET SECTION

6’6’ 0”

5’ 5’- 0”

4’4’ 0”

10’- 0” 10’

PROSPECT AVENUE AND 27TH STREET IMPROVEMENT PROPOSAL

134

10’ 10’- 0”

10’ 10’- 0”

4’ 4’- 0”

5’5’ 0”

6’6’ 0”

Landscaping/ Vegetation Bioswales Permeable Pavement

Smart Streetlights

Pedestrian/ Street Buffer

Bike Lanes

Outdoor Gathering

Crosswalks Benches

POTENTIAL TRANSIT NODE IMPROVEMENTS

135

SITE PLAN

STREET SECTION

6’6’ 0”

5’ 5’- 0”

4’4’ 0”

10’- 0” 10’

10’ 10’- 0”

PROSPECT AVENUE AND 27TH STREET IMPROVEMENT PROPOSAL

136

10’ 10’- 0”

4’ 4’- 0”

5’5’ 0”

6’6’ 0”

Smart Streetlights

Bike Racks

Bike Lanes

Wide Streets

Community Garden

Crosswalks

Benches Bioswales POTENTIAL TRANSIT NODE IMPROVEMENTS

137

TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICTS

One of the primary goals of this revitalization study is to identify strategies for protecting historic neighborhood fabric while promoting growth in areas of opportunity like Prospect Avenue. The Kansas City Transit Oriented Development Policy referenced earlier shows simplistic diagrams of TOD zoning being promoted all along the length of transit corridors. The diagrams indicate the most intense density being proposed along identified rapid transit lines with decreasing density block by block.

This even gradation of density does not account for a block by block understanding of neighborhood amenities, historic landmarks, problem parcels, or valued parks and open space. The Policy states, “In addition to articulation specific design and development standards, the City should undertake a process to identify appropriate boundaries for new TOD overlays. Because transit-oriented development differs widely based on location and neighborhood context, using the TOD typologies may be useful to ensure that the overlay recommendations are context appropriate.�

It is key that community stakeholders work with the City in establishing these boundaries. Also important is th e ability to discern one station area neighborhood from another.

Themed overlay districts may further distinguish a particular neighborhood from simply a connector route to a destination where transit riders may want to stay and linger.

Identifying the thematic characteristics of neighborhood transit nodes will prevent neighborhoods from being

138

someplace one simply passes through. For example, working with a neighborhood group, the City may choose to designate a particular station area as a Cultural Zone near museums and galleries, an Entertainment Zone adjacent to stadiums or music venues, or an Innovation Zone near a university.

These coordinated efforts provide an identity for attracting people to a place. Historic neighborhoods have a distinct advantage in this branding. The character and story of a place is something that grows richer over time and distinguishes itself from the look and feel of suburban strip malls and street-loaded parking lots.

Prospect at 31st

Prospect at 31st

Existing conditions

Proposition rendering

139

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS

Neighborhood Prospects was completed in part through the hard work of 5th year Master of Architecture students.

For many of the students Neighborhood Prospects was their first introduction to Key Coalition and Santa Fe neighborhoods, and their first immersion into community based design. For students, the project provided a window into the challenges and opportunities in community based design, and the roles that architects might play in supporting community revitalization.

Suffering from significant depopulation and decades of disinvestment, the community finds itself at an exciting time of potential and opportunity. Private investment in the Linwood Shopping Center redevelopment is beginning to have a catalytic effect in attracting other investment, the Prospect Avenue Business Association has become re-energized in its mission and reach, the neighborhood organizations have strong and committed leadership, the 1/8th of a cent Central City Economic Development Sales Tax will inject economic opportunity into the area, and a $53 million Project MAX transit improvement project is about to transform Prospect Avenue.

Despite these positive trends, depressed land values render most market-driven redevelopment inviable within the core of these historic neighborhoods. What is outlined here is a redevelopment strategy that is multifaceted. We have proposed a set of tactics that fall into two primary strategies: 1.) Preserving Historic Neighborhoods, and 2.)

Capitalizing on Areas of Opportunity.

140

These two categories of redevelopment recognize there is no one-size-fits-all approach to revitalization. A focus on historic home rehabilitation and sensitive infill housing alone will not provide meaningful population and economic growth to support increased investment. TOD Mixed-use development can incentivize commercial development and provide more diverse housing options. However, privileging TOD development over stabilizing historic fabric risks losing the character and identity that has supported a cohesive family-centric neighborhood for generations.

