Ambivalence About Downtown KC Projects

[chicago2kc]

Originally Posted by Weaubleau

There is a Reddit thread today on the highly touted South KC Cerner "biggest project evar" on how not only are people that work there not moving to the SE KC area, they are not even spending any money there at all. There apparently are internal rumors that living near the new campus is undesirable and that if you get transferred/hired in you should live Downtown/Overland Park/Midtown/Brookside/Lees Summit etc. Also, there are indications that the project will not be as big as originally planned and some of the land is being sold back.

So much for this developing a disadvantaged part of the metro. It would have been much better had this project been downtown. Bring on the downtown development. There is a reason to have jobs centrally located in a metro area. I almost feel like I have to add the word DUH.. here based on the persistent obstinacy of KC residents and developers of thinking the suburbs are some sort of nirvana for development.

This was a once-in-generation opportunity for downtown KC that was missed. Cerner was making good on a promise it made long ago to develop that area (when it went to KCK instead). And for some reason, the KCMO folks thought it was going to help a blighted area. I have a feeling that some day, years from now, that campus will be abandoned by Cerner, subleased out, and then eventually become undesirable because of its location. That will be years and years from now, but it will eventually happen.

It's hard for me to imagine a city or metropolitan area making a bigger development mistake than that campus. Even if they decided to go somewhere other than downtown, they could have at least gone somewhere that the campus WOULD have made an economic difference. Downtown would definitely have been my first choice, though. And I think that would have helped Cerner's out of town recruiting too.

[lovekcmo]

Originally Posted by chicago2kc

This was a once-in-generation opportunity for downtown KC that was missed. Cerner was making good on a promise it made long ago to develop that area (when it went to KCK instead). And for some reason, the KCMO folks thought it was going to help a blighted area. I have a feeling that some day, years from now, that campus will be abandoned by Cerner, subleased out, and then eventually become undesirable because of its location. That will be years and years from now, but it will eventually happen.

It's hard for me to imagine a city or metropolitan area making a bigger development mistake than that campus. Even if they decided to go somewhere other than downtown, they could have at least gone somewhere that the campus WOULD have made an economic difference. Downtown would definitely have been my first choice, though. And I think that would have helped Cerner's out of town recruiting too.

I don't think Cerner's presence will end up making one ounce of a difference to the SE KC area. It's a gated compounded people will drive into for work and out of back to home's in Johnson County, Lee's Summit, Plaza, downtown or north of the river to their homes.

[KC_Retiree]

Originally Posted by lovekcmo

Kansas City's skyline is beautiful but unchanging and that is a shame.

I don't know how much it will change the KC skyline but downtown is embarking on a pretty considerable building boom with several decent size offices being built on Main, Baltimore and Wyandotte plus (as I understand it) another Cordish Light apartment (early 2020) and potentially another hotel.

The boom won't increase the skyward reach of downtown but it will definitely be felt at ground level with an infuse workers and concentration of density in the south loop. It will be an interesting time to watch.

[kcbluesprings]

We need to quit beating the dead horse with Cerner and where they're deciding to build their campuses. They don't want to build downtown, and that's that!! Instead of focusing on something that won't be changed, let's focus on what downtown has to offer and the potential corporations that could relocate there, such as Waddell and Reed and the USDA relocation from D.C.

[kcmo]

Originally Posted by kcbluesprings

We need to quit beating the dead horse with Cerner and where they're deciding to build their campuses. They don't want to build downtown, and that's that!! Instead of focusing on something that won't be changed, let's focus on what downtown has to offer and the potential corporations that could relocate there, such as Waddell and Reed and the USDA relocation from D.C.

Kinda hard to just ignore what is by for the biggest economic mistake in the history of the metro area. It might even hurt Cerner in the long run. I can't imagine it being easy to recruit people from other large cities to work in any of the Cerner campuses. There are just so many better options. Hardly anybody is building suburban office parks anymore outside of KC.

[James Bond 007]

There have been plenty of suburban office campuses built in the middle of nowhere that eventually did OK, with no trouble recruiting people.

I'm not a fan of them, but they are what they are. Plenty of people like them.

[kcmo]

Originally Posted by James Bond 007

There have been plenty of suburban office campuses built in the middle of nowhere that eventually did OK, with no trouble recruiting people.

I'm not a fan of them, but they are what they are. Plenty of people like them.