Redevelopment initiatives identified for Preserving Historic Neighborhoods include: •

stabilization and rehabilitation of historic fabric and cultural landmarks

•

strengthening of home maintenance programs

•

establish open space and right-of-way investment priorities

•

identify context-appropriate infill including multifamily models and dwelling units

•

identify opportunities for empowering self-development models

typologies accessory

Redevelopment initiatives identified for Capitalizing on Areas of Opportunity include: •

commit to Transit Oriented Development principles

•

establish cohesive streetscape design

•

establish Transit Oriented Development Overlay Districts

•

reinforce connectivity to surrounding neighborhood

These recommended initiatives will require a coordinated effort between all stakeholders including the Prospect Avenue Business Association, the neighborhood organization, neighborhood service providers, churches, the Kansas City Area Transit Authority, and City planning staff.

The recommended Next Steps that follow build on the input received from dozens of stakeholders that we engaged throughout this study. The students were struck not only by the tireless commitment to the neighborhood demonstrated by community members but also their willingness to share their hopes and dreams for a community on the verge of transformation.

141

NEXT STEPS

1. Protect the Historic Fabric of Key Coalition and Santa Fe Neighborhoods Interviews with residents and community stakeholders consistently confirmed that these historic neighborhoods are loved, valued, and should be protected. Potential new development along Prospect Avenue is all the more reason why the historic assets of these neighborhoods should be stabilized and rehabilitated. Neighborhoods with character, charm, and a story are those neighborhoods that will endure.

As recently as last month the Satchel Paige Home was extensively destroyed by fire. Such community assets must be identified and broader efforts in conjunction with historic foundations and the City must be made to protect historic and culturally significant fabric.

The many vacant lots that have resulted from the removal of dilapidated and unsaved structures must be developed with sensitive infill strategies that reinforce the historic fabric while presenting themselves as new construction.

Rather than being designed to look old, infill housing must call itself out as new and become a physical representation of an optimistic community that is looking to the future rather than the past.

2. Find opportunities for Self-Development Models to Empower Community Residents

142

The self-development model outlined here identifies a way for neighbors to participate in the political process of community redevelopment. While the project presented is modest, the ability to pool resources in order to witness the emergence of a cultural enterprise built with your own hands and ideas is unique and powerful. Identifying those willing to invest in their communities and thus in themselves builds momentum and political capital.

The Central City Economic Development Sales Tax Board is soliciting proposals for consideration of funding through the 1/8th of a cent sales tax. Undoubtedly, many of those proposals will be from developers that operate from outside the neighborhood, developing projects that price out many from within the neighborhood. Unlike the mechanisms of gentrification, where profit is removed from a community, this development model allows the profit to remain within the neighborhood.

Such a project would not only be an incredible story of empowerment, it would provide a replicable model that could be adjusted to take on additional investors and to provide various housing options or small mixed-use developments as new opportunities arose.

3. Improve Connectivity While the Prospect MAX project will provide a much-improved connection to the Central Business District, secondary and tertiary pedestrian routes that deliver

residents to the rapid bus line must be a priority. The improvements along Prospect will be rendered meaningless if one has to walk five blocks through poorly lighted side streets with no ADA crosswalks and sidewalks in need of repair.

Cohesive way-finding, streetscape, and landscaping can all be addressed to improve the ease and safety of pedestrians moving through the neighborhood. It is unlikely Prospect MAX ridership targets can be maintained if neighborhood walkability is not maintained.

4. Support and Incentivize TOD The density supported by Transit Oriented Development infill works to protect historic neighborhoods. Incentivizing the development of compact mixed-use buildings along transit corridors allows tradition single family homes to remain viable redevelopment options within historic blocks.

It also provides diverse and affordable housing options.

Neighborhood groups must work closely with City staff to carefully draw TOD zoning boundaries that acknowledge neighborhood amenities. The simplistic diagrams in the City’s TOD policy indicate potential TOD zones defined by the area bounded by exactly one block to either side of the transit corridor. This boundary does not take into account historically significant landmarks, open space, cultural institutions, or any other neighborhood features that may be cause for a more nuanced drawing of the TOD boundary.

The development of Station Area Plans will be a critical step in providing stakeholders a forum with City staff in establishing this transitional zone in cooperation.

5. Establish a Coordinated and Cohesive Vision for Prospect Avenue Enhanced transit hubs and nodes are identified up and down the 9-1/2 miles of the Prospect MAX project. Many residents will simply use the rapid bus line to travel from home to work. Neighborhoods that will successfully tap into the true potential of Transit Oriented Design will be able to transform themselves into destinations. They will provide reasons for riders to exit the bus and linger, meet people for a meal, and spend money.

Working with the City, neighborhood stakeholders should identify brand-able themes that provide meaningful distinctions between neighborhoods. This could result in a named district, cohesive way-finding, storefront design guidelines, or unique street furniture. Neighborhoods need to use design in order to create memorable experiences and to be able to call themselves out as authentic. Historic neighborhoods must feel different from the sameness one finds in suburban shopping districts.

143