There are pretty much zero projects like the Cerner campus going up in 2019. They just don't built single use campuses surrounded by surface parking lots anymore. It's not 1985. I's not even 2005. The ones that exist in many major cities are struggling and losing out to mixed use office projects near transit stations etc. For example there have been no new office space in all of suburban Chicago added in the last couple of years while KC is adding millions of sq ft of suburban office space. DC is also not adding new suburban office space unless it's near a metro station or part of mixed use urban type development. They are trying to re-purpose old office parks around here into residential.

So if you are a younger person from Denver or Pittsburgh or DC or Seattle or any major city like that, you are creating an uphill battle for recruiting from the start. And even for those that do prefer a box in a parking lot as a place to work, this is where places like suburban Dallas and Houston are going to win out over working next at Bannister and 435 or State Ave and 435. Commuting 30 plus minutes to those locations is not something most people will be all that interested in unless they don't have a choice.

[kcbluesprings]

Originally Posted by kcmo

So if you are a younger person from Denver or Pittsburgh or DC or Seattle or any major city like that, you are creating an uphill battle for recruiting from the start. And even for those that do prefer a box in a parking lot as a place to work, this is where places like suburban Dallas and Houston are going to win out over working next at Bannister and 435 or State Ave and 435. Commuting 30 plus minutes to those locations is not something most people will be all that interested in unless they don't have a choice.

I think if it's a job with great pay, benefits, vacation, and opportunities for promotions, and whatnot, younger people or anyone will likely not care where it's located. Don't get me wrong... I wish Cerner would build something downtown, like a corporate headquarters or something, but that's not what Cerner wants to do. We can scream all day about what Cerner would've, could've, and should've done, and in the end, it's not gonna change anything. That's all I'm saying. We don't have to like it, if fact we can hate it, but the ship has sailed at this point. I still believe that Downtown KC has plenty to offer to new businesses. And now, with the new Royals ownership in place, it's starting to be more likely that the vacant area that was once supposed to hold East Village, now could possibly house a brand new stadium. Throw in more bars, restaurants, and hotels, and it's not gonna matter if Cerner is there or not!!

[James Bond 007]

I would think if Cerner was aware its employees wanted a downtown location, they would have built a downtown location.

My guess is that they know most Cerner employees live (or probably want to live) in the suburbs, so that's where they build their offices. It's not like they're the only company who does that. The new Cerner campus is an easy commute from Lee's Summit and even the eastern parts of Johnson County, which is probably good enough for their needs.

[KC_Retiree]

Originally Posted by kcmo

There are pretty much zero projects like the Cerner campus going up in 2019. They just don't built single use campuses surrounded by surface parking lots anymore. It's not 1985. I's not even 2005. The ones that exist in many major cities are struggling and losing out to mixed use office projects near transit stations etc. For example there have been no new office space in all of suburban Chicago added in the last couple of years while KC is adding millions of sq ft of suburban office space. DC is also not adding new suburban office space unless it's near a metro station or part of mixed use urban type development. They are trying to re-purpose old office parks around here into residential.

So if you are a younger person from Denver or Pittsburgh or DC or Seattle or any major city like that, you are creating an uphill battle for recruiting from the start. And even for those that do prefer a box in a parking lot as a place to work, this is where places like suburban Dallas and Houston are going to win out over working next at Bannister and 435 or State Ave and 435. Commuting 30 plus minutes to those locations is not something most people will be all that interested in unless they don't have a choice.

The new Exxon campus in Houston is a giant Sprint-like campus. Even though there was plenty of space for surface lots there, they invested in garages. It may have been driven by value of real estate which is probably higher in Spring Texas than in SE KC. Surface lots are a conspicuous waste of space and creator of sprawl and I think Cerner really looks like a dinosaur with their campus surrounded by giant surface lots. I suspect the deal that KC gave them enabled that outcome.

My first career move was to an office in the Denver Tech Center. I was very disappointed that the office wasn't in downtown Denver but it was not a deal breaker. Later, I let my company move me to my least favorite city in the US because I was too far along in my career to make it wise to change companies. I think to a point, people will ignore location if the job challenge, pay and benefits are better in the poorer location. If all things are equal or even close, however, I'm going with location every time although I'd weigh the city itself over the location in the city much more heavily. That said, I'd pick a location next to Bannister or State Avenue over any location in Dallas and Houston any day. Both of those cities have brutal commutes relative to KC.